Christiane Gagnon

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let us say that we do not have the same figures. The figures I have on social housing show that, since 1986, the difference in grants for social housing, between Quebec and other provinces, varies between 10 and 13 per cent.

This is not the only area in which Quebec does not get its fair share. There are others. I do not think we have the same book.

[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.