Christiane Gagnon

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments. I will try to find out whether there were any submissions from Quebec. What I know is that I received at my office a letter from the CMHC saying there were no housing starts in Quebec under the program mentioned. I will find out more about that.

[English]

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations have declared 1994 the International Year of the Family. We must however admit that the families of Quebec and Canada are having a very hard time making ends meet.

In such a meaningful year, should a responsible government not be preparing a policy on social housing to assist the most needy among us in their quest for a reasonable and affordable home?

The needs in social housing are most strongly felt in urban areas. For example, in Limoilou and in the lower town, in my riding, there are at least 1,200 households on waiting lists for a place in low-cost housing projects and more than 600 households are waiting for co-operative housing.

Nearly half the persons living in downtown neighbourhoods, who represent 85 per cent of the total population, live below the poverty line. Given such a situation, we believe it is important that, through an urban planning policy, we preserve and revitalize the life of those neighbourhoods.

But there is more. Studies show that in the riding of Québec alone, 38 per cent of all families in the lower town and Limoilou must devote more than 30 per cent of their gross income to housing. In the riding, 9,430 households out of a total of 20,165-that is almost 47 per cent of all families-have a gross income of less than $29,999. Forty-seven per cent! Are there any members in this House who would not react to such statistics?

The average income of men in the central neighbourhoods of the riding of Quebec was $14,078 in 1986 as compared to an average income of $19,440 for the province as a whole. Women are always poorer than men, but the gap was not so wide in their case. It is easy to understand why: their average income was $10,260 compared to $11,884 for the province. According to Statistics Canada, out of 21,450 economic families, 29.1 per cent were considered to be low-income.

Still in my riding of Québec, there are 4,960 single-parent families, 86 per cent of which have a woman as head of the household, that is 4,260. For the province of Quebec, that figure is 81.86 per cent. The equation womanhood=poverty is still quite real.

Considering that 52.7 per cent of dwellings in downtown Quebec were built before 1946 and that another 22.8 per cent were built between 1946 and 1960, it is easy understand the importance of a renovation assistance program.

Furthermore, the 1986 data show a rental occupancy rate of 79.5 per cent in the old neighbourhoods of the riding while the average for the province is 45.1 per cent. The situation of most of my constituents is very clear. They are too poor to buy a house, therefore they rent in buildings built before 1946 and they devote more than 30 per cent of their income to that item alone. In fact, in Quebec today, 404,045 households are obliged to spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing. In November 1993, the Popular Action Front for Urban Redevelopment estimated that 195,000 Quebec households spent more than 50 per cent of their income on housing.

That is what being poor means. In view of these alarming figures, the government should make a formal commitment to support social housing. Quebec City understands. As I mentioned before in the House, on January 10, 1994, the city adopted a resolution asking the federal government to review the budget for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The city demanded adequate funding for social housing, reinstatement of the co-operative housing program and a new program to provide assistance for renovation of rental housing.

In this way, the municipal authorities want to ensure that families do not pay more than 25 per cent of their income for housing. How can we expect families that who have to spend more than 30 per cent of their meagre income on housing to make ends meet? How can they afford decent food, adequate clothing, medicine and a few much-needed leisure activities? It would take more than a degree in economics or home economics to accomplish that.

Although it may be a cliché, we will keep saying it until we get our message across: Let the government put its money where its mouth is. The Bloc Quebecois has a mandate to promote sovereignty. It also has a mandate to support government action that is necessary and socially responsible, while defending the interests of Quebec.

It is a fact the federal government has imposed standards on Quebec that have prevented the latter from adopting a social policy that meets its real needs and aspirations. More and more, Quebec is losing its ability to control its social development. Quebecers are suffering as a result of poor federal management of the economy, and they are stuck between reductions in transfer payments and the obligation to abide by federal standards.

There is, however, a commonality of purpose between the government and the Bloc Quebecois with respect to the challenges facing the government. In fact, we support stimulating employment through programs that create real, well-paying and long term jobs. We support tax reform to relieve the tax burden on families and others in our society.

Finally, we support reducing the deficit by putting public financing on a sounder footing. However, public spending should not be cut at the expense of the neediest in our society. There are Quebecers and Canadians who have been left to fend for themselves and in recent years have seen these cuts affect the bare necessities of their lives.

We believe that investing in social housing will be an investment in job creation. Every social housing unit built means 2.2 jobs. I say this because job creation seems to be this government's prime objective, and it was part of its platform in the last election campaign.

Perhaps we could backtrack very briefly. In its well known red book, the Liberal Party of Canada said, and I quote: "In many areas and neighbourhoods in Canada, the quality of housing needs to be improved in order to achieve adequate standards of safety, health and energy efficiency. The recently cancelled Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, which provided a loan or grant for home renovation to people of modest incomes, should be revived as a method for investing in the physical and social fabric of our communities. A Liberal government will make $50 million a year available through the RRAP loan program for two years".

Further on, we read: "We must choose to make our social investments where we believe they will do the most good and have the greatest effect for the resources spent and for the long term future. We will focus our efforts on health care, children's

needs, safety in our communities and the quality and cultural identity of Canadians".

On January 18, 1994, the elected government announced with great pomp in the throne speech the reintroduction of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. It outlined its intention to take measures to combat violence against women and children. It also announced the establishment of a centre of excellence "to ensure that women's health issues receive the attention they deserve".

On February 13, the Liberals celebrated their first 100 days in office. They even published a nice brochure outlining their accomplishments. By the way, it would be interesting to know if we could have built or rehabilitated one or more housing units with the money used to produce this brochure. This pamphlet called "Creating Opportunity: The First 100 Days" does not say anything about social housing.

In its February 8, 1994 letter to the Prime Minister, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women pointed out that, in its February 1993 report, the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General said that crime was the outcome of the interaction of a constellation of factors. It is a social problem with many elements such as poverty, physical and sexual abuse, low self-esteem, inadequate housing, school failure and unemployment.

The council recommended that the Prime Minister take into account the committee's conclusions in a multi-faceted approach aimed at guaranteeing safe homes and communities.

Women's health and safety is largely dependent on access to adequate and affordable housing where they can care for their children and protect themselves, if necessary, from a violent spouse or ex-spouse. It is the same for older women, for handicapped women and for so many women who are still waiting.

Ottawa's gradual pull-out has demonstrated the limits of the administrative agreements between Quebec and the federal government in cases of unilateral withdrawal. Quebec has been caught short by the extent of Ottawa's financial pull-out from housing, after following the strong and highly centralized leadership of its main financial backer under this agreement.

The federal budget allocation criteria for programs that have since disappeared have always put Quebec at a disadvantage, particularly because of the rigidity of the so-called national standards. This situation must cease, and the concept of equity must be reintroduced in the management and allocation of funds earmarked for these programs.

Contrary to the terms of the framework agreement with Quebec and as a result of its unilateral pull-out from social and co-op housing programs, the federal government is destabilizing Quebec's housing programs and affecting the planning of such housing by municipal authorities. It is one of the major shortcomings of the administrative agreements.

Let us take Quebec's current situation as an example. Just two weeks ago, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation announced that it was granting seven subsidies of $20,000 or less for projects aimed at improving the affordability and selection of housing. Of the seven groups who received subsidies, five Ontario municipalities shared a total of $51,000; one Alberta municipality received $18,750; and one Saskatchewan municipality got $10,000. There was nothing for Quebec. Such figures make comments unnecessary.

Of course, when we talk about subsidies, the economic situation comes up again.

Let me remind the government that Canada's military spending is six times what we used to spend on social housing.

In conclusion, I hope that, in this International Year of the Family, the living and housing conditions of Canadian and Quebec families will improve thanks to concerted, adequate and equitable government action.

The Bloc Quebecois is calling for the immediate reintroduction of the co-op housing program, for the creation of a rental housing rehabilitation assistance program, for assurances that the poor will not have to spend more than 25 per cent of their income on housing, and for wider access to home ownership through the co-op movement.

We are asking the Canadian government to embrace the social philosophy of other countries such as Great Britain and the Netherlands, where social housing accounts for 70 per cent of all rental housing, and Sweden, where this proportion is 55 per cent. In Canada, in 1991, social housing amounted to 10 per cent of all rental housing.

It is a question of social justice and not a question of passion as Reform members seem to think.

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since the member is showing an interest for our belle province, I would like to give him a few statistics regarding social housing funding in Quebec. I wonder if he is aware of the fact that, from 1986 all the way up to 1993, there have been some significant discrepancies in the level of federal funding to various provinces in Canada, including Ontario.

Quebec received between 10 and 13 per cent less from the federal government. That is why it is now calling for an improvement in the level of government expenditures. We say expenditures, but what we are really talking about are job

creating investments. I am giving this piece of information to the minister because I would like him to tell me what his government intends to do to improve the social housing program in Quebec, in view of the fact that, for the last ten years, Quebec has been short changed compared to other provinces.

Let me explain the criteria used by the federal government to allocate funding for housing. Quebec is at a real disadvantage because, to determine each province's share of the budget, Ottawa grants each province a certain number of units based on the real building cost per unit. Yet, we know that the average building cost per unit is higher in Ontario. This analysis shows how Quebec has always been short-changed by the federal government.

I would like to add another point. The member mentioned new social housing starts by CMHC. There might be new housing starts in Ontario and other provinces, but certainly not in Quebec. I received a letter from a director in the CMHC economic department saying that there was no sign of recovery in housing starts in Quebec. I would like the minister to comment on that.

[The Late Sue Rodriguez, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we were saddened to hear of the death last Saturday of Ms. Sue Rodriguez. I want to pay tribute in the House to the courage and determination demonstrated by this woman right to the end. Her struggle to have our society accept the principle of human dignity set an example for all of us.

Suffering from a debilitating terminal illness, she took her battle for the right to die with dignity all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada in May 1993. Despite the unfavourable ruling by the Supreme Court judges, Sue Rodriguez never ceased to voice her distress.

It is imperative that members of this House start thinking about granting terminally ill people the right to die with dignity.

Albert Camus wrote: "A society is judged by the way its members suffer, love and die". These words should be the basis of our reflection.

[Child Care Services, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

As we know, some taxpayers get to deduct entertainment expenses such as business luncheons and golf games. Can the minister tell this House when the government will make the necessary tax changes to allow taxpayers, generally women, to deduct child care expenses as business expenses?

[Child Care Services, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a survey conducted by the Quebec Office for the International Year of the Family as part of the Tax and the Family Forum showed that 80 per cent of Quebecers believe that the government should do more to develop child care services.

In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Mr. Prime Minister, in the context of the International Year of the Family, does the government intend to make available to the provinces the financial resources required to go ahead with developing child care services?

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to create a sense of awareness. Very little is said about the situation of women. It is always a somewhat sensitive issue and I wanted to make members from both sides of the House aware of the claims made by women, and also convince them to be very receptive to those claims. I know that we are going through a period of austerity which affects all of Canada, including Quebec, but let us not forget that women have been waiting for a long time. There are many working women, but they need concrete support from the governments.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec is asking for the transfers to be returned to Quebec so that it can manage its own child care programs. We give $28 billion to the federal government; this is our taxpayers' money. I think that it is better to have only one level of government managing. We must decentralize decision making. Child care services must be specific to the needs of each province.

For the Government of Quebec, as with occupational training, it is the same situation dragging on. Quebec wants to run its own child care programs so that it can set its own standards. That is what we demand. So Quebec wants its fair share of the $28 billion it gives to the federal government. That is only one of the issues.

With regard to social housing, we know very well that Quebec is disadvantaged compared to Ontario, in terms of the fair share it should receive. I was looking at figures on social housing; we know that women are greatly affected by this program. In my riding, we have more than 4,900 single mothers and 4,300 of them are waiting for social housing.

I have a letter from the president of CMHC, saying that construction of social housing has resumed but that Quebec is behind in this new start-up of social housing. If we go through it issue by issue I think it is a good reflection of the Quebec reality. We have come here to talk about this reality; it is part of my mandate to explain in this House the realities that people in my riding live with. Child care services and social housing are two issues that I care very much about.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about cutting the fat, but I also talked about increasing child care services to solve the problems that women go through every day when they want to go to work so that they can have some personal independence. I believe that the society which we represent here in this House urgently needs to think about child care services so that some women could be self-supporting. I am talking about cuts in government overspending. I think that women have waited long enough. Such cuts would really show the government's resolve to act quickly.

They talk about 3 per cent economic growth before they can invest in child care services; this may mean putting it off indefinitely or at least until much later. Women have waited long enough and I think that this year we should do something for them.

[Social Security System, February 3rd, 1994]

Twenty minutes, Mr. Speaker.

The riding of Quebec, which I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons, is a very special one.

Many MPs say the same thing about their riding, but this one, which is home to the Quebec government and the National Assembly, as well as the Old City of Quebec, declared a world heritage site by UNESCO, is, for all Quebecers, a sacred place steeped in history, from an administrative, political and emotional perspective.

I want above all to pay tribute to the people of my riding, and state again that I am convinced that the direction taken by the Bloc Quebecois is the only one which will lead Quebec to full economic development and nationhood. To convince everyone in my constituency of that fact will be the greatest challenge of my mandate.

The riding includes several federal sites such as the famous Plains of Abraham, Artillery Park and the Citadel, well known to tourists and visitors alike. It also includes a harbour vital to our region's economy, but which has been experiencing a significant drop in activity in the wake of the general slowdown of the economy.

I promise to raise again, in this House, the problems plaguing the Quebec harbour to show how a harbour, centrally managed by Ottawa which keeps all the revenues, and whose development is controlled from afar, cannot compete against harbours elsewhere in the world which are virtually all managed locally, such as those of Rotterdam and Antwerp.

Next to the commercial harbour, we find the Old Port, an important tourist attraction and recreational facility in which the federal government has been investing considerable sums for more than a decade. The development and vocation of this facility create serious planning problems in our area.

The fact the local and regional elected officials do not have formal jurisdiction over these facilities calls into question once again the whole issue of the inefficient and bureaucratic centralization of Canadian federalism, as we have experienced it in Quebec City.

I am sure we will have ample opportunity to re-examine this issue in the coming months and to call upon the Liberal government to allocate the sums promised during the election campaign, but bearing in mind the real needs identified by local stakeholders.

Aside from these major infrastructures, the constituency of Québec has a number of features that are not so well known to tourists and visitors. The riding takes in the most densely populated area in the region and as such, it is grappling with extensive social problems and with poverty.

Large portions of Lower Town and one neighbourhood in Upper Town present all of the symptoms of social and economic decline, namely widespread unemployment, tenuous jobs, dependence on social assistance and a host of other human problems.

Successive census figures show that the population of these neighbourhoods is decreasing. The average income of Lower Town residents in 1986 was $6,000 less than that of residents in the entire Quebec City area and in the entire province. The census also showed that in Quebec City in 1986, there was a difference of $7,000 in the average incomes of women and men.

The poorer neighbourhoods in Quebec City and elsewhere are feeling the full effects of erratic and shortsighted government policies, against a backdrop of spiralling taxes, complete tolerance of smuggling activities and the ongoing shameless waste of public funds, as evidenced by the annual denunciations of the Auditor General.

For members of the public forced to put up with service cuts and higher taxes, the price-quality ratio, as they say in economic circles, is slipping more and more.

As I stated earlier, the women who live in some of the neighbourhoods in my riding, like women in other constituencies, experience a unique situation, one that puts them at a disadvantage. Now is the time to take a closer look at the broader issue of the status of women and to ask whether this is a priority for the government.

This is the question that must be asked by women in Quebec and in Canada, given the threat of cuts to social programs. For a great many women, these social programs are the only safety net they have and the only way for them to make ends meet.

A number of studies have brought to light the abject poverty in which women live every day. According to a study conducted by Health and Welfare Canada, in 1987, 63.6 per cent of single-parent families with preschoolers lived below the poverty line set by Statistics Canada. These figures alone illustrate the problems faced by many single mothers who account for 10.7 per cent of Canadian families and for 11.7 per cent of Quebec families.

These are not just figures and statistics. We are talking about our sisters, our friends and our mothers.

Even though poverty is not the sole cause of violence, a number of studies have shown a correlation between poverty and violence against women and children. My hon. colleagues in the Official Opposition will agree, as will the other hon. members of this House, that job creation-by this I mean real, sustainable, well paid jobs that contribute to the personal growth of workers-must be at the top of the government's list of priorities. A partnership must be forged with Quebec and the other provinces as well as with the private sector.

Poverty and health problems go hand in hand. The more a family has to spend on housing, the less money it has for food, clothing and medicine. Statistics Canada reports that 57 per cent of single-parent families headed by women live in rental housing, whereas the same is true of only 37 per cent of men in the same situation. These figures cast poverty and housing problems in a decidedly feminine light.

Poverty also means a lack of money for child care. One has often heard women earning the minimum wage lament the fact that it costs them more to work and pay child care than if they were to stay at home and collect social assistance or unemployment insurance. This is not laziness but a recognition of the

system's inability to provide child care services allowing women to join the workforce, to ensure their personal growth, to upgrade their professional qualifications, in order to achieve financial independence and break the chains of dependency.

Mothers who want to work or go back to school or, as the studies show, the large number of them who have no choice but to work outside the home, urgently need government support. They will then be able to go to work secure in the knowledge that their children are in good hands.

It is difficult if not impossible in this debate to deal with all issues concerning women. We will limit ourselves to two aspects for now: child care and violence against women.

Let us look first at the issue of child care. The former Conservative government had promised Quebecers and Canadians a national child care program that was supposed to create 400,000 new child care spaces. This project was abandoned in February 1992. According to a report by the Conseil de la famille du Québec, tabled in May 1993, the Quebec government reduced by $94 million the money it was supposed to invest in child care in the last three years.

We also know that in 1988, according to the Canadian national child care study, more than 1,634,000 Canadian families needed child care services. In Quebec, 385,900 families would need such services for their pre-school and school age children.

During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to create 50,000 child care spaces in each year following a year of 3 per cent economic growth, up to a total of 150,000 spaces. Forty per cent of the costs would be paid by the federal government, another 40 per cent by the provinces, and the remaining 20 per cent by parents according to a sliding scale based on income. We find this economic growth-related restriction puzzling.

There is a crying need for child care spaces. According to assessments by the Office de garde du Québec, these needs amounted to 201,310 spaces in 1988 compared with 130,713 available spaces, leaving a gap of over 70,000 spaces.

The federal government has always trodden very carefully on this issue. It makes promises and then backs off. Some women's organizations and child care associations want a national child care program. The Bloc Quebecois will not oppose the creation of a national child care program.

We recognize that some provinces, because of their organic bond with federal institutions, may want a federally administered and regulated program.

However, as far as Quebec is concerned, we are firmly against the federal government imposing on Quebec families a Canada-wide program with its own list of standards without concern for our needs or our economic, cultural and social situation.

Our intention in this regard is clear. We are asking the federal government to transfer to the Quebec government its fair share of subsidies so that it can develop adequate child care services taking into account the welfare of children and the needs of parents. To us, the transfer to Quebec of all federal social and health program budgets is paramount.

Many hon. members and ministers have stated that the government cannot put its fiscal house in order without cutting social programs since transfers to individuals and provinces account for over half of program spending.

In our opinion, if the government intends to reassess, review, streamline, redesign or, in other words, cut social programs by dumping the deficit problem on Quebec and the other provinces, it is totally unacceptable.

Before thinking of cutting social programs, the government would be well advised to cut defence spending, to save $1 billion in administrative costs, by giving the provinces sole jurisdiction in employment matters.

We think that setting up a parliamentary committee to review spending in order to eliminate waste and duplication and reduce operating costs would be the best way to identify areas where there is still fat to be trimmed. We believe that the federal government must rationalize its own spending before reducing payments to those hit hardest by the serious economic problems.

The Canada assistance plan is the program through which the federal government contributes 50 per cent of the social assistance provided by the provinces. This means that 50 per cent of what it costs Quebec to provide day care spaces, as well as tax exemptions and financial assistance for non-profit child care comes from this program.

This program emphasizes the inefficiency of the cost-sharing formula which lacks incentives to improve financial management practices. Also, the rule of spending favours the have provinces. Because they have more tax resources to spend, they receive more federal funding.

In the end, albeit in the short term, we believe that there is an urgent need to relax the eligibility requirements for tax exemptions and financial assistance to help low and middle-income families pay for child care services without having to cut back week after week on basic necessities.

Now, we move on to the subject of violence against women in Quebec and in Canada. It has become such a widespread phenomenon that, even if it may sound redundant to quote more statistics, we feel the need to do so because the numbers speak for themselves.

Half of all women in Canada have been victims of at least one act of violence since the age of 16. Some 25 per cent of all women in Canada have been abused by their present or previous partner. Six Canadian women out of ten who walk alone at night in their neighbourhoods have reported that they were either very or slightly afraid to do so.

These few figures from Statistics Canada surveys on violence against women published in November 1993 draw an increasingly alarming picture of the situation faced by women in Quebec and Canada.

Clearly, violence has become a serious problem. Over the last decade, 600 children were killed in Canada. One third of these children were under one and 70 per cent were under five.

From now on, family violence against women must be viewed in a broader context so as to include spouse abuse. Thanks to the tireless efforts of women's organizations such as rape crisis centres and other shelters, incest is no longer a subject discussed only behind closed doors. We think that the lack of financial support for these organizations is most unfortunate because it jeopardizes not only their very existence but also the delivery of first-line services to women whose lives, in many cases, are in constant danger.

We also want to emphasize the needs of women from cultural communities, particularly newcomers, women with disabilities and seniors who are abused. Some women, often because of their greater vulnerability, urgently need support to break the code of silence that makes their situation so tragic.

While we notice a certain shift in the attitudes and behaviour of our legal system towards victims of violence, recent events indicate that other challenges need to be met.

In closing, I think that the need to alleviate the hardship of families and individuals in Quebec and Canada must be seen as an underlying principle in any review of social programs.

To this end, it is imperative that the government curb the deficit and cut extravagant expenditures without social programs being affected. In fact, social programs are the only social security net we have as we face a sluggish economy that has shrunk as a result of the irresponsible management of federal funds and costly duplication.

It is obvious that the government has not met the changing needs of our society, in particular with regard to child care. On behalf of all women, we ask that the condition put on investing in a child care program, which is dependent upon a yearly three per cent economic growth, be lifted. The government must release funds immediately and there should not be any constraints put on provinces that would rather set up their own program.

To meet the needs of women, we must develop a joint strategy of adequate child care, decent and affordable housing, abuse control, job training and permanent employment. Women have been waiting for a very long time.