Debates of May 14th, 2014

Opposition Motion—Affordable housing

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Minister of State for Social Development.

I have two things to say. One, on the issue that we did not ask her questions at committee, we would welcome her return to the committee so we can do that. It is not a problem for us to schedule committee meetings so she can come back. I understand that the questions centred on temporary foreign workers. When we only have 12 minutes to ask questions and the temporary foreign worker program is such an enormous and timely problem, it is difficult to ask all the questions we would love to ask the minister. If she came back it would be wonderful.

The second point is on the $1.7 billion or the $2 billion they are spending currently on housing in some manner, some of which is inherited money from the existing programs or existing mortgage subsidies, as she calls them, although that is not what they really are. When Bill C-400 was presented, the Conservatives suggested that the size of the problem was $6.2 billion. If they are spending $2 billion and the size of the problem is in addition to that, so that the total problem is $8 billion, where would that $6.2 billion come from? Where is the Conservative strategy? Why are the Conservatives suggesting that this little drop in the bucket is enough?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I will just let my colleague know that again, if housing were the priority, he and his colleagues would have been at that committee meeting. It does not really work that way, that a committee invites a minister, does not ask any questions, and then tries to get her back later. It will not work that way.

We have looked at the issue of affordable housing and we want to address it, working together with our partners in a multi-pronged way. When it comes to the social housing agreements that have been coming to an end, these are agreements that actually started in the thirties and forties and it was the Liberals who made the decision to end the agreements in the mid-nineties.

It is nothing new. I met with the big city mayors. We talked about this. We talked about the number that is out there. There could be about 200,000 units that are possibly at risk. I have asked them, and a couple have responded, to look in their cities and see which ones are at risk and then work together with the provinces to address those risk needs.

That is why, as I said in my speech, we have provided money to the provinces with the ability to use it for social housing agreements that are coming to an end.

Again, between the $2 billion in previous budgets and more investments, we are helping a lot of people and getting good results for taxpayers' dollars. The federal government and the taxpayers are doing their part to help with affordable housing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pick up on the whole issue of housing co-ops, for which I am a very strong advocate. This is an area in which ultimately we collectively, working with the provinces and non-profits, can do a lot more to expand the role of housing co-ops into the future.

My question for the minister is this. Can she provide us with some sense of the programs she would say we have today or into the future that would help build upon the number of housing co-op units we have today in Canada?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that there are some really good things coming out of housing co-ops. In fact, I met with some organizations recently that represent co-ops.

There are 600,000 housing units that we talked about, and co-ops are a part of that number. They are doing some great work. We announced recently that they are allowed to keep the surplus. With the subsidies, many of them have been accumulating surpluses that they previously had to give back. We told them they could keep them, and that has been very beneficial to them.

We really look forward to continuing to work with them. We have a strong and very positive relationship. We do see the good work they are doing, and I appreciate my colleague's support on that.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the motion brought forward by the hon. member for York South—Weston.

I would like to echo the sentiments shared earlier by the Minister of State for Social Development. Our government has, indeed, made unprecedented investments in affordable housing for all Canadians. We understand that some households will face financial constraints that will impede their participation in the housing market. This is why we are continuing to work with the provinces, territories, and industry stakeholders to ensure the accessibility of housing for those who are most in need.

I want to join my colleagues in urging the members opposite to acknowledge the important work that has been done by this government to improve access to affordable housing across Canada. Since 2006, our government has invested more than $16.5 billion in housing. I will repeat that. It has invested more than $16.5 billion. These investments have made a difference in the lives of close to 915,000 Canadian individuals and families: everyone from low-income households and seniors to persons with disabilities, recent immigrants, aboriginal people, and victims of domestic violence. In my role as chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I know perfectly well that our approach is working in a balanced and sound way.

I would reflect on some of the comments made through questions and in debate in the House here today that sometimes the solution is simply looked upon, and the idea being put before the House that this is a crisis is somewhat misleading. There are a lot of individuals in this industry, both in the private and social sectors, providing good quality housing for Canadians in need. They need to be looked upon as being champions and advocates for new models that will give the best bang for the buck in terms of what governments do spend.

I would like to take the time to outline a few of the initiatives that form our government's approach. For housing groups that need assistance, our government is providing significant funding under the investment in affordable housing. Funding is provided through provinces and territories that have the flexibility to use 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. This is the flexibility that industry advocates have asked for, advocates such as co-ops, social housing, and municipalities.

Our government's initial commitment under the IAH was $716 million over three years, funding that assisted more than 183,000 households. As the member knows, because New Democrats voted against it, economic action plan 2013 renewed the IAH agreements with $1.25 billion in funding over five years. The funding is being implemented through amendments to existing agreements with provinces and territories. Four such agreements have been signed to date, with Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. As the minister mentioned, we expect agreements with the remaining provinces and territories to be concluded shortly.

Investment in affordable housing is a great example of how our government is working with provinces and territories to fund innovative housing solutions that meet local needs and priorities. We have been told over and over by the groups we have met with that there is no one size that fits all. This has to be determined at the grassroots, on the ground, at the level where we build projects and where projects are needed.

We believe that provinces and territories are in the best position to design and deliver programs that address specific housing needs, meet the priorities in their jurisdictions, and give them the flexibility to do so. It is also important to note that federal funding provided through investment in affordable housing is cost matched by the provinces and territories, so that the total investments by governments will remain significant. I still cannot understand why the NDP would vote against long-term stable funding for affordable housing, especially because we know that investment would go a long way toward improving access to affordable housing in communities across Canada.

We have also introduced another important change to specifically support social housing providers in 2013.

Social housing providers whose operating agreements allow for the establishment of a subsidy surplus fund can now retain any money they have in this fund to use after their operating agreements mature. Many of these funds have been established because of interest rates going down, so they have had excess funds. They have been good, prudent managers of their social housing stock and they have used and managed that money correctly.

On the flip side, for some groups we have met with, it is the opposite. Some have not, so in some cases the mortgage money that we set out in original agreements has not gone for its intended purposes.

These funds can be used to continue to lower the cost of housing for low-income households living in existing social housing. This represents a common sense approach that will give some social housing projects greater flexibility when operating agreements mature.

This change was warmly welcomed by housing providers, including the 900 members of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. CHF Canada's executive director, Nicholas Gazzard, said at the time:

This additional flexibility allows co-ops to use federal funds to provide rent-geared-to-income assistance for vulnerable low-income households, even after their funding agreements have expired.

This is why I am particularly proud of our action plan 2013, through which the government renewed our investment in affordable housing agreements and our homeless partnering strategy with a focus on Housing First. In fact, the NDP voted against $600 million in funding over five years to renew the program. This funding will go a long way to help combat homelessness in our country, and the new focus on Housing First has been lauded from all sectors.

The Housing First focus builds on the outcomes of the Mental Health Commission of Canada's At Home/Chez Soi research demonstration project, which was funded by the federal government at $110 million over five years and established in five cities: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Moncton.

The project, the largest of its kind, ended in March 2013 and demonstrates that the Housing First approach can be effectively implemented in Canadian cities to rapidly reduce homelessness while alleviating pressure on shelters and health and judicial services. The Housing First approach aims to move homeless people from the streets and short-term shelters into immediate and permanent housing while offering support for people with addictions and mental illness.

The project has demonstrated that the Housing First approach can result in significant savings through decreased use of costly resources such as paramedics and police services, particularly for those with high needs.

Over the course of the study, an average of 73% of participants in the Housing First group remained in stable housing, compared to 32% for the group receiving usual care.

This study also showed that Housing First is a sound financial investment that can lead to significant cost savings. For those participants who were the highest users of emergency and social services, every $10 invested led to an average savings to government of $21.72. Overall, participants in the project were less likely to get in trouble with the law, and those who received both housing and supportive services showed more signs of recovery than those who did not. Housing First is an approach that works really well, and it is innovative.

Our government wants to equip and empower people so that hopefully they can find healing and recovery, and then skills and employment as they become fully participating members of society. Our goal is to ensure that hard-working taxpayers' dollars are used to produce sustainable results for affordable housing and for those who are homeless.

I urge all members to carefully consider our government's record when this House votes on this motion.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it really interesting that the Conservatives are talking about how they are saving all this money and investing it in the proper way. If they are doing that, why are a few thousand aboriginal people still out of their homes in Winnipeg three years after a flood? It is costing $1.5 million per month to provide food and shelter in hotel rooms for these people. Can members imagine having to be in a hotel room for three years?

The Minister of Health said that first nations communities are “...a priority for our Government, including timely, effective and efficient support in times of emergency”. Here is an emergency: three years later they still do not have a home to live in. How is that possible? These are third world country conditions. Some of these people are living in fourth world country conditions. What are the Conservatives doing about it? Obviously their initiatives are not working.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question relates to emergency situations and to our government providing the necessary shelter for people in emergency situations. It is a debate that is meant for another day on another issue. Frankly, when the NDP brings to this chamber a motion such as today's, we have to look at the models for provision of social housing across all spectrums, including for the long term and for individuals who are partially displaced.

We have provided resources for them to eventually get back to where we need them to be. In some first nations cases, we are looking at alternative solutions that would move them to new locations.

These are not simple fixes that we want to put in place for expediency, just because disasters happen and we have put temporary services in place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that for many years all regions of Canada have had a very serious affordable housing issue.

People are looking for leadership on this file. A natural place to look is here in Ottawa, in expectation that Ottawa would work with the many different stakeholders to ensure that as much as possible is being done, so that whether people live in Toronto or in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, or in Halifax on the Atlantic Coast, there would be programs that would enable people to have a place to live. A place to live includes everything from renovation programs to home-building programs to initiatives such as co-ops, which I referred to.

The question I have for the member is this: to what degree does the member believe that Ottawa is responsible for demonstrating leadership from coast to coast to coast on a housing strategy?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have shown leadership, as my speech articulated, particularly in the area of Housing First.

Let me answer the question in this fashion. I have had the great privilege of conducting many meetings of the Conservative construction and housing caucus. We have brought co-op housing provider organizations, social housing provider organizations, and private housing providers from across the country together in a forum to express their views. The leadership champions are in each of these industries. When we speak with them, we learn very quickly that many of them have new and innovative ways to deliver social housing at lower costs to the government.

We need to empower and learn from these people, and we need to be able to take their ideas. They are on the ground. We should not be sitting behind a desk in Ottawa saying what the solution is for them. They have very creative solutions that they bring to the table. Many of them understand that we pay—not in all cases, but in many—far too much per door for social housing in this country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Fisheries and Oceans.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak on an important issue that matters to all of us in the House. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Markham—Unionville, as well.

Now that the weather is nice and all of us are getting out, I have to tell members that this past weekend, when I was out in my riding, I had the opportunity to pass through the area around Saint Augustine's church, an important part of the riding. I also passed 35 Shoreham Drive, 711 Arleta Avenue, and 415 Driftwood Avenue, all places that exhibit a tremendous sense of community and neighbourhood pride.

These places are similar for more than just their community spirit. They are buildings owned and managed by Toronto Community Housing, and they are places in which residents are worried. The residents of these buildings are hard-working families who are struggling just to make ends meet. In fact, even with a portion of the rent subsidized, many of these residents are spending as much as 85% of their income on rent alone, leaving just pennies for food, clothing, transportation, medicine, and other essentials.

For many of the tenants living at 2350 Finch Avenue West or 2765 Islington Avenue, the dream of home ownership has crumbled at their feet under the weight of inescapable daily struggles just to survive a vicious and punishing cycle of poverty.

In the past, the concept of personal home ownership was a near guarantee. All that one needed to do was work hard for a decent wage, and the rest was possible. Sadly, for many low-income families in my riding and across Canada, including working families, that promise is now a faint remembrance of a distant dream.

In 1980, the average cost of a detached home was roughly $100,000. The average Canadian made about $41,000 a year, which meant that there was room for a mortgage, transportation, groceries, and the other essentials that come out of a paycheque. Today, the average detached home costs more than double what it did just 30 years ago. In Toronto, the average home price now hovers around $1 million. Despite the spike in costs, the average Canadian still makes about $41,000 a year.

I would also like to point out that many working families in my riding make than far less than $41,000, which only intensifies the problems that they face when it comes to housing. Some are forced, as I said, to pay 85% of their income in rent. Clearly this is not a tenable position, and the fact that the Conservative government is intentionally allowing more and more housing co-operatives' operating agreements to expire is only making issues worse. The government's decision to scale back funding to social housing is reckless and it is, in effect, leaving low-income families out on the street.

Families living in these units know that there is a housing crisis, and they need to understand why. Of course, we know that the housing crisis has hit because the NDP clearly torpedoed both the Liberals' national housing strategy and the current premier's provincial housing program. Worse yet, Tim Hudak is mimicking the inaction of his federal cousins with his pink slip promise. That really unnerves an awful lot of people in my riding.

Put another way, the Conservatives have done nothing to lower or manage housing costs, and they are doing less than nothing to help fix the income situations that our middle-class families face. For example, rather than work to create jobs, Tim Hudak has promised to fire 100,000 Ontario workers. I call it his pink slip promise, and it pulls back the veil on the Conservative ideology when it comes to social programming of all sorts.

The NDP, despite tough-sounding talk, torpedoed both the Liberals' national housing strategy and Kathleen Wynne's housing program in the most recent Ontario budget. Of course, the NDP also voted against a new pension plan for low-income workers as well. It seems that three million working Ontarians who do not have an employer-sponsored pension just had the rug pulled out from under them by an NDP lusting for power.

It is interesting to note that this is the same group that was punished when the NDP smashed the federal day care and early learning strategy. It seems that there is a trend developing there.

When Andrea, Tim, and their federal counterparts fiddle, middle-class Canadian families feel the burn.

Canadians need a means to ensure their own future, and it is our duty to help give them that means. This does not mean handouts, but it does mean ensuring that the systems and structures necessary are in place to again help make the dream, pride and freedom of home ownership a reality.

The government needs to ensure that hard-working Canadians will be building their own futures and not that of the person who is holding the purse strings.

For my part, yesterday I met with representatives of the Canadian and Toronto real estate boards, as many members in the House have done. We talked about the fact that given more Canadians are now renting properties, the disproportionate costs of housing has created a trap, forcing Canadians into a cycle of working hard for weeks just to scrape by.

We talked about programs such as the home buyers plan, how it was positive but limited to those who had the resources to put into vehicles such as RRSPs. We also talked about the need for innovative programs such as rent to own and government-regulated reverse mortgages that might allow people to both secure and remain in adequate housing.

There was a clear consensus that many working families became trapped in a cycle of high rent payments and were unable to set aside the funds needed for a down payment on a home of their own. This limits their options and prevents them from building equity in their home, from leveraging assets for debt reduction, and from experiencing the pride of ownership.

All in all, without some kind of a national housing strategy, or better yet a national housing action plan, my constituents living in the San Romanoway community or in the Yorkwoods Village will not have the opportunities they truly deserve and desire.

Knowing all of this, it seems almost inconceivable that the government will sit idle and allow billions of dollars of funding for social housing to simply dry up.

I am glad to see that the NDP have come back to the table that it once abandoned in favour of the Liberals' stand in support of social housing and opportunities for personal home ownership, but I would like to see the government do more. I would like to see the Prime Minister launch a national housing strategy for the low income seniors, students and families who worry about having a roof over their head.

Allow me to recap and sum up before my time is done.

First, as of last year, rent in Toronto for all types of housing was the highest of anywhere in Ontario.

Second, home prices in all regions continue to rise faster than income has over the past 30 years.

Third, while the city of Toronto is the largest landlord in North America, it cannot act alone to improve housing conditions because it cannot put the leverage of the equity of its housing units toward repairs.

Fourth, the biggest problem for many Canadians is the down payment for their home.

What does all this mean? It means that many hard-working constituents in my riding and in ridings all across Canada, in every part of it, have come to accept that home ownership is becoming nothing more than a dream.

As parliamentarians living and working in one of our planet's wealthiest nations, we need to redouble our efforts to overcome the problems associated with social housing.

Is the government prepared to commit to renewing the rent-geared-to-income housing model so that we provide real security and avoid making the housing crisis worse? Is the government prepared to renew the partnership with the Co-operative Housing Federation?

We must remember that we are not on the brink of a housing crisis, rather we are in a housing crisis.

We must also remember that social housing solutions may lead to solutions to other problems on the national agenda. We need student housing to reduce student debt. Supportive housing will reduce health care costs. New and adequate housing for rural, aboriginal and first nation communities is a way to honour our existing commitments.

Public housing is more than just a place to live. Public housing programs should provide opportunities to residents and their families.

As a Liberal, I am pleased to support this motion today. I hope it will provide the impetus needed to put affordable housing solutions back on track for a national action plan.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rich that the member is coming to us about what is going on in Ontario when $1.2 billion was spent to cancel a gas plant to solve a problem the Liberals had regaining three seats. That $1.2 billion would have gone a long way to help the impoverished folks in York West have access to adequate affordable housing. That money is just gone. It is gone to some construction company.

Ontario, under Liberal rule, has the single largest debt of any sub-national government in the world. It is the worst of any place in the world.

My question really is twofold. First, how can we stand here and listen to the Liberals proclaim that they are in favour of housing when they killed the housing program in the nineties? Second, will the member support my motion?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Liberals will support the motion because we recognize the issue of housing and how important it is.

However, I would like to remind my colleague, because this happened prior and is part of the reason he is in the House today, we had a national housing strategy. I was in cabinet at the time. We put a lot of time and effort into developing a national housing strategy and getting the provinces to sign it. We also had a national child care strategy that was signed by our provinces.

All we needed was three more months in order for that to be enacted with the budget. Why do we not have a national child care strategy or national housing strategy? It was because Jack Layton was impatient, connected with the Conservatives and defeated our budget, which had both things in it. That is why we do not have it.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I can stop laughing long enough to get my question in, the Liberals needed three more months to implement a lot of things, including the Kyoto accord, under which their greenhouse gas emissions rose by 30% when they were actually trying to get them down.

All through her speech, my colleague referred to things like “drying up”, as if our government has not funded housing. She is totally ignoring the $1.7 billion annually that we give through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation; the $1 billion in 2012 to CMHC's direct lending initiative; the $1.9 billion for housing homeless, including the investment in affordable housing; and $303 million annually to support first nations housing on reserves. Then, this year in our budget, we renewed the homeless partnering strategy.

My colleague will be aware that over the last number of years I have tried to address issues surrounding mental health. The homeless partnering strategy, with the housing first initiative, is critical to helping people facing mental health challenges. Would my colleague explain to the House why she and her party would vote against an initiative that would give people with mental health challenges the tools to get out of their cycle of despair and get on with their lives? Why would she and her party vote against an initiative like that?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many initiatives like that were started as a result of the Liberals. I support the government continuing on with those programs.

One of the issues we clearly know when we deal with the mental health issues is, yes, there needs to be a roof over people's heads. Every Canadian should have a roof over his or her head. However, when we are dealing in particular with mental health issues, yes, I support the program. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have put one good program in with about 20 other things that are the poison pill. Therefore, to support one, we have to support the whole package, which is impossible to support.

There are a lot of innovative programs out there with options for homes, like Humanity First, and a lot of good ideas that need to be supported by the government, the next Liberal government and back and forth, so we ensure we meet the needs of housing requirements for all Canadians.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the NDP's motion.

It brings to my mind the two individuals who I have met who are the most committed to social, affordable housing. Those people are Claudette Bradshaw and Adam Vaughan. For reasons I will explain, the two are linked.

Claudette Bradshaw was the driving force for affordable housing in two Liberal governments. She had her SCPI program. She pushed and pushed to make it happen. It did happen. It had results until the NDP brought it down in 2005.

Now we have the new Claudette Bradshaw on the horizon, and I speak of Adam Vaughan, the Liberal candidate for Trinity—Spadina. Adam Vaughan is such an enthusiast for housing that he called me before he was even a candidate and lectured me, or educated me on the importance of housing. Last night I spoke to him, so I am able to impart to the House the wisdom of Adam Vaughan on the subject of housing.

I believe Adam Vaughan will be the new Claudette Bradshaw because I have every confidence that in the not too distant future, he will be pushing a new Liberal government, as an elected member, to do for housing what Claudette Bradshaw pushed an old Liberal government to do. With the force, the character and the argumentative skills of Adam Vaughan, I am convinced the Liberal Party and the Liberal government will carry this through.

I will quote what Adam Vaughan told me last night, “The NDP is more interested in building its party in the House than in building houses for people in need. That's their record”. That is a powerful statement. The NDP would prefer to build people in the House and its party than build houses for people in need. Adam Vaughan does not just say that out of the air; he has two very strong pieces of evidence.

The first piece of evidence is, as we all know, in 2005 when the Liberal government of Paul Martin produced a budget which had $480 million extra for housing, the NDP brought it down. Instead of getting $480 million for housing and so many billion dollars for affordable child care, we have had almost 10 years of the current Prime Minister, thanks to the NDP.

This is Adam Vaughan's second point, and it shows he has his finger on the pulse of Ontario that he would bring this to our attention.

More recently, the NDP members did it again. They brought down the Wynne government, including that budget. What was part of that budget? Money for housing, $80 million. They brought down the Martin government at a cost of $480 million for housing and they brought down the Wynne government at a cost of $80 million for housing. They bequeathed to Canada almost 10 years of the current Prime Minister, and I hope this will not be the case, but the consequence of their action could be that they bequeathed to Ontario some years of Mr. Hudak. I thank the NDP.

I would go so far as to say that the NDP record on housing is even worse than the Conservative record on housing. The Conservatives do not like affordable housing; they hate it. Just read their 2006 fiscal imbalance document. At least they put a few dollars into housing.

The NDP members have put nothing into housing because they have never been a government. They have produced a silly private member's bill and because it is a private member's bill, it spends no money either. On the positive side of the ledger for the NDP on housing it is zero. On the negative side of the ledger, it is minus $480 million at the federal level and $80 million more at the provincial level. Therefore, on the plus side they have zero and on the minus side they have a minus $560 million contribution to housing.

The Conservative record is pathetic but I would rather go for a few Conservative dollars than the NDP's minus $560 million for affordable housing.

Let me continue with a bit more on the wisdom of Adam Vaughan because he is truly passionate on this subject. I am convinced that the citizens of Trinity—Spadina would prefer a Liberal candidate who is passionate on housing rather than turn to the NDP, whose record is minus $560 million on housing.

He says that the “NDP is more interested in building its party in the House than in building houses for people in need. That's their record”. I repeat his comment because it is so wise. He also said that smart investments in housing reap major benefits in other areas. It is not just about helping the homeless as the NDP seems to believe, there are other benefits. He then gives three examples. This is straight out of the mouth of Adam Vaughan during my conversation last night.

First, he said that housing constructed near hospitals for nurses is a positive thing because it saves on traffic gridlock, which costs a lot of money and frustration, and it also strengthens the health care system. There are spillover benefits and Adam Vaughan has drawn them to the attention of the NDP and to all members of the House.

The second thing he said is that housing constructed for people with mental health problems and other substance abuse problems will be good for those people, but in addition it will save the government money that it would otherwise have to spend on health care and even social assistance, because if you put a roof over somebody's head you equip that person much better to deal with the future, even if that person has some mental challenges.

The third example he gives is that housing built for students on or near university campuses results in lower student debt, a healthier graduating student population but in addition it leaves a legacy of houses for future generations of students. It's not just a one-time thing. The houses don't get built one year and then disappear the next. They are there for many years to come to support future generations of students, to strengthen the middle-class, and to strengthen equality of opportunity in building up our post-secondary education system.

I would recommend to the NDP, and more particularly I would recommend to the citizens of Trinity—Spadina, these wise words from our candidate Adam Vaughan, who not only sees through the negativity of the NDP historically on this record since 2005, but also has strong, sensible, vigorous ideas of his own. We can be sure that once he is a member of the Liberal caucus, housing will be even more on our agenda going forward than it is today.

Adam Vaughan would agree with us and even with the NDP that this business where the government lets these long-term mortgages run out and does nothing to support renters in need or support the co-op industry, is really a recipe for disaster, a recipe for many people becoming homeless. The Conservatives are totally responsible for that. We would urge them to change that misguided policy. It is for that reason that, perhaps principally, we in the Liberal Party will support today's motion by the New Democrats.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

I am lost for words, Mr. Speaker. One thousand comedians out of work and we have to listen to that. I cannot believe it.

The member talked about negatives and positives. The NDP did a positive thing, which became a negative for the Liberals. We gave them Bob Rae. Good Lord, what a gift. The gift that keeps on giving.

The member talked about Adam whoever, but he failed to mention that Joe Cressy is a long-time advocate for housing in Trinity—Spadina. He is going to represent the NDP in the House, not Adam whoever.

I do not know what to ask the member. That was the funniest speech I have ever heard. Actually, it was the second funniest because the one previous was funny too.

Could the member tell us what role the federal government should play in housing? I do not want him to tell me the Liberal role that his party played in the past, because that was a disaster. She admitted herself that the Liberals needed three more months to do something right. That was because in 12 years they were never able to do anything right.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comment and the fact that he said it was such a funny speech I will take as a compliment. I thought I was quite amusing myself.

I know math has never been the New Democrats' strong suit and understanding the economy is not their strong suit. He seems to have trouble with the pluses and minuses, so I will have to explain it to him again. It is zero on the positive side federally because New Democrats have never been the government and private members' bills cannot spend money. It is minus $560 million on the negative side because they brought down the Martin government and the Wynne government at a cost of $560 million for housing.

On the Liberal side in Trinity—Spadina, the voters can choose between Adam Vaughan, a passionate advocate for housing who can help a future Liberal government really deliver in the future, or some NDP candidate who will campaign on minus $560 million from his party for the housing sector. I think voters will be able to make up their minds.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with my colleague from the NDP that there was a lot of humour in the speech by the member for Markham—Unionville.

Prior to being elected to this place, I spent at least a dozen years working in the Toronto area on housing-related issues and I think I know the file pretty well. I remember back in 2005, with the previous Liberal government, when the minister of housing at the time, who is now the mayor of the city of London, brought in an affordable housing agreement that was so restrictive, had so many clauses and other caveats in it, that the provinces and the City of Toronto of the day could not actually get access to the federal money to implement the program. The program was written so restrictively that nobody could use the money.

What did our government do? Our government said we should have maximum flexibility in our funding agreements with provinces and municipalities, make sure local needs are respected, and that way all of the money would flow through the provincial affordable housing agreements.

Can the member for Markham—Unionville tell the House why the last Liberal government really did not fund affordable housing in the city of Toronto?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is we did not fund affordable housing in the city of Toronto because the NDP defeated our budget and, therefore, deprived the city of Toronto of its share of the $480 million.

However, in years prior to that, Liberals did fund it. I recall conversations with stakeholders, perhaps unlike the member's counterparts, who were very pleased with the program and were very pleased that it had made an impact through the efforts of Claudette Bradshaw on both housing and homelessness. Liberals were certainly on a roll until the NDP stopped us in our tracks by bringing down that budget.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can return this debate to some serious footing. It has been punctuated by a Liberal stand-up routine and gratuitous political advertising this afternoon.

However, it is a very important issue and I am happy to rise today in support of the motion before us, calling upon us, as it does, to recognize a housing crunch of rising costs and growing waiting lists across this country owing to chronic underfunding of affordable housing.

I want to thank my colleagues, the member of Parliament for York South—Weston and the member for Hochelaga, for their work on this file and for bringing forward this motion for debate in the House today.

I do not know of any better way to establish the importance of housing than with reference to its almost universal, and I would except the Liberals and Conservatives from this, of course, recognition of housing as a human right.

I do not know of any better way to stir our collective desire to address our shortcomings on this issue than with reference to a history in which we proved ourselves, as Canadians, capable of doing so much more than the current government and its predecessor Liberal government are and were prepared to do.

Canada had, up until a couple of decades ago, a very proud story to tell about housing. One way to start into this story is with reference to John Humphrey, something of a Canadian hero. John Humphrey was responsible for the first draft of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In that declaration, one can find, at article 25, reference to housing. It reads, in part:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

That reference to housing finds its way three decades later into the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Article 11 recognizes:

...the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions...

and so on.

However, if we fast forward to 2009, we have a UN special rapporteur lamenting our more recent history. He says this about Canada:

There has been a significant erosion of housing rights over the past two decades. Canada’s successful social housing programme, which created more than half a million homes starting in 1973, has been discontinued.

Here is the more recent and inglorious history that he is referring to in this quote. The last budget of the Mulroney Conservatives eliminated all federal funding for new social housing and froze spending on existing social housing. It was a move that cut housing investment by $660 million over four years.

The Liberal Party campaigned on a promise to reverse those cuts. Of course, it never did. In fact, only two years later, it slashed a further $128 million from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's budget, most of which was, at the time, allocated to affordable housing programs.

A year after that, in its 1996 budget, the Liberals walked away entirely from housing, downloading responsibility to provinces and territories. At the same, it is worth noting, they slashed transfers to those very same provinces and territories.

This is how Canada ends up with an ignominious distinction of being the only major industrialized country to not have a national housing strategy.

Just last year, the current Conservative government announced that it would not be renewing the long-term operating agreements that began in the 1970s that the UN rapporteur hailed in his 2009 report. Those agreements provide about $1.7 billion worth of housing subsidies to over 600,000 households in Canada. As that $1.7 billion dries up, mainly, over the next few years, it is anticipated that as many as 200,000 housing units will be lost due to the loss of operating funds or insufficient capital for much-needed renovations.

Now this may be considered a radical notion to both Liberals and Conservatives in this chamber, but there are simply circumstances in which markets do not work, when they simply do not emerge to meet demand, and so it is in housing.

According to the national household survey, about one-third of households in Toronto spend more than 30% of their income on housing. That is, by the standard definition of affordability, they cannot afford to live in their own homes. Taking into consideration just renters, that number rises dramatically. About 45% of renters in Toronto cannot afford their own homes.

While this definition of affordability is a very useful standard to use, it is important to note that nothing magic happens at that threshold. As pointed out in a very recent study, in March 2014, by Paradis, Wilson, and Logan at the Cities Centre at the University of Toronto, there is a continuum of inadequate housing, risk of homelessness, and visible homelessness among families living in Toronto's high-rise buildings. Housing is precarious for low-income families in Toronto's high-rises, and it is easy enough to slide up, but mainly down, that continuum. According to the study:

...inadequate housing and the risk of homelessness are almost universal among families with children living in high-rise rental apartments.... Almost 90% are facing major housing problems that may place them at risk of homelessness.... One family in three is facing severe or critical risk of homelessness.

Part of the problem is that there has been virtually no growth in new purpose-built rental housing in Toronto since 2006, according to “Toronto's Vital Signs Report 2013”, with just 1,800 units across the entire GTA and only 810 in the city of Toronto itself, this in a city that welcomes 100,000 new residents every year.

This is how we end up in Toronto with about 90,000 households on the waiting list for affordable housing. That unto itself is equivalent to the population of a large Canadian city, about the same size as Saskatoon or Regina. With fewer than 4,000 households from that list being housed every year, that list has grown. With only 650 new units of affordable housing presently under construction in Toronto, we have today what is quite rightly called in the motion a housing crisis.

I frame this issue, with reference to Canadian John Humphrey and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as a matter of human rights. Health, happiness, security, and the opportunity for everyone to realize their potential through education all turn on housing—safe, healthy, affordable housing. This is a truth we have turned away from as a country through successive federal governments over two decades, but it is a truth that exists nonetheless.

I will take the last couple of minutes of my time to talk about the economics of housing.

This motion stands on more than just an ethical footing; it is good economics, too. To understand that, we need look no further than the Conservatives' own budget documentation, and I refer specifically to the data produced by the Department of Finance in support of the government's own economic action plan.

That data points to the very efficient stimulus or multiplier effect of housing investment, showing that for every dollar invested in housing measures, $1.50 of economic activity is created. Interestingly, that compares very favourably to the stimulus measures the current Conservative government prefers. Personal income tax measures have a multiplier of just a dollar over the same timeframe, while business tax measures work very poorly, adding just 30¢ to the economy for every public dollar expended or foregone.

I will finish with a salute to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the work it has been doing to bring this housing crisis into the public realm and to the attention of all Canadians. In its press release yesterday, it stated:

FCM supports the NDP's continued focus on fixing Canada's Housing Crunch.... The lack of adequate and affordable housing is one of the biggest issues facing Canadians across the country and is a threat to the social and economic growth of Canadian municipalities.

There is no finer an endorsement, and so I will close there.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, it is going to be obvious that I do not agree with much of what the member said. As opposed to going down that vein, I just want to ask for his comments and thoughts on what we heard from the Liberal Party on this.

The Liberal Party mentioned their candidate in Trinity—Spadina, someone who was extraordinarily critical, when he was a reporter, of the billions of dollars in health and social transfer cuts the Liberals unilaterally made. He was very critical of that. The Liberal candidate in Trinity—Spadina was also very critical of the Liberal government in Ontario, which cut gas plants and wasted billions of dollars on gas plants and all kinds of other things, to the detriment of all kinds of other social programs.

Moreover I want to touch on something the Liberal member talked about. The Liberals had three majority governments and one minority government. They were in power for 13 years and admit that they did absolutely nothing on this file.

Does the hon. member, despite the fact that we disagree, think Canadians can in any way trust the Liberals to actually live up to any commitments they make in this House? Does he believe, like I do, that what they are saying, the words they say in this House, never match what they do?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not particularly interested in engaging in a discussion about what the Liberals want to do in this House today with our time, and that is to put up political advertising for their candidate in Trinity—Spadina.

I am more interested in why the member does not agree with anything I have said. I have laid out the economics. The economics are supported by the government's own budget documentation. There are some irrefutable facts before the House. Over the next decade, the need for purpose-built rental accommodation is going to exceed 50,000 units per year, and we have been averaging 15,000 to 20,000 units per year.

This is a crisis. I do not know exactly how the government can turn a blind eye to it.

The member is quite right to point out that the Liberal government killed the national housing program in the 1990s, but I think it is also true, and this member needs to face up to it, that they have been nailing closed the coffin on that housing program for the last eight years they have been in government as well.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my question with a quote from the Globe and Mail, in the summer of 2001. The quote is:

“I'm quite encouraged”, said FCM president Jack Layton. “Tomorrow's meeting is the most important meeting in the history of housing policy in Canada since the creation of the CMHC. And what we're seeing here is a welcoming of federal funding back into housing.”

If Jack Layton was “quite encouraged” by these Liberal plans back in 2001, why does the hon. member say that these plans did not even exist?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as much respect as I have for Jack Layton, and I have enormous respect for Jack Layton, we all get fooled more than once in our lives.

He may have been encouraged, but I know Jack Layton, and Jack Layton was extremely disappointed in what the Liberals ended up doing in housing. In fact, it was Jack Layton who had to put an end, or tried to put an end, to Paul Martin's corporate tax giveaways, which I have already talked about having a very low economic stimulus, but that did not matter to the great austerity economist, Mr. Paul Martin, and extract money to put back into housing.

Part of Jack Layton's legacy in this country was $1.6 billion going into affordable housing in this country, when the Liberals wanted to give all of that away to big corporations in Canada.