House of Commons Hansard #28 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I read into the record earlier the fact that Transport Canada, under the infrastructure program, had lapsed $1.1 billion. What we know in this particular budget is that it is not dealing with the fact that there are infrastructure deficits from coast to coast to coast, whether they are bridges, drinking water, sewage treatment plans or roads.
I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that this omnibus budget bill simply does not deal with the realities that face Canadians.
Matthew Dubé NDP Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
That is exactly the problem. Earlier, I heard a Conservative member talk about the FCN delegates who were on Parliament Hill last week. Those people said that the Conservatives are taking steps in the right direction, but that there is still a lot of work to be done.
I have a good relationship with municipal officials in my riding. They have criticized the lack of infrastructure funding for their towns, and also for the entire region, on many occasions.
Just look at the Champlain Bridge. Today the Minister of Infrastructure patted himself on the back for cutting three years off the construction time. What took him so long to get to that point? Why are we facing this crisis?
This government, which calls itself a good manager, has shown no leadership and is a poor manager. Trying to hide all these things in an omnibus bill just makes the situation worse and prevents us from properly debating the issues.
Nevertheless, we will continue to raise these issues, as did my colleague to some extent, because this is unacceptable. The Champlain Bridge situation is completely unacceptable to my constituents.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, on November 27, I asked the minister for social development about the government's plan to address the affordable housing crisis that exists in this country. Her answer shows that the government just does not understand the depth of the problem. It is a crisis that is causing the city of Toronto to bring people to Ottawa to rally and to ask the federal government to stop the cutting. It is amazing to see a city send people here. It is one thing to have social groups, but a city sending people here to rally is quite an amazing feat.
As the Conservatives allow the long-term housing agreements to expire, up to $1.7 billion in annual funding for housing will be lost. Low-income Canadians will bear the brunt of these cuts. They will no longer be able to afford to pay their rents when their rent-geared-to-income programs end.
I asked why the government is allowing the funding for housing to expire. What I received in reply was a litany of what exists today in helping people who are in housing need. There are 800,000 families and individuals currently being supported in part by federal funds, the result not of the government's action but the actions of previous governments, including the deal cut between Jack Layton and Paul Martin in 2005. The current government voted against it, and I heard nothing about the government's plans to help those in housing need.
The government has been cutting and plans to cut even more from its contribution to housing. The federal contribution to affordable housing was $3.6 billion in 2010. It has fallen to about $2 billion today, and it will fall further, to $1.8 billion by 2016. This is a 52% cut over six years, at a time when the need for affordable housing continues to increase. Further, the number of households served by federal funding to make their rents affordable will also decline, from 800,000 today, to 525,000 by 2016.
The minister also in her answer suggested that job creation would somehow solve the problem. It again shows how out of touch the government is. Many of those receiving assistance already have jobs, but the cost of housing strips many of their ability to pay for their rent. The government is making it worse by forcing people to accept less when coming off EI.
The need for affordable housing for low-income families in this country, which is already great, is growing. Housing need is defined as having to pay more than 30% of one's gross income on shelter.
In my riding of York South—Weston, there are nearly 16,000 households in housing need today. That is over one-third of the households in my riding.
If government members had passed Bill C-400, presented by the NDP, it would have forced the government to begin creating a strategy to deal with this crisis in collaboration with provinces and municipal governments. When it killed the idea of a strategy, it said that to fully correct the problem would cost $6.2 billion. It is good that it has identified the scope of the problem. That is based on the 1.4 million households needing help and that the help needed is an average of $4,779 per year per household. The government is good at pointing its finger at the problem but refuses to lift that finger to help.
When housing costs eat up so much family income, there is little left to pay for health needs, for the needs of children, or to save for the future. There is little left for food. It is no wonder that food bank use is so high in this country.
My question remains: With housing costs at an all-time high, why is the government allowing the funding for housing to expire?
HousingAdjournment Proceedings
Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia
Conservative
Scott Armstrong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for York South—Weston for, once again, bringing the issue of affordable housing before the House.
I am pleased to reiterate our government's commitment that Canadians in all parts of the country have access to safe, suitable and affordable housing. That commitment has been backed up by more than $15 billion in federal investment in housing and homelessness since 2006.
First, I would refer the hon. member to the 2012 annual report of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the most up-to-date information on federal social housing investments. The Government of Canada provides $1.7 billion a year in funding in support of almost 594,000 households living in existing social housing, on and off reserve. Provinces and territories also contribute annually to this housing.
This funding is provided under long-term agreements, covering a 25- to 50-year period, with housing groups that provide affordable housing to those in need. Contrary to what the opposition continues to say, there is absolutely no cut. At the end of these agreements, the government will have fulfilled its commitment and the funding will end.
At the same time, the mortgages on the properties would generally be paid off, allowing most housing groups to continue to provide affordable housing and to be free to operate their projects as they see fit. Collectively, housing groups will find themselves with billions of dollars in real estate assets, which they can use to best meet the needs and priorities of their communities.
I would remind the member opposite that this was a decision made by the previous Liberal government. It has always been the plan that once these long-term agreements came to an end, so too would the subsidy.
For those housing groups that need additional assistance, the federal government is providing significant funding under the investment in affordable housing. Funding is provided through provinces and territories, which have the flexibility to use the federal funding to design and deliver programs that meet local needs and priorities, including rent supplement programs that can be made available to housing providers once their existing operating agreements mature.
Further to this, just last month, my colleague, the hon. Minister of State for Social Development, announced new common-sense changes that would allow providers to keep any federal money they have left over in their subsidy surplus funds. Until now, these funds needed to be returned to the government once these operating agreements matured.
In fact, Nicholas Gazzard, the head of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, said that the CHF “warmly welcomed” the announcement and that co-ops can use federal funds to provide assistance even after their agreements have expired.
That is not all. Economic action plan 2013 renewed the investment in affordable housing with a $1.25 billion announcement of funding over five years, which provided $100 million over two years for new affordable housing in Nunavut. The funding will be implemented through amendments to existing agreements with provinces and territories with an effective date of April 1, 2014, ensuring continuity and delivery of programs.
Meanwhile, current federal funding for affordable housing continues to flow under the existing arrangements until March 31, 2014, leaving no gap between these announcements.
In addition to the $1.7 billion provided annually to support the existing social housing stock, the stimulus phase of Canada's economic action plan included an investment of more than $2 billion over two years to build new and renovate existing social housing. This funding has resulted in more than 16,500 housing construction projects and renovation projects across Canada, improving the living conditions for tens of thousands of Canadian families, while creating jobs and stimulating local economies.
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. However, they confirm my worst fears, that in fact the current government intends to cut the $1.7 billion it is now spending on affordable housing through the co-op agreements by simply allowing those agreements to expire without any replacement funding whatsoever.
In fact, the government will apparently determine that it will save $1.7 billion, which would then go to provide a more balanced budget, which at the same time, would leave several hundred thousand Canadians without adequate, suitable or affordable housing.
The government suggested, in its opening statement, that it has a commitment to safe, suitable and affordable housing. Yet, when presented with Bill C-400, which would have in fact allowed the government to create a strategy with the provinces and territories to do just that, the government decided to vote against that motion and to kill any idea that the government would be involved in a strategy with the provinces, territories and municipalities.
In conclusion, it appears that the government has not yet answered the question about what will happen to those people whose residences would become unaffordable when these long-term agreements expire.
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating that our government has invested an estimated more than $15 billion in housing and homelessness since 2006. These investments are improving the quality of life for low-income Canadians, individuals who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, low-income seniors, persons with disabilities, recent immigrants, and aboriginal people.
Annually, the government spends $1.7 billion on existing social housing. The investment in affordable housing, which was renewed in economic action plan 2013, ensures that we will continue to invest in a range of affordable housing solutions in communities across Canada.
Rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all approach, we are giving the provinces and territories increased flexibility to design and deliver housing programs that address local needs and local circumstances. Our overarching goal is to continue to reduce the number of Canadians in housing need, which is something I am sure the hon. member for York South—Weston would support.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am rising this evening in adjournment proceedings to pursue a question I asked November 27 in the House. The question related to the issue of the climate crisis.
The Speaker and other members here may be familiar with my own activities. I participated in COP 19. This was the 19th Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These meetings have been going on, as the name suggests, for 19 years of annual meetings to develop mechanisms to meet the commitments. All governments around the world, literally over 190 countries, are committed under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to avoid levels of greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere. The term used in the convention is to avoid levels that become dangerous and to avoid human cause. The convention language is “anthropogenic climate change” at a level that becomes dangerous.
The scientific community was organized by United Nations agencies, such as the World Meteorological Organization, and UNEP, into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to advise policy-makers, because the term “dangerous” is one without an absolute definition. One could say it is dangerous now. It is certainly dangerous if one were in shantytowns in the Philippines when Typhoon Haiyan hit. It is certainly dangerous if one were on the east coast of the United States when Hurricane Sandy hit.
We have seen dangerous individual accelerated events packing more power because of the warmer ocean waters, because of the strange weather patterns we are experiencing, with oscillations of the jet streams, which are becoming slower and more permanent. They are creating periods of extreme high pressure and low pressure sitting on parts of the world much longer than when we had the jet streams moving pretty quickly and moving at mid-latitudes in horizontal fashion.
We have seen significant, dangerous impacts. If one is in a low-lying island state, one might say it is dangerous now. The scientific community has advised, and the world community, including the Prime Minister, accepted the warning, that we must ensure that whatever else we do, we do not allow global average temperatures to increase 2° Celsius above where it was before the industrial revolution. In other words, that is before anthropogenic gases began to build up.
Two degrees may not sound like a lot, but it is well into the danger zone. If we do not avoid 2° Celsius, we are not talking about another political target that gets missed. We are talking about irrevocable changes, changes we will not be able to remedy down the road. Therefore, it is essential that we address the climate crisis and are meaningfully engaged as a country, which we are not right now.
My question for the Prime Minister, which he did not address at all, is whether he is prepared to accept the invitation of the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, who, in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan, announced a special leaders summit to take place September 24, 2014, in the days ahead of the UN General Assembly, when many world leaders will be there anyway. This is to be a “solutions summit”, in the words of the Secretary-General.
World leaders are invited to show up and bring forward solutions and to create some political momentum, because we are coming to a new deadline. After the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen conference, the UN, through the Conference of the Parties, through all the nations involved in the process, including Canada, have accepted that by COP 21, in 2015, we will have a global binding treaty engaging all nations, developed and developing, and that treaty will be sufficient to avoid 2° Celsius.
We have a very serious disconnect between the pace of the negotiations and the pace of climate change in the atmosphere. We have very little time. I wish the Prime Minister had addressed my question. Perhaps the hon. member across could tell us if the Prime Minister of Canada will be attending the leaders' climate summit.
The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings
Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia
Conservative
Scott Armstrong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from my fellow Nova Scotian across the way.
Canada remains committed to its climate change targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and our action and leadership demonstrate this. Canada's latest emissions trends report projects that as a result of existing measures and actions from all levels of government, consumers, and businesses, Canada's GHG emissions in 2020 will be 734 megatons.
This means we have reduced emissions by 128 megatons compared to where Canada's emissions were projected to be in 2020 if no measures were taken to reduce emissions since 2005.
Canada has continued to demonstrate leadership on the international stage as well. Representing less than 2% of the global emissions of greenhouse gases, Canada understands the importance for any international climate change agreement to include the participation of and action from all major emitters.
That is why, at COP 19 in Warsaw, we continued to push for such an agreement, and the outcome from Warsaw firmly solidified that position.
Canada's leadership was also instrumental in achieving a breakthrough in Warsaw on an important initiative to help developing countries reduce deforestation and forest degradation, which account for nearly 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
I would like to highlight that in addition to the negotiations at COP 19, Canada participated in important meetings, including the High Level Assembly of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Being a top donor for the coalition, Canada's contribution has been significant and is leading to practical actions being implemented to achieve near-term emissions reduction.
Canadians should also be proud to know that this leadership is being recognized on the world stage. In fact, while the minister was in Warsaw, she heard from a number of representatives from other countries who thanked and praised Canada for its environmental record. This record includes a systemic sector-by-sector regulatory approach to address greenhouse gas emissions.
So far the federal government has contributed to reducing Canada's emissions through stringent regulations for the transportation and electricity sectors, two of the largest sources of emissions in Canada.
As a result of our action to date, Canada has strengthened its position as a world leader in clean electricity generation by becoming the first major coal user to ban future construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units. In 2025, passenger vehicles and light trucks will emit about half as many greenhouse gas emissions as 2008 models, and greenhouse gas emissions from 2018 model year heavy-duty vehicles will be reduced by up to 23%.
Our collective actions are achieving success. Between 2005 and 2011, Canadian GHG emissions have decreased by 4.8%, while the economy has grown by 8.4%. Moreover, per capita emissions are at an historic low of 20.4 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person, their lowest level since tracking began in 1990.
Our government will continue to show strong leadership on this file.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to start.
The obvious point is, number one, there is no answer to the question I asked, which was “Will the Prime Minister of Canada accept the invitation from the United Nations Secretary General to attend the leaders' summit?”
I do have to point out that I was at COP 19 in Warsaw, and no one publicly thanked Canada for our environmental record. It simply did not happen.
I heard the Minister of the Environment, in the House, claim that Mexico had thanked us and Colombia thanked us. Unless she was at a dinner table with one of the delegations and they thanked her for passing the salt, and I cannot rule that out, no one thanked Canada. As a matter of fact, we were singled out as a country that was unhelpful.
As for reductions of greenhouse gases, the only measure the government has taken, and I support it, is the light trucks and cars regulations we took to be in lockstep with the U.S. car market. Those are good. They will reduce greenhouse gases, but only by a very small proportion.
We have seen the leadership coming from provinces. It comes from B.C. with our carbon tax there on fuels and from Ontario with the shutting down of its coal-fired power plants. The figure my hon. friend uses, 734 megatons by 2020, is far above the target of 607 megatons.
In the limited time I have, I have to say there has been no leadership from Canada and there has been no answer from the government.
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Mr. Speaker, as I have highlighted, Canada remains committed to addressing climate change as highlighted by our actions and our leadership on this issue.
I have already alluded to these actions, which include our world-leading coal-fired electricity regulations. These regulations will make Canada the first country to effectively ban the construction of traditional coal units. We will be the first country.
In fact, in the first 21 years, these regulations are expected to result in a cumulative reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of about 214 megatons, equivalent to removing some 2.6 million personal vehicles from the road per year.
In terms of international actions, Canada has provided $1.2 billion in unconditional fast-start finance over 2010-12 to support mitigation and adaptation efforts in over 60 developing countries. This represented Canada's largest-ever contribution to support international efforts to address climate change. That is leadership.
We will continue to show leadership on this file. We are getting the job done, unlike previous governments.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.)