Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet

[Canada Post, February 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, our cities need federal support to prosper, but the Conservatives do not seem to realize that. While the mayors of Canada's largest cities are meeting today to talk about the pressing issues affecting our communities, the Conservatives' response is to continue to reduce essential services, leaving the people of Rosemère, Lorraine, Bois-des-Filion, Repentigny and Charlemagne without home mail delivery.

Why does the government continue to ignore the needs of our municipalities?

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in my former line of work, when we talked about the economy, we talked about a three-legged stool. One leg was for finances, the other the environment and the third for people.

The budget we have here has only one leg. My colleague was talking about co-operatives. When we talk about co-operatives, we are talking about a three-legged economy because it includes people, among other things. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this economic philosophy.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, of course I agree. I also spoke about that in relation to infrastructure and low-income housing.

Low-income housing units are in disrepair right now and need federal government funding for renovations. If the federal government does not give the money to the provinces, the provinces will have to take it out of their budget. On and on it goes. The federal government stops investing and offloads it to the provinces. The provinces have the means for a short period, but eventually they will no longer have the means and will offload it to the municipalities. If the municipalities cannot handle it, the public and community groups are the ones that will have to foot the bill.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much. She is also familiar with the co-operatives file. By the very definition of co-operative, the people who live there help each other. It is a very healthy environment in which people live together and work together. I grew up in that environment, in all kinds of workers' co-ops. Housing co-operatives are similar.

I will give an example of what is happening now that the agreements are expiring. There is a big co-operative in the Pierrefonds-Roxboro neighbourhood in Montreal. It has about 700 residents. Nearly half of the residents—about 40%—live in subsidized housing. The agreement is expiring this year or next year. Two months after the co-operative stops receiving money from the subsidies it will go bankrupt. Will 300 or 400 people end up on the street? That is what will happen when these agreements expire.

Two families in Sudbury who were living in a co-operative lost their subsidy on October 31. They were paying less than $400 for housing. After October 31 they had to pay over $900. One of the families was a mother with two children. The mother was going to school. These people did not have the means to more than double their rent payments. They could have ended up on the street. If the co-operative had not been able to find them housing elsewhere, these people would have literally been out on the street.

That is what will happen when these agreements expire.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague and friend from LaSalle—Émard.

I am rising today, as the official opposition's housing and infrastructure critic, to speak to budget 2014-15. The budget, which was tabled on February 11, is a rehash of last year and, in some cases, the years before that.

The budget summary could easily have been called “The Road to Balance On the Backs of the Less Fortunate, the Middle Class and the Provinces”. That is exactly what is happening with social housing, the fight against homelessness and infrastructure. True to form, the Minister of Finance will likely continue to make cuts to social housing. Despite what those on the other side would have us believe, I did say “cuts”.

Much to my dismay, the budget again made no mention of renewing funding that has run out following the expiry of certain long-term operating agreements on social housing. Since the Conservatives always seem to confuse the issue, I will explain to them once again what the long-term operating agreements are for, before they try to talk to us again about the agreement on affordable housing or access to home ownership. In case they still do not understand, people who benefit from those agreements on social housing are rarely in a position to dream of one day owning their own home.

Long-term operating agreements were signed between 1970 and 1993, which is when Jean Chrétien's federal Liberal government began turning its back on social housing. Through CMHC, the government signs agreements directly with social housing providers—mostly co-operatives and non-profit housing organizations—to allow them to grant rent subsidies to their members and tenants so that they do not spend more than 25% to 30% of their income on rent. These agreements also allow the provinces and municipalities to provide low-income housing to people living there. These agreements, which were signed for periods of 25 to 50 years, have gradually been expiring in the past few years. What happens to a building after all that time? It often needs major renovations.

The government would have us believe that property replacement reserves for social housing projects, combined with the end of the mortgage on a building, will bring financial viability. However, that is not really how it works. When agreements come to an end, most social housing providers are in no position to pay for the necessary renovations on top of granting rent subsidies to their low-income tenants.

When people come and see me about this, they tell me that there are social housing providers that, when their agreements come to an end, are forced to choose the families with the highest incomes for their vacant housing in order to ensure that they will not have to pay rent subsidies to those families. It seems to me that this was not the original purpose of this kind of housing. That is completely unacceptable.

When we add up the Conservative government's disengagement over the past three years alone, we get $65.2 million that it has saved on the backs of Canadians who need that money the most. In 2011-12, the government saved $20.2 million; in 2012-13, it saved $21.7 million; and in 2013-14, it saved $23.3 million, for a total of $65.2 million in the past three years alone. The worst years are yet to come.

By 2030, the government will have saved $1.7 billion a year through attrition. In 2012, in just one year, CMHC posted a $1.7 billion profit, thanks to its financial products. It seems to me that some of that profit could be reinvested in social housing.

The decision not to renew the agreements could have serious consequences for low-income households. In some cases, people's rent could increase by $200, $300, even $500 a month. It goes without saying that this situation will make many people more vulnerable. Once again, it will be the provinces and the municipalities that will inevitably end up paying the bill. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that roughly one in three social housing units, or 200,000 units across Canada, could disappear when these agreements end.

According to the federal government's own estimates, in 2011, 40% of Canadian tenants spent 30% or more of their income on housing. Over the past few decades, the federal government has invested billions of dollars in the social housing stock. We might expect a responsible government to continue its investments and partner with the provinces when they want to start renovating their low-income housing.

However, again this year, the government is dragging its feet when it comes to making a commitment to the provinces and clearly announcing that it will help fund the renovation of low-income housing. Canada needs to stop considering social housing as an expense. Housing is a right and an investment.

The announcement regarding the fight against homelessness from last year was copied and pasted into the most recent budget. The government once again confirmed its intention to move forward with the Housing First approach, but it will not get very far without any housing.

The Conservatives have been reminding us that they renewed the funding for the homelessness partnering strategy, but they fail to mention that they are making $15.8 million in cuts per year starting this year. They have cut the already insufficient budget of $134.8 million to $119 million per year.

Funding for the fight against homelessness has not been indexed since the SCPI was created in 1999. Now, the government is making budget cuts. That does not make any sense. We are losing social housing units and people are ending up on the streets. What is more, the government is reducing the money for homelessness services and prevention by 60% to 65% and using that money for the Housing First approach, which focuses on episodic or chronic homelessness.

Do people have to be living on the streets for months before they get help? Like social housing, homelessness prevention is also an investment. Once again, the Conservative approach does not make any sense.

The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Infrastructure also failed to deliver when it comes to infrastructure. In last year's budget, the government announced a new $14 billion building Canada fund but did not tell us how that money could be accessed. I raised this issue in the House a number of times.

On February 13 of this year, the government finally announced the parameters of the new building Canada fund. It is about time. The municipalities and provinces have been waiting for a year for more information and were concerned that the construction season would be jeopardized because of the government's inaction.

Unfortunately, we are used to the Conservatives' empty promises, their announcements with no follow-through and their misrepresentations. For example, what the Conservatives have failed to mention is that most of the $14 billion announced will not be paid out until the end of the 10-year life cycle of the fund. That money will no longer even be there. Only 1.5% or $210 million of the promised $14 billion will be available this year.

Municipalities face another problem. Infrastructure projects costing more than $100 million will now have to undergo a mandatory P3 screen. Naturally, if more than one project undergoes this process in the first year, there will only be two such projects because only $210 million is available. However, the major problem is that P3 assessments take 6 to 18 months. Once again, the Conservatives are unable to provide predictable, long-term funding for our municipalities, which are left in limbo.

Moreover, the Conservatives have once again broken their promise to make things easier for communities. Small communities are the losers with this new fund because they will no longer be able to use these monies for their roads and cultural, sports or tourism infrastructure.

To fund those projects, they will have to rely on the gas tax fund, which is already insufficient to meet their needs. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a portion of the money available in the new fund will go to municipalities.

One of the major differences between the new and the old fund is that, previously, municipalities could cover one third of the cost of their infrastructure projects through this fund and also use the gas tax fund for the same project.

Starting now, the maximum federal contribution will be one-third of the total project cost. To fund their projects, municipalities will have to find new revenue streams and, because these are limited, will have to increasingly rely on the gas tax fund.

Quite frankly, when it comes to housing, fighting homelessness and infrastructure, the Conservatives have once again missed the mark with this budget.

[The Budget, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the government is turning a deaf ear not only to the provinces, but also to municipalities.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union des municipalités du Québec and the mayor of Montreal have all denounced the budget's silence on social housing. There is no specific commitment or long-term plan. Worse still, cuts of $1.5 billion are expected over the next five years.

Will the minister review his plans and work with the municipalities to find solutions to the crisis affecting thousands of families?

[Petitions, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I too have in my hands a petition that concerns Canada Post. It is very easy to get people to sign it. In fact, they are coming to see us to sign petitions about Canada Post.

This time, roughly 200 people from British Columbia are calling on Canada Post to stop reducing services to the public by closing post offices one after the other, for example. They are also calling for real public consultations in order to come up with an updated mail delivery service that adequately meets the needs of the public.

[Social Housing, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to speak about housing and homelessness, because unless the NDP raises the issue, no one else will.

Between 2006 and 2013, more than 45,000 housing units were affected by the end of long-term social housing agreements. This means that an additional 45,000 households may perhaps be wondering whether they are going to feed their families or pay their rent this month.

If we let this happen, social housing will lose $1.7 billion in funding by 2030. Motion No. 450 would stop this hemorrhaging. To eliminate poverty we must start by ensuring that everyone has a roof over their heads. The Conservatives have moved the focus of the HPS to housing while maintaining that they are looking after housing and homelessness. At the same time, they have eliminated a range of services that tackle homelessness. We need housing and services.

The budget will be tabled tomorrow, and I hope that the government will finally listen to reason.

[Situation in Ukraine, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I have a comment. This evening we have been seeing a lot of co-operation in the House. What I just heard from the member was completely inappropriate. His comments detracted from everything that was said earlier this evening.

[Situation in Ukraine, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I recently travelled to eastern Europe. I went to Vilnius, Lithuania, with the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association.

We heard a lot of talk about an agreement. It is important to the people of Vilnius that the Ukraine join the European Union, and not just for economic reasons. It seemed that for them, it would also bring stability to the Baltic countries, a stability that has not been there before.

The fact that a democratic, stable Ukraine was going to join the European Union was very important to them, to the Baltic countries located between the Ukraine and the rest of Europe. A democratic, stable Ukraine could influence the rest of eastern Europe. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.