CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 16, 1994
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 1419
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 1420
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1422
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1423
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1423
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1423
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1423
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1423
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1423
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1423
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1424
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1424
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1425
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1425
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1426
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1426
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 1428
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 1433
Bill C-215. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 1434
Bill C-216. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 1434
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1440
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1442
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1446
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 1449
Consideration resumed of the motion 1459
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 190; Nays, 51 1460
1419
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, February 16, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
address the issue of suggested changes to the registered
retirement savings plan and possible new taxes on employee
benefit plans.
I have received numerous letters and inquiries from
constituents in New Brunswick who are concerned about any
reduction in the amount of allowable contributions to their
RRSPs. These concerns are from small business owners and
professionals who rely on their RRSPs as they do not enjoy the
luxury of large corporate retirement savings plans.
To reduce or alter this plan would be a serious blow to these
Canadians who are already enduring difficult economic
conditions. The government must send a signal that it is
prepared to help small business owners and other self-employed
Canadians to prepare for their retirements.
By maintaining the amount Canadians are allowed to
contribute to their RRSPs the government will ensure these
Canadians have the opportunity to save adequately for their
retirements. This is especially important at a time when the
Canada pension program is under increasing strain.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate Jean-Luc Brassard from
my riding on his brilliant victory this morning in the free-style
skiing finals at the Lillehammer Olympic Games. Mr. Brassard
won the first Canadian gold medal. That is a glorious event for
this young Quebecer who, on many occasions, has been an
honour to Quebec and to Canada in several international
competitions. The people of Beauharnois-Salaberry are very
proud of the outstanding performances of this talented athlete.
His spirit and his determination will continue to inspire all
young Quebec and Canadian athletes.
On behalf of my constituents and on behalf of Quebec and
Canada, I would like to reiterate my most sincere
congratulations to Jean-Luc and wish him good luck for the rest
of his stay at the Olympic village.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, when governments propose to eliminate tax loopholes
they talk about soaking the rich. When the so-called loopholes
are then closed it is more likely the not so rich get the bite.
The finance minister wants to make the tax system more
equitable. Advice from his people says abolish deductions for
the business lunch. It might take money from modestly paid
travelling salesmen while devastating the often marginalized
food service industry.
Lowering the cap on RRSPs might deprive rich people of
some tax savings, but it would hit hard the lower and middle
class self-employed who have no company pension or union
contract plan.
Government bureaucrats can identify some loopholes, but
before they get too enthusiastic they should take a good look at
who exactly gets bitten.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, last
week I met with a group of individuals in Newmarket in my
riding of York-Simcoe. These individuals represent a diverse
economic and community interest and various political
ideologies in all parts of the riding. They express different
concerns and solutions to the financial and economic challenges
we face as a nation.
However, in spite of this they successfully reached a
consensus. This group of individuals concluded that Canadians
are willing to pay taxes for services which are delivered in an
effective and efficient way. They want value for their dollar.
1420
I urge the government, in its ambitious agenda for review and
renewal, to assess the cost effectiveness of all programs and
services the government delivers. It is imperative now more
than ever to assure Canadians that their hard earned tax dollars
are being spent wisely.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, it is
essential that the Canadian government continue to call for the
Mexican government to guarantee respect for human rights of
all its citizens, in particular for the people who were brutally
mistreated in the recent uprising in the Chiapas region.
(1405 )
The constituents of London-Middlesex were gravely
concerned with reports of torture and summary executions of
guerrilla combatants by government troops, and they condemn
the indiscriminate bombing by the military.
I join with my constituents in urging the Canadian
government to call on the Mexican government to respect the
presence of human rights organizations, to allow the bishops of
the area to mediate in the conflict and to act on the natives' call
for land reform.
Canada has a responsibility to ensure that the human rights of
the citizens of our new trading partner are respected. This can
only be guaranteed through continued monitoring by the
international community.
* * *
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, life
begins at the moment of conception and continues until natural
death.
Respect for life and the dignity of human suffering together
with the recognition of the moral, ethical and spiritual values is
well founded in both natural law and Canadian law.
The Criminal Code of Canada forbids aiding, counselling or
assisting suicide. This law does not merely exist to regulate our
behaviour. Rather, it articulates and symbolizes our values and
beliefs as a nation.
In recognition of all the heroic individuals who silently suffer
the physical pain and endure the emotional torments of this life
from day unto day until natural death, I demand that the existing
laws of the Criminal Code respecting assisted suicide be strictly
enforced to ensure that our nation's values and moral conscience
with respect to life not be fettered, for not to do so will create a
greater injustice to mankind than any human pain or suffering
could possibly inflict.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pride and great pleasure that I rise today in this House on my
own behalf and on behalf on my colleague from Saint-Jean to
stress the dazzling performance by skaters Isabelle Brasseur and
Lloyd Eisler who won the bronze medal in the pairs figure
skating category yesterday at the Lillehammer Olympic Games.
Isabelle Brasseur and Lloyd Eisler were bronze medallists at
the Albertville Olympic Games, have been the Canadian
champions for several years and hold the world champions title.
Their impressive record is due to their exceptionally hard work
and determination.
After giving this wonderful performance and winning this
beautiful medal, Isabelle Brasseur and Lloyd Eisler are now
putting an end to their successful career at the amateur level.
These two champions, who train at the Haute Performance
Centre in Boucherville, will now enter a professional career that
promises to be as successful.
To these two champions who thrilled Quebec and Canada and
who so often filled us with pride, and earned our admiration, I
say congratulations and good luck on behalf of Quebec and
Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin I would like to
congratulate the athletes representing Canada at the winter
Olympics at Lillehammer, Norway and wish them great success.
It is unfortunate, however, that a world class athlete from
Quesnel, British Columbia, was not given the opportunity to
participate in this prestigious sporting event because of a tough
new qualification policy.
Tony Fiala has dedicated his whole life to preparing for
competition. In the 1991-92 season he scored first overall in
Canada and second overall in the North American biathlon.
Canada's qualifications standards are not based on an overall
record which would place him at the top but by a two occasion
showing with a standard much higher than that required by most
other countries fielding competitors.
Tony Fiala may not be winning any medals at Lillehammer,
Norway, but to the people of Quesnel and throughout British
Columbia, Tony Fiala is a winner all the way.
1421
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance may well have to revise his budget forecast
to take account of the bounty of precious metals that Canadians
are bringing home from Norway.
Isabelle Brasseur and Lloyd Eisler turned in an astounding
performance in pairs figure skating last night to earn a bronze
medal for Canada.
[Translation]
First to ``break the ice'', these two young athletes have put on
a performance worthy of the greatest skaters of our times. They
displayed an exemplary calm and a strong determination.
Isabelle and Lloyd deserve our recognition and our admiration.
This morning, Canadians had another reason to be proud.
Jean-Luc Brassard, from Grande-Île, Quebec, took the honours,
winning for Canada the gold medal in the free-style moguls
competition. The Canadian team had much hope for this young
21 year-old athlete. He took up the challenge with unrivalled
talent and command.
(1410)
[English]
I join the Minister of Canadian Heritage and all Canadians in
congratulating the latest crop of Canadian Olympic medal
winners.
* * *
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to bring to the attention of the House that the composite
leading index rose by .08 in January, matching its revised
growth rate for December. It is noteworthy that these gains are
the highest since the index began its recovery in 1991.
An upward trend in the index points to better economic times
ahead. Most economists expect stronger growth in 1994.
Statistics Canada reported that the leading indicator is
heading in the right direction. The acceleration in recent months
has been the result principally of a continental upturn and the
buoyancy in the stock markets.
Manufacturing demands have been steady. New orders
recorded a third straight increase despite the effect of temporary
plant closings in the auto industry. At the same time, shipments
to stocks ratio continue to improve, rising to the highest level
since the data series began in early 1952.
The stockmarket soared to new all time records in January,
accelerating from 1.6 per cent growth to 2.1 per cent growth at a
time of falling interest rates.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur): Mr.
Speaker, over the last years, Canadians living in rural areas have
been badly hurt by the closure or the reduction in services of
thousands of rural post offices.
When he took office, the minister declared a moratorium
which has been extended and is still in force.
[English]
The closures of rural post offices were a blatant attack on rural
Canada. I would like to congratulate the minister for the
leadership he has shown on the issue. This moratorium is an
important first step.
[Translation]
I urge the minister to direct Canada Post Corporation to
immediately drop its policy with respect to the closure of rural
post offices. It is time to rectify that flagrant mistake for the
sake of the rural areas of our country.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, regional
economic recovery is an absolute priority for all Quebecers and
Canadians.
I would like to mention two cases in my region of Abitibi,
where companies are acting responsibly in this regard. They are
Forpan and Agnico Eagle, in Val-d'Or. Forpan will invest $8.3
million to increase the capacity of its particle board plant by 25
per cent. Through this investment, the company will increase its
competitiveness on the international market and preserve jobs in
the region.
Agnico Eagle will invest $13 million and provide jobs for
some 40 workers during the next two years in mining
exploration.
These are two concrete examples of economic recovery
activities undertaken by energetic entrepreneurs capitalizing on
the region's potential.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, our nation was
founded and has prospered on such principles as hard work and
self-reliance. Traditionally we have rewarded men and women
who start and maintain small businesses by their sweat and
sacrifice.
Now our finance minister awash in debt from years of
government overspending is talking of removing another small
business privilege, the ability to put aside one's own resources
to finance one's retirement.
1422
Through such policies this government is not only
encouraging but forcing citizens in Canada to be dependent on
government handouts. RRSPs allow private citizens to plan for
their own retirements without government aid. That is how
Canada can continue to prosper.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, the members of the Reform Party seem to take great
pleasure in tabling petitions asking for a national referendum on
bilingualism.
When he tabled his petition the other day, an hon. member of
that party declared that the official language policy is creating
dissension. Another member of the same party maintained that
there was too much French in the national capital. He added that
everything would go faster in Parliament if less French were
spoken.
We now have two separatist political parties in the House: one
that wants territorial separation; the other that wants language
separation. Both go against the Constitution and against
Canadian unity.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, illiteracy is an everyday reality for many Canadians. It
is estimated that one in four Canadians has little or no literacy
skills.
I am pleased that Guelph-Wellington has several groups
committed to ending illiteracy.
Illiteracy crosses all income brackets and costs an estimated
$14 billion annually, both directly and indirectly. We know that
job creation is the key to our economic renewal. However, with
little or no literacy skills the task of retraining for some will be
impossible.
More important, the social and economic ramifications of this
silent disability are tremendous and the amount of lost potential
is staggering.
I urge this government to continue to make literacy a priority.
We must help illiterate Canadians acquire the skills to ensure
that they will become the best that they can be. We need to make
literacy a fundamental right for all Canadians.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would draw your attention to
the clock. It is now 2.14 p.m. and we have all of the statements
in. I think that is a good practice and I want to thank all hon.
members who were kind enough to give their statements to the
interpreters. It does help a great deal and I want to thank them
for that.
1422
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Solicitor General had to admit there were links
between organized crime and cigarette smuggling networks, in
connection with weapons and drug trafficking operations on
Mohawk reserves.
He also contradicted himself by first admitting that certain
people had cancelled RCMP anti-drug operations and then
claiming there were no no go zones for the police in Canadian
territory.
How can the Prime Minister insist that the law is enforced
evenhandedly across Canada when yesterday Mr. Claude
Lessard, the RCMP spokesman in Quebec, stated that the RCMP
was not on the reserves, despite the fact that the reserves are said
to play a major role in illegal trafficking in alcohol, drugs and
cigarettes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
about the police presence on the reserves: there are three police
forces. There is the Mohawk police force which is locally
recognized and controlled by the aboriginal authorities. There is
the provincial police, which has jurisdiction because it was
given the former powers of the RCMP and which must do its job
there as it does elsewhere. The third one is the federal police
which is concerned with smuggling. The federal police is doing
its job at this very moment.
According to our information, cigarette smuggling in Quebec
has decreased considerably. If we can break up the cigarette
smuggling networks, we can break up the others as well. I am
convinced the police are doing a good job. We have always told
the police they can go anywhere across Canada to do their job.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the government keeps changing its story. For a long
time the government said, as it just said today through the Prime
Minister, that the law is enforced everywhere, that the RCMP
goes everywhere in Canada and that those are the government's
instructions.
Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister used the word
``hesitations'', when he said he had never heard there were no go
zones until it was said the police had some hesitations.
I want to ask the Prime Minister to explain what kind of
hesitations he was referring to. Are these hesitations caused by
the government's lack of political will?
1423
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
this nation has been facing this problem of contraband for the
past four years. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
was asking questions here in the House when the Leader of the
Opposition was with the government and nothing was being
done. When I asked for a report on that, it said that there was
some hesitation. I said there should be no hesitation. I said to the
RCMP: ``You do your job everywhere in Canada'', and that is
exactly what they are doing today.
(1420 )
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker I would like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us whether
or not he confirms the allegation expressed yesterday by Chief
Jerry Peltier according to which the government is on the brink
of launching a massive major operation in Kanesatake.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): The answer,
Mr. Speaker, is no.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, with his
retirement only a few days away, the commanding officer of the
RCMP in Quebec had the following comments to make and I
quote: ``We did not want to create social chaos over a few
cartons of cigarettes, but the negotiations never amounted to
anything and smuggling increased without anyone taking
action.''
My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: How can he
reconcile the comments of the commanding officer of the RCMP
in Quebec with his own statements, when he asked us to name
names, ostensibly because the RCMP did not have enough
evidence to intervene?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have nothing further to add. We delivered a very clear statement
in the House last Tuesday. The police are doing their job and
cigarette smuggling networks in Canada are in the process of
disappearing.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, for over a
month now, the Prime Minister has been telling this House that
the RCMP can enforce the law anywhere in Canada, that there
are no ``no go'' zones and that the law applies equally to
everyone.
What is the Prime Minister's reaction to comments by the
commanding officer of the RCMP in Quebec to the effect that
politicians, out of fear, never succeeded in negotiating with the
natives on this issue and as a result, cigarette smuggling spread
throughout the reserves?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should realize that for the last three months the
country has had a new government. He is talking about when his
colleague was a member of the previous administration.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The government said previously said that its target for deficit
reduction is to get the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP or down to
about $23 billion for 1996-97.
Is this still the government's deficit target, the target that
Canadians should have in mind when they read the deficit
figures in the budget next week?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
that is what was written in the red book, so that will be the target.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
The government has implied that it wants to broaden the tax
base to achieve greater equity but not to increase the total tax
burden on Canadians. Is this still the primary objective of the
government's tax policy, the objective that Canadians should
have in mind when they analyse the tax changes in the budget
next week?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am wondering what kind of question the hon. member will have
next week.
We will have the budget next Tuesday and he will have all
these answers.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question was whether or not that was still the objective. My
second supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
The government has stated time and time again that job
creation is its highest priority and that its economic policies
should be judged first and foremost on their impact on jobs.
Is this still the government's highest priority, the one that
Canadians should have in mind when they analyse the job
impact of the budget next week?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we started before the budget when we put in place the
infrastructure program that was to create jobs. There are other
programs of the same nature in the red book.
If the hon. member wants to know what our objectives are, he
should read the red book again.
1424
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, the people
of the entire Mohawk territory are being terrorized by a few
armed offenders. The
Globe and Mail reported today that Chief
Debbie Thomas from the Akwesasne Reserve had repeatedly
asked the federal government to hold an inquiry into the violent
or unexplained death of 75 people since 1979, and all these facts
were corroborated by the Mohawk Police Chief, Mr. Brian
David.
Does the Solicitor General not agree that it is high time that
the RCMP answer the call of citizens terrorized by a handful of
dangerous criminals?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the crimes that the hon. member is talking about are matters
coming under the Criminal Code which is enforced by the police
of local jurisdiction.
In this case, as the article points out, it is the Mohawk police
supported by the Ontario Provincial Police. The mounted police
will be happy to give them assistance but it is the primary
responsibility of the local Mohawk police and the Ontario
Provincial Police.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, in view of
how widespread the problem is on Mohawk territory, can the
Solicitor General tell us if he has specifically instructed the
RCMP to work closely with the Mohawk police to put an end to
violence on these territories?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have already explained that the crimes of violence the hon.
member is talking about are matters coming under the
jurisdiction of the Mohawk police and the Ontario Provincial
Police.
If the member had looked into the matter further he would
have realized there has been a joint strike force involving the
mounted police, the Ontario Provincial Police and other local
police forces working in the area for several months. I wish he
would recognize that before jumping to wrong conclusions from
reading that newspaper article.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Liberal premier of New Brunswick committed
his government to a balanced budget, an achievement unheard of
in federal Liberal circles.
Will the Prime Minister take a lesson from his Liberal
colleague in New Brunswick and finally commit this
government to achieving a balanced budget by the end of this
Parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we have to understand that New Brunswick has had the privilege
of having six years of good Liberal government.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): I think, Mr. Speaker, that
was an item for debate, not an answer to the question.
The Speaker: Order. It is not that I disagree at all, but I
wonder if the member would put his question.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is
for the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister is going to achieve a balanced budget
eventually, and the red book states that the government will do it
in three years which will require an $8 billion a year reduction,
will we see that in the budget coming down next week?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member should read the red book again. His leader
referred accurately to the fact that we said we had a goal to
reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GNP at the end of the third year
of our mandate. We never said a balanced budget.
If the member wanted a balanced budget, it would have been
better for him to have voted for the provincial Liberal Party in
Alberta in the last election.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, we
heard this morning that the ceasefire declared in Sarajevo is in
big trouble. According to some sources, the Bosnian Serbs have
refused to withdraw their heavy artillery aimed at the Bosnian
capital.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Can the
minister tell us whether it is true that the Bosnian Serbs are
refusing to withdraw their heavy artillery from around Sarajevo
just a few days before the deadline set by NATO?
1425
(1430)
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that NATO's
proposals will be carried out. There is, of course, some
resistance from soldiers unwilling to follow the directives of
political representatives, but the Serb, Muslim and Croatian
authorities have assured us of the desire to reach a negotiated
peace. We hope that political will prevail over the stubbornness
of a few soldiers in the field.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to what the minister of defence promised on January
13, Canadian peacekeepers in Srebrenica have not been relieved
within the 30-day deadline. Are we to understand that they will
not be relieved by Dutch troops before the deadline set by
NATO?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I want to assure this House that the procedures put in
place to allow Dutch troops to relieve Canadian peacekeepers
are moving slowly but surely. Over 15 Dutch soldiers and
representatives are already in Srebrenica. The military
equipment needed by the troops is already in Split and we think
that, in the next few days or weeks, the troops will be relieved as
agreed between the parties.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Prime Minister confirmed he would allow a free
vote in this House on the issue of physician assisted suicide.
Does the Prime Minister mean by a free vote that a member of
this House has the freedom to vote according to the member's
wishes or beliefs, or that the member will vote according to the
wishes of the member's constituents?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
in the House of Commons there is only one vote, that of the
member. The member will vote according to his or her
conscience. That is all.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his answer.
However, it does not satisfy me.
Euthanasia was not an issue in the election last fall. Yesterday
the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell told Radio
Canada that he will vote his own belief on this issue rather than
those of his constituents.
Will the Prime Minister allow all Canadians to freely vote
their own beliefs on this deeply personal issue at the next
election in a national referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we were elected to use our best judgment. On a couple of
occasions, when I voted on abortion and on capital punishment,
I knew I was voting according to my own judgment and it was
not very popular in my riding.
We are elected and as members of Parliament we have the
privilege to attend committees to discuss matters freely. We
then make up our own minds and the people can replace us at
election time.
This notion that we should be replaced by polling is revolting
to me. We are elected to use our best judgment. If the member
thinks she cannot do that, be recalled.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, on May 5,
1993, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was then in
the opposition, stated that the government was violating the
basic right of the people to adequate and decent housing and
demanded that it ``act as soon as possible to save the social
housing and co-operative housing program in Canada''.
(1435)
Can the member, now Minister of Foreign Affairs, tell us
whether he has acted as strongly as he was advocating less than a
year ago and approached his colleague, the Minister of Finance,
to that effect?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether
the question is appropriate because the subject matter will be
dealt with later in the day as an opposition motion.
I wish to inform the hon. member that all my colleagues on
this side of the House have immense interest in the subject
matter of social housing. We have been working diligently with
the Minister of Finance, as we have been working with other
levels of governments, both provincial and municipal, to
determine new ways of finding additional moneys in order to
address the serious problem of social housing.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I must tell the hon. member, before she asks her
next question, that I allowed the minister to answer the question,
even though we are going to have a debate on this this afternoon.
Your supplementary, please.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, before the
budget preparation is over, can the Minister of Public Works
1426
assure us that he will address the concerns of 1.2 million low
income Canadian tenants who are in urgent need of affordable
and adequate housing?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, the only assurance I can
give the hon. member is one of honesty.
The honest assessment of the housing situation is such that we
will have to work within the fiscal means of the Government of
Canada, just like in the province of Quebec, just like in the
province of Ontario, and just like in the province of British
Columbia. All governments are wrestling with the issues of
social housing.
We are working co-operatively in the federation to try to find
additional moneys in co-operation with the Minister of Finance
in order to address some of those serious issues which not only
affect residents in the province of Quebec, but right across this
country.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The key to a successful anti-smoking education campaign
will be a blueprint developed by the government in partnership
with the health community.
What steps will the minister take to ensure that a nation-wide
network of health volunteers, professionals and organizations
are actively utilized in the design, implementation and
monitoring of such a campaign? What new regulatory
framework does the minister envision to give the Government of
Canada greater control over cigarette manufacturers and thereby
safeguard the health of Canadians at all times?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
tabled a four point plan to combat smuggling. Part of that was a
very extensive program to counter smoking especially among
young people or populations at risk.
One of the things that happened immediately on the day we
announced this four point plan was the proclamation of the act
which prohibits the sale of tobacco to young people. This week
we have been circulating regulations in order that all vendors
and all places where vending machines are in place are advised
of the requirements of the act.
We will continue to work diligently at preparing the kind of
legislation and regulations that will go a long way in preventing
young people from taking up this habit which is terribly bad for
their health.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
As the minister knows, international companies with
subsidiaries in Canada establish prices for transferring goods
and services between them. This is known as transfer pricing.
Although the finance department is attempting to clarify the
rules for establishing these prices there is still the question of
tax fairness as profits can be internally adjusted.
This government says it is concerned about increasing its
revenues. In order to create more equity in the tax system would
the minister commit to investigating tax losses from transfer
pricing and report to the House his plan to access that lost
revenue?
(1440)
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Aspects of
tax revenue and what we receive are under constant and careful
monitoring by my department and of course by officials of the
Department of Finance.
I would like to inform the hon. member that we are pleased
she has come forward in this House to point out there may be tax
inequities which my colleague the Minister of Finance will
address next week in the budget.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question. By issuing a press release on January 7
urging Canadian taxpayers and companies to encourage
compatible transfer pricing methods, the government
recognizes there is a problem.
Will the minister commit to developing legislation for
transfer pricing to ensure these corporations pay their fair share
of taxes?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member, her party and all other parties in the
House can be assured that is an objective, to ensure there is
fairness not only in this particular area of taxation but in others.
I will give a little more information on this. There are
differing theories of how to tax international corporations and at
what point. We do have some differences with the Americans in
this regard. It is a matter not only for my department and the
Department of Finance to work on, but also for other colleagues
to deal with the Americans and other countries to make sure we
establish a system which is not only fair from a national point of
view but is also workable in international economic affairs.
1427
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. We have learned that the
American companies responsible for the problems caused by
breast implants are about to pay an amount of $4.75 billion 97
per cent of which will go to American women who represent
only 50 per cent of the victims. All other victims, Canadians
included, will have to make do with whatever is left.
Could the Minister of Health tell us if she took all necessary
measures so that Canadian women have their say in this decision
which will concern them most directly?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
are following this very closely. We would like to stress the fact
that Canadian women interested in this issue can receive all the
information they need simply by contacting the Department of
Health.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, since the
minister seems so sure of herself, can she explain why Mark
Steven, a lawyer representing an important women's group,
declared that women in Canada were being swindled?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
all have a right to our own opinions and I do not want to
comment on what others might think. I can only assure you that
this question is of utmost importance for us. Personally, the
health of Canadian women is one of my priorities, it is an issue
close to my heart. I will make sure my department does
everything in its power so that Canadian women are treated
fairly.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
The Canadian Federation of Municipalities represents an
important level of government and is especially sensitive to
local concerns. The federation recently recommended to the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples that municipalities
must be a party to the negotiations of land claims and aboriginal
self-government.
Will the minister assure the House that local governments will
be invited to participate in future negotiations?
(1445 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): As a point of law, Mr. Speaker, local
municipalities are creatures of the province. However, in the
spirit of these negotiations, because municipalities are
concerned about zoning where they abut aboriginal lands and
economic development where it affects both the municipalities
and the First Nations, I put forward, as a statement not as a
policy, that where possible municipalities should be invited in
an open and transparent mode so they will know exactly what is
happening, and they will know exactly where they fit into the
mosaic. Generally this has been accepted by many of the mayors
I have talked to across the country.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his answer. I
would ask him to insist that Stewart, B.C. be brought into the
negotiations in northwestern British Columbia.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Again, Mr. Speaker, although I do not like the
term because I was once a mayor, municipalities are creatures of
the provinces, the direct jurisdiction between the province and
the municipality.
Any municipality that is interested is invited to listen and to
participate from Yukon down through B.C. As a matter of fact I
was talking to a B.C. mayor last night as a result of a suggestion
from one of the Reform members. I think the system will work.
It has to work because we have no other options.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Canadians will remember that in the red book the Liberal
Party, now the government, made a commitment to reduce
defence spending. This will have an impact on Canadian forces
bases and the surrounding communities across the country.
As an MP from Saskatchewan, I am deeply concerned about
the future of our bases, particularly our primary base, CFB
Moose Jaw, wing 15.
Could the minister inform the House what progress has been
made toward achieving fiscal responsibility and efficiency in
the area of defence?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her question. I know she is greatly
concerned about the future of CFB Moose Jaw.
1428
I have answered the general question many times and I think
she has a good understanding of the problems the government
is confronted with in dealing with its deficit and in trying to
get military spending rationalized.
I cannot give her any assurances today except to say that I am
very much aware of the regional problems that may be caused as
a result of the closure of any one facility. I am mindful of the
difficult situation Saskatchewan has found itself in.
Beyond that the member and the other members of the House
will just have to wait a little bit longer until we make our
statement.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, recently the
National Capital Commission invited all architects in Canada to
submit bids for the restoration or renovation of the official
residences of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition, as well as the summer cottage at Harrington Lake
and the residence of the Speaker of the House.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House what amounts will be
spent for the renovation of each of these residences?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the
minister I would like to take the hon. member's comments as
representations and report back to the House at a later stage.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, regarding the
residence of the Leader of the Opposition, how can the Minister
of Public Works explain that money will be spent to renovate
this residence when the Leader of the Opposition has
deliberately chosen not to live in it in order to save taxpayers
money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not have any idea why. I do not think the Leader of the
Opposition made his decision out of generosity. Actually, the
platform of the Bloc Quebecois stated that its leader could not
live on the Ottawa side.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1450)
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Justice.
Do lawbreakers shop for their weapons after participating in a
gun safety program and receiving firearm acquisition
certificates?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I have some
difficulty with the question. I take it my friend's question refers
to the value of firearm acquisition certificates and training
courses.
Let me use this as an opportunity to say in response, if that is
what my friend intended to ask, that both the training courses
and the application requirements for the certificates are, as the
hon. member knows, intended to demonstrate the kind of
controls we need for dangerous weapons, the determination of
the Canadian people to ensure we have proper gun control and
the responsibility of government to ensure the safety of our
citizens.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question. The minister did not catch the gist of
my question at all.
Will the minister explain to the House why gun control
measures are largely directed toward honest citizens instead of
the criminal elements in our society?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned
that we avoid having firearms in the hands of those with
criminal intent and to ensure the safe use of firearms which are
owned lawfully.
Let me point out that the vast majority of deaths that occur by
firearms in Canada each year occur through suicide. It is terribly
important that those who lawfully own guns store, maintain and
deal with them safely and prudently so they are not taken by
someone who has the intent to do harm to themselves. The
courses which were designed and are now in place are intended
to achieve that.
We are after two things: making sure criminals do not have
firearms and making sure those who have them lawfully deal
with them safely.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
1429
On Saturday, February 12, the Quebec City daily Le Soleil
reported that the mayors of the Magdalen Islands were putting
on pressure for a new ferry. The same newspaper reported the
next day that the Premier of Quebec was urging the federal
government to give the work of building the new Magdalen
Islands ferry to MIL Davie. This would kill two birds with one
stone by reviving the MIL Davie shipyard and providing the
Magdalen Islanders with the ferry they need.
Can the minister tell us today whether he is still considering
buying a used European ferry as a serious alternative, even
though it would create no employment here and its performance
in the ice-bound St. Lawrence is questionable?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the government has a responsibility to provide service between
Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands and we will
meet this commitment to the people who have long been asking
for a ship to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery.
As for building or buying a ship, this is a decision for the
government, and we have not yet made a final decision. We are
looking at all the possibilities. But the main objective is to
provide a safe and efficient service to people travelling between
Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell us today, now, although he answered the same
question I put to him on January 26, when he intends to make a
decision on this?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
as far as the decision affecting mainly the Magdalen Islanders is
concerned, we know that they need a ship to replace the Lucy
Maud Montgomery. We will try to come up with a solution.
Of course, the question raised by the hon. member as to
whether the ship will be built or bought is one of the criteria to
be considered in reaching a decision.
(1455)
It is a very complicated process. I met with the Quebec
Minister of Industry, Mr. Tremblay, and we are discussing the
whole issue in order to come up with the best possible solution,
taking into account the needs of the Magdalen Islanders and of
travellers and also our responsibilities to Canadian taxpayers.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
In a letter sent to the office of the Prime Minister on Monday
of this week the chair of Market Choices Alliance, made up of
several farm groups from western Canada, reminded you of
your June 9, 1993 promise to call-
The Speaker: Perhaps the member would rephrase the
question.
Mr. Benoit: -reminded the Prime Minister of a promise to
call a producer plebiscite on the continental barley market issue
and to honour the result. The continental barley market would
allow farmers and grain marketing companies to compete with
the Canadian Wheat Board in North American markets.
Will the Prime Minister honour his commitment to hold this
plebiscite and if so when?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
The quotations referred to which were attributed to the Prime
Minister could have been attributed to me and to other members
on this side. They were made in the context of an action taken by
the previous government to remove barley, at least in part, from
the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Subsequently the
action was proved to be without legal authority and the subject
of a court challenge. The court eventually held that the conduct
of the previous government was outside the jurisdiction of the
Canadian Wheat Board Act.
It was in the context of the legal dispute that we made our
remarks about a year ago now, or last summer, in respect of the
desirability of a plebiscite.
Having said that, we are not philosophically opposed to a
plebiscite or to the proposition that was put forward by the farm
groups referred to in the hon. member's question.
I would caution the hon. member and those farm
organizations that we all need to think through very carefully
both the procedures and the implications of a plebiscite with
respect to this particular farm marketing issue because it is not
quite as simple as those who might raise this proposition would
lead some to believe.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker,
the other day an article in the Ottawa
Citizen stated that Canada
Post recently awarded an Australian firm a contract to produce
Canadian stamps.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services. Could the minister explain to the House
the reasons behind this contract being awarded to a foreign
country?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank
the hon. member for his excellent and, I might add, unexpected
question.
1430
I wish to inform him and all other hon. members that the
company supplying Canada Post with the quality material went
bankrupt and as a result Canada Post had to go offshore.
The hon. member should be apprised that 57 per cent of
Canada Post's printing requirements are done by Canadian
suppliers. I can assure the hon. member we are continuing to
work with Canada Post as well as Industry Canada to ensure that
the remaining 43 per cent which comes from offshore will come
from Canadian suppliers in the not too distant future.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the minister of agriculture or Minister of Transport.
Last August the previous government began dismantling the
Crow benefit portion of the Western Grain Transportation Act
by cutting it by 10 per cent. It proposed further cuts over four
years which would see the Crow disappear completely.
Since rents and farmland values are being forced down by this
policy, making the refinancing of a diversified western economy
more difficult, if not impossible, will the government fully
reinstate the Crow benefit in perpetuity?
(1500 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
unaccustomed as I am to taking the same line as the Minister of
Finance, I think my hon. friend will have to wait for the budget
to get the answers to questions regarding the Crow and a number
of other questions we are all waiting with bated breath to have
answered.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue. On February
11 last, I called the attention of this House to the case of the
young Patrick Tremblay who is fighting a severe form of cancer.
This young man has to undergo expensive treatment available
only in Texas.
To raise money to pay for his treatment, a foundation has been
set up. This foundation, we are told, will go on helping other
people in a similar situation after Patrick is cured.
Unfortunately, the Department of National Revenue is delaying
granting the accreditation application that would enable this
foundation to issue income tax receipts.
My question is the following: Is the minister aware that any
further delay in accrediting such a foundation is endangering not
only Mr. Tremblay's life but also the lives of all Quebecers and
Canadians who suffer from the same disease and who could
benefit from the assistance provided by this foundation?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, the issue is a very important and serious one
particularly for the family involved.
The department is faced with the problem of the very tight
legal requirements put on it by this House and of course by
legislation. I will however attempt to see what I can do. In due
course I hope to be able to report to the hon. member a decision
one way or the other.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I have an
unexpected question for the Minister of Justice. It concerns the
mercy applications under section 690 of the Criminal Code
which pertains to applications for new trials by convicted
Canadians.
As the minister knows, it has taken as long as four years for
his department to process and decide on such applications. In
view of this would the minister consider a review of the process
within his department in order to expedite these applications?
Would the minister give consideration to adopting the
recommendations made by the royal commission of inquiry into
the Donald Marshall case?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, a review of the process
surrounding the section 690 applications is presently under way
in the Ministry of Justice. We are taking a close look at the
recommendations of the Marshall inquiry.
We will be announcing in the next few months changes in the
system to ensure that all such applications are dealt with fairly
and as quickly as possible.
I should point out one thing. While it is true some of the
applications in recent years have taken an extended period, I
have examined the records and they show that in those cases
counsel for the applicant was making additional submissions
sometimes with new evidence. Therefore those working on the
application had to take that new material into account which
delayed the process.
I do agree we should process them as quickly as possible in
the interests of fairness and justice. We do have it under review.
I will be happy to report to the House when we have come to our
conclusions.
1431
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville
rose on a question of privilege and made submissions with
regard to certain allegations that have been made.
He indicated when he rose on his question of privilege that he
wished to clarify an issue, and I am quoting from Hansard at
page 1387: ``that has become a subject of debate not only in this
Chamber but also across the nation''.
The member stated: ``This has impeded my ability to function
effectively and efficiently as the member of Parliament for the
riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville''. Later on in his
submission he stated: ``I invite my colleagues in the House to
examine my academic credentials and weigh the accusations in a
rational and judicious manner''.
Mr. Speaker, I confirm that you and I had a discussion earlier
this day with regard to this particular matter. I understand you
are presently considering the question of privilege raised by the
hon. member.
I indicated to you that I wished to make submissions on this
question of privilege. Therefore I wish to ask you to defer your
decision on this matter pending an opportunity for me and other
members, if they so wish and desire, to make submissions as to
why this particular unfortunate matter has affected the
privileges of each of us individually and the House as a whole.
(1505 )
As you know, Mr. Speaker, you will be called upon when a
matter of privilege is raised to simply determine whether it is a
matter of privilege and whether to allow a motion to go forward
recommending a particular course of action.
I wish to give notice of my intention to move a motion. If you
so decide there is a breach of privilege, I wish to move a motion
that the matters affecting the hon. member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville be referred to the
elections and privileges standing committee. The committee
would then have the authority to investigate the allegations
against the hon. member. The committee would have the
authority to hear and I would submit-
The Speaker: Order. Colleagues, I have not yet made a
decision as to whether our hon. colleague does indeed have a
prima facie case of privilege.
I will probably rule tomorrow but if I deem it necessary it may
take some extra time. I want to make sure I consider all aspects
of this submission which have been put forward. When I have
decided, I will come back to the House and give my ruling at that
time.
Following the ruling we will then proceed in an orderly
fashion as to whether or not the House indeed wants to consider
anything further in the matter of privilege.
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like the opportunity as a
member of the House to make submissions in advance of your
ruling.
I believe that members of Parliament have been affected by
this matter. We have certainly received telephone calls and
letters. I simply wish and I would like you to confirm that I will
have the opportunity to make submissions to you in advance of
your decision.
The Speaker: I take the request under advisement. I will
make a decision on this request as well as on the question of
privilege and will come back to the House at the earliest possible
time.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am
a new member. Would the Speaker please clarify for the House
whether this would be a question of privilege? I thought a
question of privilege was regarding a personal matter. This does
not seem to follow that qualification according to my
understanding of the standing orders.
The Speaker: The Chair will indeed make a ruling on the
question of privilege which is before the House at this time. The
Chair will also consider the request put forward by the member
for York South-Weston.
When I have made that decision on behalf of the House I will
come back and report to the House at the earliest possible time.
_____________________________________________
1431
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the government believes
that a healthy economy can and must flow from a healthy
environment.
We owe it to our children to preserve and enhance the
extraordinary environment with which we have been blessed. In
doing so we can and must set the foundation for a whole new era
of economic growth. We owe it to our children to explore the
competitive advantage which a commitment to the environment
will bring.
All of us have to change our behaviour in big and small ways
beginning here in government. Individual Canadians have
already been doing that in their own lives.
1432
The challenge for us in Parliament is to find means of
accelerating the move toward sustainable development. That is
why the government stated in the throne speech that the concept
of sustainable development will become an integral part of
government policies.
[Translation]
Our Parliament must be a leader when it comes to protecting
our environment, preventing pollution and promoting
environmental industries. We must take the lead by making the
government more ecologically sensitive.
We must understand that government policies have an
important bearing on people's attitude. Depending on the
approach adopted by Parliament, Canada will or will not become
a world leader in sustainable development.
(1510)
[English]
The blunt fact is that we can only succeed if we forge a
partnership with all Canadians. Our government must set an
example and must show leadership. We cannot do it alone. We
need to work in partnership and in harmony with the provinces
and territories, with labour and environmental groups and
business. Most of all, we have to tap the talent and goodwill of
individual Canadians.
We will only reach our goal of combining a strong economy
with a strong environment when we include every Canadian in
that effort.
Today, in that spirit of reaching out, in that spirit of inclusion,
I am pleased to announce that the government will fulfil another
red book commitment, our decision to proclaim the act to
establish the national round table on the environment and the
economy.
Parliament voted to establish the round table as a 25-person
body composed of a broadly representative membership from
across the country. It must reflect the need for concerted action
in all areas of Canada if we are to achieve sustainable
development.
The round table's purpose is to act as a catalyst in identifying,
explaining and promoting the principles and practices we must
adopt if we are to meet the needs of our generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to live in a clean
environment.
[Translation]
This round table can do research on critical aspects of
sustainable development. It will provide useful advice to every
sector in our country regarding ways to integrate environmental
and economic considerations into decisions and actions. In my
opinion, the round table can especially facilitate the creation of
a partnership to make sustainable development a concrete
reality in Canada.
In order to have this partnership, we must ensure that people
have confidence in our innovative process, and we must give
them the opportunity to fully participate. As well, we must take
into account the opinions and interests of everyone, and a real
commitment to reach a consensus is also necessary.
The round-table process has proven successful in Canada,
and other countries are also using it. Indeed, a good number of
provincial and local round tables have managed to solve
sensitive and contentious issues by way of a consensus.
The national round table must have a strong legislative
mandate to fully play its role of catalyst and promoter regarding
environmental and economic issues. I am very pleased that the
Prime Minister himself has agreed to chair this round table.
[English]
Membership on the round table on the environment and the
economy must provide the links we need with communities,
regions and provinces that are already taking creative ideas and
translating them into practical solutions. The round table can
and should involve Canadians at all levels of society, Canadians
who can contribute to our collective goal of sustainable
development by reaching out and motivating others to take
action.
Openings on the round table will soon be published in the
Canada Gazette, but here and now I want to ask interested
members of Parliament to include applications from interested
Canadians. In addition, I would be pleased to receive direct
suggestions from members of Parliament on the balanced
membership of the round table.
Through its unique character and make-up the round table is
well positioned to seek new and pragmatic solutions to the
problems facing our country and the world. The national round
table can play a lead role in the current efforts to develop a
sustainable framework for Canada.
Through this act we are effectively charging the round table
with becoming a real agent for change in Canada.
[Translation]
We must find innovative and sensible ways of making Canada
a leader in sustainable development. Together, we must find
ways of changing how we think and particularly how we act.
Sustainable development must become an every day reality. Mr.
Speaker, I am disturbed when I see that even the Government of
Canada ignores our own environmental capabilities in its policy.
What we are doing here in this House should be a signal to all
Canadian governments to follow suit.
(1515)
Each and every one of us is responsible for the prosperity of
our economy and the cleanness of our environment. All of us,
federalists as well as separatists, are responsible for our future.
This is why we must give all Canadians an opportunity to
express themselves and to get involved. In this sense, the
government's decision to table an act creating the national round
1433
table on the environment and the economy is an important step,
and I urge hon. members to sit at that table and to get involved.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the Minister of the Environment for giving us the text of
her minister's statement at around 10 o'clock this morning.
The National Round Table on the Environment and the
Economy Act was finally proclaimed today, after being tabled in
the House in April 1992 and receiving royal assent in June 1993.
This round table, the purpose of which is to merge the
environment and the economy, was inspired by the concept of
sustainable development. It is clear that whatever our political
affiliations, as the minister said earlier, whether we are
sovereigntists or federalists, we all breathe the same air and
drink the same water. We are all concerned about the impact
poor environmental management may have on our quality of
life. And we are even more aware of the impact our present
actions and decisions may have on the lives of future
generations.
Not to support this legislation would be a sign of bad faith.
And I am therefore very pleased, as is the Bloc Quebecois, and
as were all opposition parties at the time, to see the government
go ahead with this concept for obtaining intelligent advice from
various sources.
However, as the Liberals and the NDP pointed out at the time,
some aspects of this legislation are not clear or are at least open
to question. The corporation's operational structure allows it to
work with a measure of independence. However, there is always
the possibility that the table will have ties with the government,
since its chairperson and members are appointed by the
Governor in Council.
Earlier, the Minister of the Environment announced that the
Prime Minister had agreed to chair the round table. If the
minister is considering applications, I would be glad to oblige, if
you agree, that is-
Ms. Copps: Pierre-Marc Johnson is vice-chairperson.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Yes, he is a good choice. He
would have made a good chairperson.
Mr. Ménard: We know him.
Ms. Copps: Yes, I know.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): So the corporation's operational
structure allows it to work with a measure of independence, but
there is always the possibility that the table may have ties with
the government, since its members are appointed by the
Governor in Council.
(1520)
However, I think the government is very much aware of this
aspect, since it was involved in the debate on this legislation,
and I am sure it will find a way to deal with this.
The government is comfortable with this legislation since
under the Conservatives, the hon. member for Davenport
proposed certain amendments that were, in fact, adopted.
The Liberal government is well aware that our air, water and
soil-our physical environment-are very much at risk, to put it
mildly. In some cases, they have reached the point of no return.
We should not focus on one particular form of consultation at
the expense of the other components of our environment.
Often, to show it is environment-conscious, the government
adopts this kind of legislation while at the same time cutting
back on related commitments. Take, for instance, the defunct
Conservative government's green plan. In 1990, the plan's
initial budget of $3 billion over five years was reduced a few
months later to $3 billion over six years. This is a reduction of
20 per cent in the same year, and there were subsequent cuts later
on.
The National Round Table on the Environment and the
Economy can be an effective tool, provided partisan
considerations are excluded. No group has the right to use the
environment to promote partisan interests.
Next Tuesday, February 22, the Minister of Finance will bring
down his first budget. In the section on environment and
sustainable development, we will see whether the government
puts its money where its mouth is.
Since we know this is one of the first priorities of the Liberal
government, we can assume that budget allocations for the
Department of the Environment will help us make up for lost
time.
In concluding, I want to say that we should support this
initiative for consultation and co-operation. We must take
advantage of this opportunity to communicate with various
players in sectors that are in a position to help the environment.
The Liberal government has chosen this vehicle to get out of its
ivory tower. The results will be gratifying, provided it does its
homework.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to commend the hon. minister for this initiative. I believe it
is the direction we want to go and that most Canadians want to
go. Most of us feel inside that we are environmentalists and this
comes from the way we recycle our paper or compost or
garbage. It is the mood of Canadians to move in this direction.
1434
I would like to go back to a little history of where we have
come from, because I believe the pendulum has swung through
from the economy versus the environment. It was an either/or
situation and I believe it was to the detriment of many
Canadians.
That basically was the old way. I believe the new way, the
integration of the economy and the environment, is the way to go
because that is sustainable development. I believe that is the
direction that this legislation is taking.
The goal is to combine a strong economy with a strong
environment. This is basically as the minister has said and I
believe it is excellent.
(1525 )
Now to the round table itself. I would hope that their
perspective is balanced. I believe that balance will come from
the people who are on this board. I would hope that the make-up
of the board is not all one side of the equation or all of the other. I
hope there is a very broad base so that we have the voice of all
Canadians.
I would also hope that there is a national perspective, a
perspective that comes from coast to coast and including the
territories. I would be most disappointed to see the make-up of
this round table from largely central Canada or one point in
Canada.
I would like to move on to the mandate because I am a bit
unsure, and that is maybe because I am new in the House. Is this
an advisory body or a legislative body? To whom does it report?
The minister said that the Prime Minister will be chairing it.
Does it report to the House, to caucus or to the Prime Minister? I
see it is to you.
Basically those are the points I wanted to address. I would
hope that the meetings are open and that the public is involved.
What will be the cost? We need to know where Canada is today,
which is in a debt hole, and how much this is going to cost.
Finally I would hope that this is a meaningful process, that
three or four years down the road that we have not rehashed what
we know about sustainable development only to find that we
have not really moved ahead.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-215, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (aiding suicide).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a bill that
would amend the Criminal Code to allow terminally ill people
the right to die with dignity with the assistance of their doctor.
People with terminal illnesses, some suffering terrible pain or
indignity, are now being assisted to die but too often it is being
done by secret physicians who perform secret acts or, worse yet,
by family or friends with no safeguards whatsoever in place.
[Translation]
The current legislation which dates back to 1892 can be
extremely cruel to those who are dying and to their families.
[English]
Sue Rodriguez, a woman who lived her life and approached
her death with incredible courage and dignity, urged the
Minister of Justice in her final declaration to introduce
legislation into Parliament soon on this subject.
I hope this bill will be one step along this road, a road that
leads to a more decent and civilized society for all Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-216, an Act to amend the
Unemployment Insurance Act (jury service).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the
Unemployment Insurance Act so that persons serving on juries
will not be deemed ineligible for benefits simply because they
are involved in this activity.
(1530 )
[English]
The object of this bill is to prevent people who are eligible for
UI and who are selected for jury duty from being ruled ineligible
for their unemployment insurance.
In a number of cases in the last couple of years nationally, the
judges have dismissed jurors who were receiving UI on the
grounds that they may be disqualified for UI. This is to point out
that problem and rectify it.
I had a fair amount of support last time in the House, and I am
again looking forward to that support.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Arseneault: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This
bill with similar intent was presented in the 34th Parliament. At
that time I had received unanimous support of the members in
the House. There were well over 100 members in the House at
that time who had agreed to move this bill to committee for
consideration.
It had gone to committee for consideration but unfortunately
the House prorogued before it was returned and reported.
1435
I would ask the House for consent to have the bill proceed
to second reading and committee today.
The Deputy Speaker: It would appear that the member, as he
has just indicated, must ask for unanimous consent of the House.
If he receives that then he can ask for unanimous consent to send
it directly to committee.
Do members agree to ask for unanimous consent?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, there is a great number of new
members in the House. I think it might be proper to follow
normal procedures and let new members become familiar with
this legislation before we give unanimous consent.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is in the hands of the
members. I take it the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is
denying unanimous consent. Very well. The Chair will not have
to put the second question.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present this petition duly certified by the clerk of
petitions on behalf of the undersigned residents of
Wellington-Grey Dufferin-Simcoe and the surrounding area.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ban
the sale of serial killer board games and prevent any other such
game or material to be made available in Canada in order to
protect the innocent children of this country.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure
of submitting to the House a petition from several hundred
residents of Saint-Sulpice who are calling on Parliament to
intervene in an effort to get fisheries and oceans Canada to
reconsider its decision to demolish the wharf on the waterfront,
on Bord-de-l'eau Road, in Saint-Sulpice, and to take the
necessary steps to ensure its preservation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended by 18 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b).
_____________________________________________
1435
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1535)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides) moved:
That this House condemn the government's inability to re-establish and
increase budgets for social housing construction programs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure and
satisfaction that I rise today to take part in this debate on social
housing.
Since I first rose in this House on January 21 to make a
member's statement, I have taken every opportunity to remind
the other members that 1.2 million Canadians have urgent
housing needs. These people scattered in every one of our
ridings are facing an intolerable situation. They are living in
appalling housing conditions and their rents are eating up an
excessive part of their income.
For several years, elected members of the government have
been claiming left and right that Canada is a highly-rated
country where living conditions are the best. I sincerely believe
that we must come down to earth and look at reality.
Comparisons between countries are no longer valid. They are
often dangerous because they breed indifference and hamper the
recognition of real problems. They create false impressions on
real life.
In June 1993, the UN committee on economic, social and
cultural rights published a report on poverty in Canada. It
painted an devastating picture of the housing situation and
expressed surprise that despite the obvious existence of
homeless people and the inadequate housing conditions, social
housing expenditures only amounted to 1.3 per cent of public
spending.
So this international, high-profile organization has cut
government big guns down to size by saying that Canada is not
meeting one of its first obligations, namely to provide adequate
and affordable housing for everyone.
What is true for Canada is even truer for Quebec as 44.3 per
cent of Quebec households live in rental housing, compared
with a Canadian average of 37.1 per cent. So the problem is more
acute there. The poorest provinces are also confronted with this
difficult situation.
In the face of this strongly denied reality, the government
must act quickly and responsibly in this regard. It is now putting
its head in the sand by constantly repeating that it does not have
the money.
1436
It recently informed us that it will spend money on residential
rehabilitation. But this money does not do anything to help the
homeless because they have no residence to rehabilitate in the
first place.
While this kind of program creates jobs, these jobs too often
lead to a rise in the cost of private rental housing. By improving
housing, owners raise rents. This, in turn, makes it worse for
low-income households who must shell out more money.
The Liberal government's declarations clearly show that it is
moving toward maintaining the policy put in place by the
Conservatives in this area. The Liberals' first 100 days are
nothing to reassure poorly housed Canadians. They are
following in the footsteps of the Conservatives whose policies
and decisions could be called the ``social housing massacre''.
Available figures confirm beyond question that a massacre
occurred between 1984 and 1994. Until 1984, some 25,000 new
social housing units were being built in Canada every year. It
took the Conservatives 10 years to kill that formula so that,
since January 1, 1994, the federal government no longer
contributes to the construction of a single social housing unit. It
is quite a record to go from 25,000 to zero. We can see that their
decisions helped them to break another record, from 152 to only
two members in this House.
These alarming figures show the abdication of the federal
government in this area.
(1540)
The government also asked the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation to become more efficient, in other words
to cut costs. There are worrying indications that CMHC is
looking for ways to save and is contemplating rent increases in
social housing to increase its revenues. Basically, they would be
taking money out of the pockets of the less fortunate, attacking
their slender income to help other people with housing
problems. What a shameful thing to do.
That is what we are headed for with the government's silence.
The members opposite are not reacting. It is as if there were no
housing problems in their ridings, and all their constituents had
decent housing. I think that is hardly the case. I would ask them
to go out in their riding and see how things really are. Then come
back and get in touch with your Minister of Finance to apprise
him of the situation and urge him to make funds available in his
next budget, on February 22, to re-establish and increase
budgets for social housing programs.
Of course, the Minister of Finance has been going on and on
with the same story for weeks. He is putting us to sleep. He is
trying to make us bite the bullet of austerity. This budget will be
a tough one, we are told over and over. But the money is there. It
is only a matter of making the right choices. The government
must take its responsibilities and act with courage and fairness.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, have suggested that the
government go over each program, each item of government
expenditure to cut the fat, the squandering, the costly
duplication within the federal administration. This process
could have allowed us to find funds to help provide housing for
the less fortunate segment of our society. Unfortunately, the
minister opted for travelling across the country to hold
meaningless pre-budget consultations instead. During that
time, public funds are spent lavishly and inefficiently. Year after
year, the Auditor General has a lot to say on this subject.
Here in this House and the Hill, we can see examples of
squandering of public funds every day. Apparently, the sky is the
limit. Simplicity and efficiency are not commonplace. Specific
examples: Public Works are repairing roofs in winter and
rebuilding stone walls in minus 30 degree Celsius temperatures.
To carry out summer jobs during the winter comes at a premium
and certainly does not do much for the productivity of the
workers. It is shear squandering!
Other departments are literally devouring public funds. The
Department of National Defence for instance, with a $12 billion
plus annual budget. Piggish! Incredible amounts are swallowed
up by that department's equipment programs. The Canadian
patrol frigates will end up costing us $9 billion, while the
ADATS air defence system initially designed for our military
bases in Germany, but which will not be used and has been
classified as non operational, has cost us all of $1 billion.
Governments will soon embark upon infrastructure programs
that will require substantial funding.
How can we tell the less fortunate that the government does
not have any money for social housing when it is spending all
this public money, often astronomical sums of money?
How are we to explain to Mrs. Johanne Lepage from
Châteauguay who is spending 46 per cent of her monthly income
of $1,524, or $700 a month, on rent, heat and hydro for herself
and her four children, how are we to explain to her and her four
young children that the government spent $1 billion on useless
radars but does not have money to build decent social housing
that she could rent for just 25 per cent of her income? This lady
is not the only one in such dire straits. In Quebec, 404,000
households spend over 30 per cent of their income on rent and
there are 273,000 more Canadian households in the same
situation. And there is worse: 194,000 Quebec households are
spending over 50 per cent of their income on rent. In Canada,
there are 584,000 in that situation.
1437
(1545)
Mr. Speaker, this situation is scandalous and unacceptable.
Canada, a supposedly wealthy and developed country, has a poor
record in this area. The Liberals have no choice but to
re-establish the budget for social housing.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs is very familiar with and has
always been a staunch advocate of social housing. On May 5,
1993, the hon. minister rose in the House to call upon the former
government, and I quote, ``to act as soon as possible to save the
social housing and co-operative housing program in Canada''.
Not even a year ago, the minister was claiming that the
government was trampling the fundamental right of every
individual to decent housing.
I would hope that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will
continue to champion this cause. I challenge him to press his
colleague, the Minister of Finance, to untie the purse strings and
make funds available for social housing. I challenge him to
make his colleague aware of the plight of the poor in Canada. At
the time, other ministers, including the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Minister of the Environment
and Deputy Prime Minister, also defended social housing
programs. I hope that they have not had a change of heart,
simply because they are in power. I challenge them to prove that
they are concerned about social housing and to take some
concrete action!
Other options must be explored in order to find the funds to
help the most disadvantaged in society. The government will
make major savings by eliminating certain tax shelters. It is
important, if not essential, that large corporations and the
wealthy contribute to our society. How can we say to the poorest
people that the government's coffers are empty when the
wealthy do not contribute anything?
Every month, hundreds of thousands of tenants ask
themselves the same question. How am I going to pay the rent?
They wonder how they will manage when their income consists
of social assistance, unemployment insurance or old age
benefits, or derives from a precarious, low-paying or part-time
job. These households are forced to make desperate choices,
which can mean cutting either their food, clothing,
transportation or basic care budget.
How can we stand by while young people go hungry every
month? The members opposite and the Minister of Finance
should give some serious thought to this question. We must
never lose sight of the fact that these children are the generation
of the future. We have a responsibility to provide for them.
Moreover, the government must not shirk its responsibility. It
must work to eliminate social and economic disparities between
members of our society.
Social housing is the only way to provide affordable housing
for all Canadians in need. It offers much better housing than the
private market, housing which can be adapted to specific needs
and requirements. Co-operative housing, especially, helps
people pull themselves up and take greater control over their
living conditions. It helps physically improve old
neighbourhoods, keep the resident population and generally
enhance the quality of life.
Social housing also creates jobs. According to Clayton
Research Associates Limited, building 1,000 co-operative or
social housing units creates 2,000 jobs; renovating them creates
800. Furthermore, very significant savings on health and social
services can be made. Families will be better housed, better fed
and better clothed.
Economy and employment-that is what the Liberal platform
is all about. What are you waiting for to act? We, in the Bloc
Quebecois, feel that the Government of Quebec should have full
responsibility for housing. The Société d'habitation du Québec
should be the only one in charge.
(1550)
As along as Quebec is part of the federal system, we will
demand a major and equitable financial contribution from it.
The Liberals, and especially their leader, kept hammering
away on the theme of dignity and pride before October 25.
Dignity and pride everywhere and always. Now we need action.
It is time to prove that you yourselves have pride and dignity.
I conclude by telling you about Jacqueline Cayen, a 32-year
old mother of three children, who lives on $1,442 a month. She
went back to school recently and intends to obtain a high school
diploma in January 1995. She says, ``My rent costs me $350 a
month, and electricity is $150 a month. In winter, it is cold near
the windows and I heat the shed. To pay $500 on rent, I have to
cut on food and clothing and especially hope that nothing
unforeseen will happen''.
So it is up to the government to act.
[English]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I trust members of the Official
Opposition will not expect a simultaneous translation of those
comments. I think the people upstairs are probably wondering
what to do about it now as well.
Mr. Anawak: If I was not wearing my earpiece earlier I
probably would not have understood a word the hon. member
was saying.
1438
I just want to comment on a couple of things that the hon.
member mentioned or omitted. One point was the fact that
aboriginal people have the poorest housing. I did not hear the
word aboriginal once in the whole presentation.
The other point was that I did not hear anything, other than
Canadian or global, about how many houses are needed in
Northwest Territories or in British Columbia. I just heard the
statistics in Quebec.
I know that the member is a member of Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition and I think the member should represent all
Canadians. I did not hear that.
I would like to comment also on her comment about the hon.
minister for external affairs. She seemed to contradict, telling us
that we were not aware of all the housing needs and then quoting
the hon. minister. The minister must have been representing his
constituents and Canada when he made his concerns known
about housing and therefore did not need lessons from the hon.
member about not knowing what was going on in our ridings
over here. Does the hon. member have any understanding of the
housing needs of aboriginal people across Canada as well as in
Quebec? Does she have any statistics about the state of poor
housing in areas other than Quebec?
(1555)
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer the
member in English. Maybe he will understand me better and he
will not need the translation.
The hon. member should know it is not the first time I have
spoken about social housing. I have talked about aboriginal
people also and their problems. He probably was not here to hear
it. I always talk about social housing across Canada not only in
Quebec. I gave statistics about Quebec because we are from
Quebec. However I always speak for every Canadian in every
riding everywhere.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the
hon. member for putting forward a motion which discusses some
very substantive issues relating to social housing.
I do not wish to be too congratulatory to my colleague
opposite, however the subject matter before us this afternoon
can be debated in a very civilized way and perhaps suggestions
from all quarters can be put on the record. We can then present
them to the Minister of Finance, who as we all know, is in the
process of preparing his budget.
Although I thank the hon. member for putting the subject
matter before the House I cannot concur with the way in which
the motion has been written and placed before the House.
I want to assure all hon. members that as the minister
responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing, I take my
mandate very seriously, as does the government. We fully
understand the challenges ahead and we are committed to
carrying out the government's agenda in the area of housing.
Make no mistake about it, the government is committed to
maintaining a strong role in social housing across the country.
Our commitment reflects our desire to help the least advantaged
in our society and we will continue to do just that.
In the speech from the throne the government clearly
signalled its resolve to address the fiscal situation while at the
same time acknowledging the continuing importance of social
priorities. The government is respecting its promises within its
current financial capabilities. I want to underline that because I
have been asked questions numerous times on the floor of the
House. I have gone out of my way to make it abundantly clear
that the fiscal capacity of the Government of Canada is
somewhat limited as the previous administration basically left
the cupboard bare. The deficit of the Government of Canada is
$12 billion over and above what we had anticipated and what we
had been told during the election campaign. I am sure hon.
members opposite have concluded that it does limit the fiscal
capacity of the government to move in all the social areas in
which we might wish to move.
Having said that to the substance of the motion before us, I
cannot concur with the way in which it has been written,
although I am happy about the subject being debated just days
before the budget.
(1600 )
It should be clearly stated that the government is providing
close to $2 billion for the direct financing of some 652,000
households across the country. That is a very substantial amount
of money which is lent under the auspices of the direct lending
program, administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
To suggest otherwise is being totally irresponsible in my
view. I direct those comments not necessarily to members
opposite but to those who are outside the Chamber and those
who may come into the Chamber and speak to the issues, that the
government is making an important contribution to social
housing. The hon. member made reference to the fact that this
administration is the same as the old administration. That is not
true.
The throne speech which was tabled in the other House and
which has been referred to by the Prime Minister and by myself
on several occasions, talked about social housing. We have put
down $100 million over a two-year period for the residential
rehabilitation assistance program.
With a limited fiscal capacity, we are providing $100 million
to individuals in order to improve the quality of the stock of
homes. This is a significant contribution in terms of the health
1439
and safety which will be across the country, not in one particular
area but all Canadians in all provinces will have an opportunity
to benefit.
We have embarked on a very ambitious program. I will get to
it in a little more detail when I talk about the meeting I had with
provincial ministers of housing. We intend to save through cost
cutting measures over the next four years a total of $120 million.
All will be directed for social housing. Those initiatives will be
in concert with shared objectives and providing those who are in
need with capacity to move on and to improve their quality of
life. This is another significant aspect of the social housing
budget.
It should be noted that Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation has forecast for 1994 a modest recovery in new
housing starts, which is approximately 162,000. If I can use this
term-hon. members opposite may find it rather amusing-it is
a conservative figure of 162,000 units.
Other forecasting organizations, such as banks and trust
companies, indicate that those figures are very low and housing
starts in Canada will be much more significant than that.
However being the modest type of government that we are, we
intend to go with the low figure and that is the figure we are
sharing with our colleagues across the way.
Social housing also has implications for other areas and other
aspects of the housing industry. For instance in the city of
Toronto the issue is contaminated lands. In my discussions with
ministers of housing across the country we have put this issue on
the table for action by ministers and deputy ministers. In fact we
discussed this when federal, provincial and territorial leaders
met in Toronto. We agreed that our deputy ministers would
pursue this vigorously, that we would have several meetings and
hopefully make decisions on those kinds of issues, which have
an impact on what the private sector does vis-à-vis social
housing as well as other types of housing.
It should be noted that the theme we use for this issue is one of
common sense.
(1605 )
I want to underline that there are numerous individuals who
think that one cannot build a home anywhere in the country in
1994 because of environmental concerns. There are others in
this country who say to hell with environmental concerns, they
will build the homes regardless.
There are two competing views of a problem. I suggest, and
ministers of the crown both federally and provincially have said,
that we must have some semblance of common sense to the
approach that the housing industry must take in the weeks,
months and years ahead. That is an important aspect to which we
must give due consideration.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is embarking
upon a comprehensive-I want to underline the
words-examination of the rental market research. My
colleague who spoke earlier in the House with regard to the
motion made reference to the province of Quebec and it having
more units for the purpose of rental housing. That is very true.
However, there are other areas in the country whether in
Calgary, Edmonton, British Columbia, parts of Atlantic Canada,
where the rental component is an essential element. We hope
that in the next couple of months to put together the terms of
reference for a comprehensive review of rental markets.
I would be interested in hearing the views of hon. members on
that subject as I will be hearing the views of the private sector
and other stakeholders across the country.
Encouraging innovation is another aspect of our policy as it
relates to housing. It relates directly to social housing in terms
of the things we might be able to do. I make reference to the
good work that my colleague, the Minister of Natural
Resources, has been able to do. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, have
followed that quite closely over the years.
I refer of course to R-2000 which in my view has provided an
upgrading of the quality of housing in the country which many
private stakeholders as well as non-profit stakeholders have
taken advantage of over the years. Therefore, encouraging
innovation will be another aspect of our housing policies as we
approach this fiscal year, 1994-95.
I want to talk for a few minutes if I may in the time that I have
remaining, which I believe is about 15 or 20 minutes-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dingwall: Three. I do want to say that our commitment to
housing for Canadians recognizes that there are groups with
special needs which must be met.
Victims of family violence is one such group. It is astounding
to me that the incidence of family violence continues to
increase. I look forward to the day when we no longer need to
build and maintain shelters for women and their children fleeing
domestic violence.
For now we need to address this critical issue in the best way
we can. We will continue to provide funding for shelters and
other housing commitments under the family violence
initiative.
Canada Mortgage and Housing provides financial assistance
for project haven and project next step, two programs that
provide emergency shelter and long-term housing for victims of
family violence and their children.
1440
There are 458 emergency shelter units that have been
committed under the project haven initiative. Under the second
phase of the family violence initiative, again a part of the social
housing objectives of the Government of Canada, and the next
step program, 150 self-contained units and 100 emergency
shelter units are planned with a budget of $20.6 million.
During the upcoming months Canada Mortgage and Housing
will be discussing with its counterparts in the family violence
initiative new opportunities for Canada Mortgage and Housing
participation in a possible third phase to the family violence
initiative.
This assistance goes a long way to providing much needed
shelter for women and children. The federal government is also
committed to improving housing for seniors and persons with
disabilities. As part of the national strategy for the integration of
persons with disabilities, Canada Mortgage and Housing has
been administering a $10 million two-year demonstration
program called home adaptations for seniors' independence, or
HASI, to help older seniors make their homes more liveable.
In the few moments that I have left-I am sure there will be a
number of questions that hon. members will want to raise-I
want to say two final things. One is with regard to housing for
aboriginals on reserves and housing for aboriginals off reserves
across the country. My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, and I have been working jointly on
these issues and we hope to be able to put a paper before our
cabinet colleagues to address some of these serious situations.
(1610)
I want to assure the House and hon. members that it is
certainly a priority for me and it is certainly a priority for the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that we
will want to pursue this with vigour and creativity. I have spoken
to a number of aboriginal groups which have come to me, and I
want to underline this, with some very creative and innovative
ways in which they as individuals can take control of their own
destiny and provide the kinds of quality housing that they need.
Finally, with regard to the province of Quebec, la belle
province, I have had several discussions with the minister
responsible for housing in the province of Quebec whom I am
sure all members, particularly members opposite, would want to
congratulate in terms of the new responsibilities he has achieved
in the recent cabinet shuffle, including those of housing.
I am now embarking upon a program with my provincial
colleague in the province of Quebec, and possibly elsewhere in
the country as well, in terms of how we as governments can get
better value for our dollar. The province of Quebec has
earmarked moneys for housing under the renovation sector. It is
a very exciting, good and solid program.
Through our moneys under the RRAP, the $100 million, and
the amount of money we would provide for Quebec, we are
trying to make an arrangement whereby we would lessen the
administrative nightmares which are associated with the
delivery of the housing in order to have the one level of
government deliver that, of course maintaining a federal
presence and maintaining some degree of credibility for the
Government of Canada as we make expenditures in that great
province, but lessening the administration and getting more
money to the people who are really in need.
I want to assure hon. members in my final sentence that we as
a national government are seized with the issue of social
housing. We are attempting through a number of vehicles with
our provincial counterparts to provide the best value at the best
price for Canadians across the country.
The Deputy Speaker: Before going to questions and
comments the hon. minister being a seasoned member will know
the question of parliamentary language, a four-letter word
starting with h and rhyming with ``bell''. The eyebrow of one of
his own members went up when the minister used the word. I see
in Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 147, that that phrase in
context has been found to be unparliamentary in the past. I
wonder if the minister would perhaps reflect on it.
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will accept your intervention,
but I hope the Speaker will do the honourable thing post 6.30
this evening and read the ``blues'' and ascertain that the word
which he anticipated and thought that I had said was not what he
has referred to but was a word which is called h-e-c-k, which is
different from what he had said.
However, if the hon. Speaker is not mistaken, I wish to
withdraw any reference to that particular word. I would hope
that if the Speaker has made a mistake he will come back to the
House in due course.
The Deputy Speaker: Getting back to the substance of the
debate, questions or comments.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): 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
1441
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.
(1615)
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.
[English]
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate
the hon. member because I think those are very appropriate and
very sound questions that should be raised on the floor of the
House of Commons.
First of all, I agree with my colleague that this should not be
interpreted as subsidies. We should look at it as investment. I
could not agree with her more.
I cannot and will not try to rewrite history in terms of the
amount of moneys which has gone to the province of Quebec.
There are some rationales which have been given to me as to
why Ontario, for instance, which has a bigger population and
higher costs in terms of social housing, has received more and
Quebec has received less.
I can assure the hon. member, who has raised a fundamental
question of equity, that under this administration Quebec will
get its fair share. I can assure the hon. member of that.
The hon. member made reference to a number of other issues.
However, it should be noted that the Government of Canada will
also be providing $5 million over the next four years in financial
assistance for unique, non-profit housing co-operatives in the
southwest of Montreal. The hon. member probably knows that.
This was done as a pilot project and we are continuing with that
particular funding.
I want the hon. member to know as well that in terms of the
units in the province of Quebec, she knows and I know that the
predominance of rental units as opposed to new free standing
units is greater in the province of Quebec than anywhere else in
the country. Hence, we will work closely with the Quebec
government, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, in terms of
providing moneys for renovations to that social housing stock.
We will also work closely with the Government of Quebec and
stakeholders in that province as well as in other provinces to see
whether there are creative ways we can put money into projects
to provide the kinds of new housing or renovated housing to
house Canadians.
I do not want to mislead the hon. member in thinking that
there is a Santa Claus who sits two seats down from me, the
Minister of Finance, who will walk in on February 22 and say to
the people of Canada that he has a bag of goodies and this is what
he is going to do.
It is important to be fiscally responsible federally,
provincially, municipally, in non-profit organizations and the
private sector so that we can arrive at expenditures which meet
our objective which is to provide affordable, reasonable and
healthy housing for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker,
many of my constituents who live in low-cost housing in my
riding have made representations; they are quite numerous.
Their income is not high and they are very concerned by a
possible 25 to 30 per cent rent increase .
Could the minister tell us today if I can go back to my riding
and reassure my constituents by telling them their rent will not
increase following the next budget?
(1620)
[English]
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has again asked
a very excellent question.
The hon. member cannot have it both ways. One cannot put a
hand on one's heart and plead for new social housing for
Canadians across this country and only look at one side of the
ledger, which is to cut expenditures and duplication, without
looking at the other aspect in terms of revenue increases.
I believe a total of eight provinces across the country have
moved from the 25 per cent to 30 per cent or are in the process of
moving in that direction. It is called rent geared to income. That
is what the hon. member is referring to. It is a good question.
I cannot give any assurances until such time as the Minister of
Finance makes that kind of decision in the budgetary papers
which are to be available on February 2.
Let us not put our heads in the sand and say that we can only
look on one side of the ledger, but we cannot look on the other
side of the ledger when we are both saying that we need
additional moneys for the purposes of creating new social
housing for Canadians who are in desperate need.
1442
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask a question concerning the minister's comments on
aboriginal housing on and off reserve.
The statistical material that I have been able to make available
indicates to me that housing on and off reserve for aboriginals
has a habitable life span of some 16 to 25 years as compared with
35 to 50 years for other housing, for non-aboriginal housing.
This would indicate to me either there is substandard housing
being provided in those cases or that housing is not being
properly maintained and cared for.
Has the minister taken into serious consideration those
statistics in providing the renewal of housing?
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the
efficacy of the statistics that my colleague has used, although
being in the House for some time I will have to accept them at
his word.
The only thing that I can reply to the question is that in my
deliberations over the last three months, the last 103 days as a
minister of the crown, with aboriginal groups across this
country I have found an attitude among aboriginal leaders that
they do not want handouts. What they want is an opportunity
like we have had over the years to be able to have affordable
housing. They are coming forward with creative, innovative,
dynamic ideas which will involve the private sector, which will
involve governments at all levels, and which will involve other
stakeholders to provide that kind of quality housing.
In terms of the substance of the question that the hon. member
has asked, there is substandard housing on reserves across this
country. Governments should work with aboriginal people, not
against them, to provide meaningful solutions to real problems.
To quote a friend of mine who shall remain nameless, shelter
in this country, next to water and land and the air we breath, is
probably the most important aspect of Canadian life.
I hope I can call upon the hon. member for creative ideas,
creative suggestions and support when we put our money where
our mouth is.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I believe that the period reserved for
questions and comments is over.
[English]
We will continue debate with the hon. member for Macleod on
behalf of the Reform Party.
(1625 )
Do I understand that members of the Reform Party wish to
divide their time?
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I inform the House that we
would like to divide our time. Could the member for Calgary
Southeast speak prior to me?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, it is
with keen interest and deep concern that I rise today in the House
to address the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.
Acknowledging the seriousness of our discussions here today
is more than just debating how to provide more effective and
efficient support to those in need. It is a challenge most
fundamental coming to the realization that responsible financial
management requires thoughtful planning. Nowhere in this
motion do I sense a strategy or any idea for that matter of where
that money is going to come from.
Spending in the country continues at an alarming rate. Even as
I speak every minute represents $88,410 in additional debt. The
jobless, the discouraged, the fearful and the poor are still out
there. That is very overwhelming. What are we going to do?
I believe we have to ask ourselves three things when we
consider expenditures of any kind, especially in the area of
social spending. It takes courage to be objective when reviewing
social reforms because our emotions are involved and that is
when it is most difficult to make a decision.
My questions are what do we want, how do we get there, and
what will it take?
Let us look first at what Canadians want. People are outraged
that our government has been in an out of control spending mode
for two decades. Our nation is like a Hollywood front, all glitter
and glass purchased on borrowed money with nothing of
substance holding it up.
It is a stunning picture on the reality of this House that not
since the minority Parliament of 1972-74 has Parliament
directly acted to cut expenditures. Even in that situation in
which the government lacked a controlling majority, the House
of Commons achieved two small cuts amounting in total to
$20,000.
To give a sense of proportion, since the current procedure for
committee review of estimates was initiated in 1969, Parliament
has authorized about $2 trillion worth of expenditures. This
means that Parliament has made cuts that represent only one
millionth of one per cent of total expenditures that it approves.
Here we find the Bloc Quebecois having spoken eloquently on
numerous occasions about deficit control and debt reduction,
bringing forward a motion to spend money but not explaining
within that context how that money will be found.
If we want to reduce the deficit and begin a meaningful effort
at getting our economy on track and our social reforms in place,
the second question I ask is how will we get there? We begin
with the right people. We need people who will stand up and say
this is not good enough, we are not willing to solve tough issues
1443
by following the easier path. Throwing money at programs is
easy.
I believe the social role of government is determined by
clarifying priorities, responding to the give and take as
governments attempt to pay for increasingly costly social
programs while coping with the ever diminishing economic
base.
However, in the motion before us today there is no appearance
of a give and take, merely an arbitrary dole, a short sighted, stop
gap solution.
Canadian welfare and social programs were designed on a
premise of high employment. Therefore, social programs and
economic policy are mismatched. Given that the overwhelming
need for social support is the direct result of the poor economic
health of the country, tinkering with pieces of social policy will
not help. However, changing our economic policy will help.
(1630)
If a room is freezing because of frigid air coming in through a
broken window, we do not turn up the heat; we fix the window.
So it is with this motion. We are turning up the heat when we
need to fix what is broken.
It is the unhealthy fiscal policy of this government and that of
previous governments which are causing such a strain on our
social programs. As the debt has grown interest payments have
consumed an increasing proportion of the government's
spending. They now constitute an enormous strain on the
treasury. In 1974 they consumed only 11 per cent of the
government's spending but today they consume 25 per cent.
That is $40 billion from the treasury which go to interest
payments on the debt. That, not coincidentally, is about equal to
the federal deficit.
The point I am making is one given to us by the Auditor
General: ``In 1992 in an age of scarce public resources and
growing debt, seeking ways to see that things get done by or
through others rather than spending money to do them becomes
increasingly important''. Are we not ever going to hear the
wisdom of those words as we apply mental energy ever seeking
answers to the pressing social concerns of the day?
I ask the question: What will it take? I know courageous
leadership is part of the answer. A government that listens to its
people is made stronger and can deal more effectively with
tough issues.
However, the Bloc motion puts more emphasis on spending to
relieve an overburdened social system. I cannot support that.
However I support greater financial sustainability over the long
term. This requires a new commitment to sound, long-term
financial management.
Another important question now needs to be asked: is it better
to help households obtain adequate housing by directly
providing the housing or by assisting them to increase their
incomes? This means fostering an environment in which people
are able to work. It is critical that we maintain federal spending
at current levels for high priority functions, including labour
force and training and adjustment programs.
It is also necessary that provinces have the freedom to
distribute federal funding and manage their own programs. This
comes back to my earlier comments about priorities.
Maintaining federal transfers to provinces remains key in terms
of preserving those programs targeted to those in need. I believe
that public money should be regarded by governments as funds
held in trust and that governments should practise
responsibility, particularly the responsibility to balance
expenditures and revenues.
We need to see significant spending cuts that are judiciously
planned for the long term. I applaud those moves by the
government to withhold funding support for programs for which
there is no long range plan or strategy for the expenditure.
In conclusion the choices and decisions we must make have to
be so clearly laid out before every Canadian so that all of us
understand where we are going and what it is going to take to get
there. This is my challenge to this House and to the Bloc
Quebecois on its motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech, but I must
admit to having some difficulty understanding the underlying
logic. I say this in a very cordial way, because I do appreciate her
input in this debate and I would like to ask her a question.
First, I noticed that she makes no difference between social
programs and housing when, in my opinion, a distinction should
be made. I will come back to this later in the 20 minutes allotted
to me. My question is: Does she not feel that when the
government intervenes in the housing sector, it becomes a
job-creating sector? It is a sector where, if we invest public
money, we get an interesting return on our investment.
(1635)
I do not know if the hon. member contacted the Co-operative
Housing Federation of Canada. This organization conducted a
very extensive and competent review of this issue and came to
the conclusion-corroborated by American studies-that every
time the government invests to build a co-op unit, 2.2 jobs are
created.
This example illustrates how social programs reform and
social housing cannot be put on an equal footing. With all due
respect, I must tell the hon. member that her speech did not
reveal a great deal of social understanding, because when we
discuss public finances, we cannot simply reason like an
accountant trying to balance revenues and expenditures.
1444
I come from a riding where there are many social housing
developments and I can tell the hon. member that families
living in co-op units do not have to spend as much on housing;
consequently, they can invest more on food and health care, and
are therefore more likely to exert less pressure on those social
programs which she seems to be so concerned about.
[English]
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, if I may be
so bold I just have to say that you do have an interesting way
with your hands. You kept gesturing making me think I was
running over my time or that I had to wrap up my comments. You
might want to put your hands in your pockets, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for his question. He has to know how
difficult this question is for me to address because it is based
very much on emotion. I would be the last person to look at
something from an accountant's perspective. When it comes to
compassion requiring difficult decision making, that is difficult
because this matter is very much couched in difficulty.
I am sorry I did not make the relationship of social reform,
social programs and expenditure more clear to the member. I am
committed to an economic agenda. As members of the House of
Commons during this particular Parliament it is extremely
important that we get our spending under control. There will be
a very inefficient and ineffective system for care for everyone if
we do not get our financial house in order.
While I was campaigning I did meet people who had lost their
homes or who were going to be losing their homes because of the
very sad condition of our economy. That is the perspective I
brought to this debate and which I presented to the member.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
commend my hon. colleague on her insight in terms of not only
this debate but some of the comments she has made on a wider
economic plane as it relates to housing.
I have worked in the housing industry. I take exception to one
of the questions concerning the need for federal government
funding in the area of social housing as a means of stimulating
jobs. I can assure the hon. member that in the private sector we
often found ourselves with private money competing with
public money. The result was not only waste and duplication,
but at the end of the day there was lack of housing.
I have a very simple question for the hon. member. Would she
consider looking at housing as a means for the private sector,
with all that is attached to it, to make a more affordable and
accessible product in this country through financial
institutions? That seems to be the real reason many developers
and builders are not able to bring on a good product at an
affordable price for the economy and for people to get access to
quality housing.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his question. Within the context of my
presentation I did quote the 1992 Auditor General's report.
(1640 )
That is exactly the point I was trying to make. We seek other
ways to get things done in this particular area by approaching
problems using private sector funding.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I want
to make one brief comment.
The hon. member raised a good point when she talked about
the changes made to the way the estimates were dealt with in
1969. It seems to me it is at that point that Parliament and the
House of Commons began to lose control if not necessarily over
spending, it lost its ability to affect spending, to have a
committee actually have an effect on estimates. Therefore we
got into the situation in which estimates are deemed to be passed
by a certain period of time whether a committee has looked at
them or not.
When I first came here there was at least an effort to question
the minister and to spend some time on that. However even that
atrophied after a while because members came to notice that it
did not really matter what they said and these things got to be
passed anyway. The minister simply took up the necessary time.
When it was over it was over and the estimates were passed. The
point is well taken. No amount of parliamentary reform in the
last little while has been able to overcome that dilemma.
Just for the record much parliamentary reform happened here
in the 1980s by unanimous consent or with the agreement of all
parties, although not the reforms in April 1991. However, those
particular reforms in 1969 were not the result of all-party
agreement; they were brought in by the use of closure at that
time by the then Liberal government.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer
to the motion the Bloc posed to us:
That this House condemn the government's inability to re-establish and
increase budgets for social housing construction programs.
As I looked at this issue I looked at social housing
construction in an overall sense in an attempt to put it in the
frame of reference of Canada's needs.
I found that this whole program is under the auspices of
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and that CMHC has
a social housing stock of 650,000 units in our country. There are
four separate programs: the native housing program; the seniors
housing program; the next step housing program for women who
are victims of violence; and the housing program for low income
1445
Canadians. The total cost of this social housing program in
Canada is $2 billion per year. This is a net amount incorporating
received rents as well as the cost.
I looked at the statistics to find out the number of current
housing starts. Because this question came from the Bloc I tried
to zero in on why the Bloc would be particularly interested in
this question.
I found that in Ontario this year there are some 7,200 starts on
the go and in Quebec there are some 900 starts on the go. I
imagined, if I were in Quebec I would look at those figures and
ask whether somehow that was fair. This probably was the
reason the Bloc brought this issue to the House. I will not
comment on whether or not those figures are fair. As a member
from Alberta I looked down the ledger to see how many housing
starts there are in Alberta this year. I came to the conclusion that
there are zero housing starts in Alberta this year under this
program.
I will not go into great detail on whether the statistics tell me
anything, but I asked myself whether this amount was sufficient
for social housing in Canada. I am not sure I have the answer to
that but I pose that as a question for us all.
I reflect on a comment made to me not many days ago. I met a
New Zealand diplomat and said to him: ``I am pretty close to
Canada's debt situation. I am pretty close to the circumstances
in our country. Could you make a comment for me, as someone
from outside who should be unbiased about our situation in this
country? Could you compare Canada to New Zealand for me?''
He did that. As he compared Canada's situation today with that
of New Zealand not so very many years ago, he said he did not
think he saw the political will in our country to deal with the
debt situation we have. I do not think he said that there is the
political will among the population of Canada to stop
overspending.
(1645)
I looked him in the eye and asked-he had gone through this
in his country-whether he could tell me what is necessary in
Canada for us to realize the seriousness of our situation. He
replied that he thought the International Monetary Fund would
have to come in and shut us down.
I thought about his comments very carefully as I sat on this
side of the House, trying to say to the Canadian public that our
debt situation is serious. I am trying to say not directly to the
Bloc but to every member in this House that our debt situation is
extremely serious.
I wish somehow this message could get out before the IMF
does have to shut us down because if it has to shut us down we
will lose not just social housing, but we will lose every single
social program that we value. If that happens this debate to me
becomes somewhat inadequate.
I tried to priorize what I think are the social programs that
should be highest on the ladder and priorize them so the House
could hear what I think is important. Number one is health care.
Number two is welfare for those in need. Number three is the old
age supplement for the needy. Number four is unemployment
insurance for short term unexpected job loss. I would put as
number five such things as social housing.
If I put a different priority on those social programs than
members opposite I am very willing to listen to their reasons
where they would change the priorities. I would ask them to
convince the members of the House that we could in fact change
those priorities.
If the programs are not distributed fairly I would say that the
Bloc has every reason to complain on the basis of fair
distribution of the funds. I would support them in doing that
very thing.
I would like to draw an analogy which members may think
curious, but I have a hobby of racing cars. I have always wanted
to go to the most famous endurance race in France, Les 24
heures du Mans. This is 24 hours of racing on a circuit in France.
I do not think I will ever have the opportunity to go there to
participate in that race but I did have an opportunity three years
ago to race in the 24 heures du Daytona. This is the North
American equivalent. It is a second equivalent but it is the
equivalent of that race.
I found myself at Daytona in international circumstances in a
race car that would go about 175 miles an hour. The banking at
Daytona is so steep that if you get out of the car you can hardly
walk. It is very steep. The car I was in was fast enough to go in
the middle lane at Daytona and the really fast cars were on the
top lane at Daytona. They would travel over 200 miles an hour.
It was interesting as I sat in the car at the fastest I had ever
gone with the landscape blurring around me. The cars going by
in the top lane would go by so fast that they would move my car
down a couple of feet on the banking. On one lap as I went
around the corner I looked ahead and I could see a rain cloud.
The track is big enough so that we were a long way from the rain
cloud but I was sure that the rain was falling on the track.
As I approached the rain I slowed down. A car went by me so
much faster than I who had not seen the rain and he spun out on
the track in front of me, smashed into the wall, tore off the front
of the car and the motor came down. I slid through and luckily
avoided him.
The analogy I am trying to draw is that our country is at 300
miles an hour on the banking heading for disaster in terms of our
debt and our deficit.
(1650 )
I heard the minister say that he is seized with the issue of
social housing. I say to the minister and to the other members of
this House. Do not be seized with a narrow issue that is only your
own issue. The other issue for the country that is seizing us
1446
around the throat is the deficit and the debt. I beg members to
pay attention to that issue and not be narrow in their processes.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I come
from Vancouver East which has some very poor areas. These
people cannot afford a racing car. Neither can they afford a
house or a place to live.
I understand there are about 8,000 people that do not have
proper shelter. Some of these people live in shelters that in fact
are like pig sties. I would like to add that we have probably the
largest aboriginal population in my area.
We talked about dignity in our red book. There is no dignity
without an address. It is true that we are in tough economic
times. I understand that very well, but I feel that it is very
important that we help those who need help.
We have talked about creativity and some very good programs
that have been put in. I am glad about that. I think that creativity
is what we have to concentrate on. What is being done by CMHC
for instance with the aboriginal groups is in fact trying to get
private capital and working together with governments.
We also talked about reallocation of resources. I think we
have to concentrate on that. What the Liberal Party is trying to
do now is go through a series of consultations, reviewing all of
the social programs and I would invite everybody to participate.
We are asking the people at large to participate, so
parliamentarians in this House should be the first to participate.
On that point, we can also establish where the priorities are.
It is very important that we look at the whole scene. I have
different statistics than what the hon. member has just given. I
have them here with me. If he wants to see them I am prepared to
share them with him.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, there was not really a
question in the comment, but I would like to say that the racing
car that I mentioned was not my own. It was a rented car. Four of
us shared it. I hope the member does not think I am talking from
a different strata.
I noticed that last year there were 427 housing starts in British
Columbia. That compares very favourably with what that I see
from Quebec. We might well compare statistics.
I am not suggesting for one second that social housing is not
important. I am suggesting that it be placed on a priority list and
that is what I ask each member to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure
if, according to parliamentary procedure, I can say that the hon.
member is dead wrong. You see, the people who have poor
lodgings cost a lot of money to our society. Their health is bound
to deteriorate, their children do not do as well in school as they
should be and, eventually, do not find the jobs they would
otherwise have been able to get.
A society that does not care for the people living in poor
conditions and those in need gets into debt, because it does not
tap the human capital and the talent of those people. In fact, if
we were to follow the suggestion made by the hon. member, not
only would we be putting the rope around our neck, but we
would also be pulling on it.
The Deputy Speaker: If my memory serves me right, there
should not be any problem with the expression ``dead wrong''.
The hon. member for Macleod has the floor.
(1655)
[English]
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon.
member's passion about this particular issue but I would simply
ask him and everyone else in the House what they would give up
so that they could have more social housing. In the light of our
financial circumstances in our country what would they give up?
If they would push this priority higher, what would they take
away?
I simply say come and explain to me what they would give up.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired for questions and
comments.
Mr. McTeague: I have only a question for the hon. member,
because like his colleague-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The time has expired for
questions and comments.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): 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.
1447
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.
(1700)
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
1448
needs, safety in our communities and the quality and cultural
identity of Canadians''.
(1705)
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.
(1710)
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.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for her in depth
remarks on social housing in the province of Quebec and in
particular on her in depth knowledge of the red book and the
investigations and recommendations the Liberal Party went to in
bringing forward its recommendations for social housing across
Canada.
We have that mandate. If the hon. member would look at the
record it was the Liberal Party that brought in RRAP back in the
1970s. It will be the Liberal Party that will institute RRAP
again.
1449
The hon. member refers to the special CMHC housing
projects. The money granted a few weeks ago was for special
projects that were based on submissions. Perhaps the hon.
member could inquire if the province of Quebec made any
submissions for modern day housing, for further insulation, for
new arrangements and architectural designs that were
conducive to more efficient housing as we move into the 21st
century.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): 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]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I am
not sure what history the hon. member opposite studied when
she makes her remarks, but I know I am not unfamiliar with the
history of the province of Quebec.
Like all provinces Quebec has benefited enormously from
being a partner in Confederation. Quebec has certainly
benefited financially.
Is the hon. member not aware that when one considers
equalization payments, the province of Quebec has seen more
tax dollars flow to it than have flown out of that province? Is she
completely unaware of the enormous financial benefit that has
accrued to the province of Quebec from the other provinces of
Confederation?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): 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.
[English]
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Speaker, if I might pursue this, I think
perhaps we are starting to get somewhere. We are hearing a Bloc
member who is willing to admit, if I heard the hon. member
correctly, that perhaps she was not looking at the whole picture.
I would submit it is time that the hon. member did that. It is time
all members of the Bloc did that. It is time they understood what
other Canadians understand.
Most of us are very pleased to have the province of Quebec as
part of Canada. Quite frankly we feel that Quebecers will always
choose to remain a part of Confederation. The statistics are
unchallengeable. Quebec has benefited far more from taxes
going to it as a province in this Confederation than it has paid
out when one considers all fiscal arrangements in its totality. If
the hon. member is unaware of that I would be happy to share
those statistics with her.
(1715)
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I believe the debate
today is on social housing. It would take more than two minutes
to list for the hon. member all the areas were Quebec was
short-changed. I do not say he is right. I urge all my colleagues
from the Bloc to give the hon. member the right answers.
Whether it be research and development or agriculture, we know
very well that Quebec is not always well served by the federal
system.
Take my riding for instance. I had two giant candidates
running against me on October 25, but despite all the good
things they promised would come from the federal system, the
people of the Quebec riding said: ``No, we do not want to relive
what we went through all those years''. This is a debate we may
have some day in the House, but not now.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about social housing, we are talking about people in
need, and it should be clearly understood, contrary to what was
just said, that Quebec receives as much money as it is putting in,
around $28 billion. Quebec taxpayers pay $28 billion to Ottawa
and receive in return $28 billion from Ottawa. It is their money.
But the way it comes back to them has a direct impact on social
housing. This money comes back mainly as unemployment
insurance and transfer payments for public assistance, instead of
coming back as research and development contracts or other
types of government contracts which would create jobs, as is the
case in Ontario and other provinces.
We can see, first of all, that there is absolutely no preferential
treatment for Quebec. It only receives what it puts in. But
Quebec is treated less fairly because the quality of the money it
gets back is inferior compared to other provinces, and that has a
direct impact on social housing.
Would my colleague, the member for Québec, care to
comment?
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I agree with these
comments. Indeed, the facts we are presenting are very
important. The money the federal government returns to Quebec
takes the form of unemployment insurance and social housing
funding, and we do not get our fair share. Therefore, I believe
that we should ask for a debate, in this House, to see item by
item, issue by issue, how Quebec feels in this so-called fair
system.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member had the courage, and we must be
grateful to him for it, of turning the debate to broader
considerations. I think that we could agree with him, if he wants
to engage in that exercise-I am inclined to think that he is an
avid reader-I
1450
might suggest that he refer to two documents which mobilized
all of Quebec. These documents were tabled at the
Bélanger-Campeau commission, of which he is aware. These
documents give a very accurate picture of the investments made
not since Confederation, because the comparison would not be
exact, but in the last 20 years.
We referred to experts, not nationalist experts, we studied, we
surveyed the kinds of investment made by the federal
government, and I believe that our colleague would find out that
in many fields, Quebec received less. Where it received more,
and there are all sorts of variables; we talked about
demographics, we talked about its strength as a region within
Canada, and I am sure that if our colleague went through these
documents, he would recognize their intellectual merit.
The conclusion of Bélanger-Campeau may surprise him, but
it disappointed us. Where Quebec received the most is in
unemployment insurance. That certainly explains why the
Conseil du patronat du Québec does not want Quebec to take
over unemployment insurance. Our colleague will agree that
unemployment insurance is not what one can call an
economically productive investment.
So if he wants to get into this, I am prepared to cooperate so
that together we can look at these figures following the work of
Bélanger-Campeau.
The Deputy Speaker: I do believe that the member for
Québec has no comment to add to what was just said.
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Indeed, I have no comment. I just
would like to say that I agree with my colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois.
(1720)
We should go back and reread certain works which have
already been published and analysed to see how Quebec often
finds itself the poor relation in several federal policy areas.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker,
given that we are just now coming out of the recession, social
housing has become an important consideration and an ongoing
concern for the Liberal Party. While housing provides jobs, our
aims are not economic ones. Rather, they have more to do with
social awareness.
As a physician, I see social housing as much more than
construction materials and labour. To a large extent, it helps to
improve the quality of life of the least fortunate members of our
society, and this is what is important.
The federal government's long-standing commitment with its
provincial and territorial partners to help Canadians in need to
find decent housing has helped Canada earn a reputation for
itself as a nation with one of the highest standards of housing in
the world.
The federal government ensures that all Canadians,
regardless of who they are or where they live, have equal access
to federal housing resources.
Social housing in Canada addresses the needs of specific
groups, namely senior citizens, single-parent households,
disabled persons, native communities and low-income earners.
In short, social housing is inextricably linked to the physical
structure and social fabric of our communities.
The federal government has made a long-standing
commitment to social housing in this country. It currently
subsidizes approximately 652,000 units on an ongoing basis.
More than half of these units also benefit from provincial or
territorial subsidies.
I want to stress again today that the federal government is not
shirking its responsibility in the field of social housing, as some
circles would have us believe. We will continue to respect our
present commitments to social housing.
Annual expenditures of roughly $2 billion reflect the federal
government's fierce determination to help Canadians in need.
Moreover, regardless of how much money is allocated to
social housing in various regions of the country, the quality of
existing housing must also be improved. No one should have to
live in substandard housing. No one should have to live in
housing that fails to provide the basic necessities.
Providing decent housing for all Canadians is important to the
government. That is why the government recently announced in
the throne speech it was reintroducing the Residential
Rehabilitation Assistance Program for both owner-occupants
and disabled persons as well as the Emergency Repair Program
in rural and isolated areas.
This means that the federal government will be spending $50
million a year for the next two years, that is to say a total amount
of $100 million, to help low-income households bring their
dwellings up to safety and sanitation standards.
The RRAP is expected to create thousands of direct and
indirect jobs. Of course, the re-establishment of this program
will have significant economic spin-offs on the Canadian
economy, the construction industry, real estate, the
manufacturing industry and related services.
The provinces and territories have been asked to share the
costs of this established program. The province of Quebec for
instance recently announced the REPARACTION program, a
home renovation program for low-income owner-occupants. In
the light of the reintroduction of the federal RRAP and the new
provincial home renovation program, the federal government
will be working in a partnership with the Province of Quebec to
1451
make arrangements regarding how costs should be shared and
particularly to try and eliminate to some extent duplication of
services.
(1725)
The federal government is doing its best to provide acceptable
levels of service to Canadians and to do so in the most
responsible manner, given the present budget restraints.
In the same spirit, the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation is offering a direct loan program for all public
housing to maximize the use of existing resources and cut
spending.
With this program, the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation expects to save approximately $120 million over
the next four years. Through these measures of effectiveness
combined with new initiatives like direct funding, the federal
government will be able to maintain the current housing stock
and, more importantly, have a certain leeway to implement new
initiatives in the area of social housing.
All levels of government have now recognized the need for
innovative solutions to promote the production of affordable
social housing. It will be imperative that the federal government
work in conjunction with the provinces if we want a global and
concerted approach to be adopted.
Also, the federal government has reiterated that program
changes and the gains made in terms of efficiency within the
social housing envelope will serve to create new housing
initiatives.
At a recent meeting of housing ministers, it was agreed to
pursue joint rather than unilateral efforts in that area.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate goal of this government is,
as stated in our red book, to put human dignity back into public
housing policy.
Before closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank
publicly the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation for
its involvement in the funding of homes for battered women.
Without its support, there could be no such home in
Pierrefonds-Dollard.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make sure I understand the hon. member. I
sensed some enthusiasm, which I do not quite share but which I
can understand, considering that he is a government member.
Are we talking about the same thing since, so far as we know on
this side of the House, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance
Program or RRAP, is exclusively for the benefit of
owner-occupants?
Something is provided for aboriginal people but, for the years
to come, the program's funding is exclusively for
owner-occupants. In that sense, to refer to it as an income
maintenance program for the have-nots of our society implies a
form of generosity which was not intended by the cabinet.
If I misunderstood the scope of the program, I will be very
happy to find out that it will indeed be made available to a larger
number of people. However, the press release clearly stated that
the program was exclusively designed for owner-occupants.
Mr. Patry: I thank the hon. member for his comment. As I
understand it, the RRAP is designed for owner-occupants. But,
as we just saw, that government program could be expanded to
other groups.
This program is targeted to owner-occupants, but will it
become a form of family support? It could be the case, because if
we help those who have difficulty making ends meet buy
materials to make their house more comfortable and safer, it
becomes a form of direct support. However, the goal is really to
make social housing more accessible to a large number of
people.
Mr. Ménard: A social housing unit?
Mr. Patry: It is still a social housing unit occupied by an
owner-occupant.
(1730)
I come from a much more prosperous area than you. Your
riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is a riding-
The Deputy Speaker: Please address your comments to the
Chair, so as to avoid debates and arguments.
Mr. Patry: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am talking to you, but I
am looking at the hon. member.
In conclusion, this is a program designed for
owner-occupants, but poor owner-occupants in particular. I
think this is how we should put it.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, I really
appreciated the speech by the hon. member for
Pierrefonds-Dollard. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois, the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, that the
RRAP program is for homeowners. If you want to buy a home,
you cannot be poor, you have to have some money. The problem
today in our major urban centers is that some people cannot get
clean, decent accommodation. The problem is very serious.
These people will take whatever they can find. Often, they are
on welfare and will have to pay steep rent for unhealthy, dirty
lodgings. We must realize that the RRAP program is not for
those people.
I have been fighting for social housing from the very
beginning, because these people need help, not the homeowners.
We can give part of the money to homeowners, but there are still
a lot of people that we are not helping at all. Often, these people
are not able to defend themselves, because they are uneducated,
illiterate and unable to face reality and speak for themselves.
These are the people I fight for, these are the people we have
to help. We cannot do it with such programs as RRAP.
1452
Mr. Patry: Your comment is 99 per cent accurate since the
RRAP program is of course for homeowners, but that does not
mean we cannot care about them. There are a lot of
homeowners, and I know they are some in the Montreal area
and in the province of Quebec, who are overtaxed like the rest
of us and have trouble making ends meet. I understand very
well the concerns the hon. member has about new programs,
because we must think about new programs.
I decided to go into politics mostly because of social
considerations and I can assure the hon. member that I will
support any new social program. All I can say for now is that the
government has estimated, through the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, that it will be able to save about $120
million which should go, I am told, to new programs. To some
extent, new programs similar to those we have for homeowners
will have to be set up for new housing.
[English]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his
comments. I would also like to point out a couple of things
before coming to a question.
I would like to apprise members of a report that was done by
the committee on aboriginal affairs on aboriginal and northern
housing. Members might want to read and reflect upon the poor
state of housing for aboriginal people across the country.
As much as my colleagues from the Reform would probably
like us to go back into tepees and igloos because of the poor state
of housing, I want to comment that home repairs for rural and
low income areas are welcome. However this does not
adequately address the northern and aboriginal communities.
(1735 )
Some of those houses that are built in the aboriginal and
northern communities almost do not meet the basic standards. It
is not necessarily the best idea to repair the homes. It is better to
replace them.
When the government fell on October 25 and social housing
was cut, Northwest Territories was getting something in the
neighbourhood of $47 million for social housing. That cut had a
devastating effect on aboriginal and northern housing because
although $47 million may not seem all that much, when the total
population is 55,000 in Northwest Territories and we are already
short by 3,800 units, $47 million means an awful lot.
I know the hon. member supports the resumption of the
funding for social housing but more from my point of view we
need the $47 million for the Northwest Territories social
housing program. As I said, if we do not get the housing our
alternative is to build igloos in the winter and tents in the
summer. I do not think that is acceptable today.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
his question. I will simply tell him that I agree with him and that
this government is very much aware of the huge housing needs
of native people, on and off the reserves.
In 1993-94, the federal government will spend some $5.4
billion on native-oriented programs and we will try to do as
much as possible because this is very important.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I thank you for leading us during this debate. You have
been patient. I am sorry I broke the rules so often, and I promise
I will be more disciplined next time I take part in a debate.
I feel the need to recall, for the benefit of listeners who are
joining us just now, that on this allotted day the official
Opposition insisted on moving:
That this House condemn the government's inability to re-establish and
increase budgets for social housing construction programs.
I thank our critic, the hon. member for Laurentides. You will
understand that each and every word in this motion is
meaningful. We decided to address the issue of social housing
because we feel there is a subtle but nevertheless unquestionable
correlation between social housing and poverty.
The definition of poverty rests in part on statistics. In our
society people are poor if they have to devote more than 56.2 per
cent of their income to their essential needs such as clothing,
housing and food.
We are having this debate at a time when large parts of
Canadian as well as Quebec society have never been so poor.
For our part, we are firmly convinced, and this will be a focus
of commitment for the Official Opposition, that there are ways
to put an end to that poverty. I must add that the speakers on the
government side have addressed social housing somewhat in
isolation, as if this were not related to the issue of poverty.
Poverty puts on a new face. Being poor in 1994 is not the same as
being poor in the 1980s. Deep changes have occurred since then.
In 1994, we do not speak of poverty like the Senate did in the
1970s when it was mandated to study poverty in Canada.
Poverty strikes the young and people of my age, in their early
thirties.
(1740)
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ménard: And not only people of my age, but also women
and heads of single-parent families. Fortunately, there are less
and less senior citizens living in poverty.
1453
Concerning social housing, it seems appropriate to remind
the House of three facts that were a real trauma for
parliamentarians. They were largely brought to light by a group
to which I would like to pay tribute. It is a pressure group called
FRAPRU that is very well known in Montreal and the
metropolitan area. It put in a lot of work over the last few years
to try and convince us that we should make a firm commitment
to social housing.
FRAPRU, which has its head office in the riding of
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, committed itself in a document in
which it gives a very detailed profile of social housing in
Quebec and Canada. FRAPRU, which deserves the admiration
and support of parliamentarians, reminds us that there are three
types of data in this document. One of them points very strongly
to the fact that, in Quebec, never before have so many families
had to spend so much on social housing-an alarming situation.
About 40 per cent of families in Quebec are in this situation.
Never have so many people in Canada, not only in Quebec, had
to spend so much of their income in order to have a decent home.
We are talking of about 1.2 million people.
It is with these data in mind that we thought it necessary, as
the Official Opposition, to urge the government to make
substantial efforts to invest in social housing. Indeed, we are
worried. I admit that worry is part and parcel of politics, but we
are nevertheless seriously concerned about the intentions of this
government. And we are not the only ones, for that matter. May I
remind you that FRAPRU and other organizations interested in
housing met the minister last December and that on the basis of
that meeting, they concluded that the minister had not
committed himself seriously and strongly enough, to say the
least, to championing this cause in Cabinet. What we have in
terms of social housing is far from satisfactory and encouraging.
We have little available in terms of social housing. Since in
politics the ability to remember is a very precious asset, we
should recall that the member from Papineau-Saint-Michel,
the present Deputy Prime Minister and other big names of the
former Official Opposition had passionately called for the
re-establishment, among other things-and I am giving here a
very concrete example-of the national co-operative housing
program that cost only $6 million to the government. It is very
little compared to overall government spending.
Some members in the Official Opposition thundered and
talked with deep conviction about social housing, but indeed,
they have quieted down since. I suppose that the fact that they
have changed sides in the House explains their silence. The only
thing that we are left with in terms of social housing is a program
which is, to use parliamentary language, modest but you will
understand that this is not really the word I would rather use.
This program which addresses a very small proportion of the
housing problem deals with renovation but not any kind of
renovation since it is open only to homeowners. As if the poor,
as if people in our community who really need the government's
assistance were homeowners!
(1745)
I believe that the government must maintain the program
referred to since the beginning of this debate, but that this is
largely insufficient. We are entitled, a few days away from the
tabling of the budget-I hope we will not be disappointed-to
expect that the government is going to re-establish the budgets
approved in the past in the three sectors where one could, as a
less fortunate member of society, expect to get some help in the
social housing area.
What are the three programs which the federal and provincial
governments jointly administered in the past? First, the
National Co-operative Housing Program, which was very
inexpensive for the government and had tremendous
advantages. I will have an opportunity to come back to that.
Second, the Income Supplement Program, which was a way to
intervene on the rental market and to help people. The resources
there were meagre, but they proved effective. Third, a more
complex and more expensive low-cost housing program.
Housing authorities in each municipality operate according to
very specific rules. When one talks about low-cost housing, we
all know here-because our television viewers know it-that
this formula allows them to spend 25 p. 100 of their income in
order to get a decent housing unit in which to live and to belong
to a community from whom they are entitled to expect some
help. And, as a general rule, support is available.
At the same time as the low-cost housing program, the federal
government, with the provinces, had been assisting non-profit
organizations that were dealing with a very specific clientele,
mostly handicapped people, people losing their autonomy,
ex-prisoners or people with AIDS. In the past, there was a
program that allowed to help a very specific clientele.
So, at this time, even if we are being enthusiastic-I am not a
pessimist by nature-we do not have much indication about the
will of the government to act and to play a major role in these
areas, still in co-operation with the provinces. You know that,
on this side of the House, we will not forget that.
Why did we feel, as the Official Opposition, that we needed to
be insistent? This has to do not only with the poverty issue.
Indeed, we are concerned with it because we know that more and
more people are getting poorer, but also because we
believe-and that is the fundamental difference between us and
our friends from the Reform Party. There are other differences,
and I will not mention them, but this is certainly one of them. We
are convinced that when you act in the social housing area, when
there are public funds, when you make a budget, when you
provide money to act in that area, you are being useful and you
1454
contribute to the revitalization of the economy, because there is
a return on your investment.
I could give you some compelling examples that would
convince you. They do not come from me or from some partisan
groups around the Bloc Quebecois, but from people with
expertise who know about the reality in the social housing area.
I will mention, first, the Co-operative Housing Federation of
Canada which conducted studies the findings of which I could
hand out to the parliamentarians who are not yet convinced of
the merits of government investments in social housing. I know
I am not allowed to read in this House and I acknowledge having
circumvented the rules on a number of occasions today, but I just
want to bring to your attention four lines which clearly reflect
the spin-offs of government investments in social housing.
Building 1,000 co-operative housing units, in terms of
construction or renovation, would create lots of jobs, especially
in the construction and manufacturing sectors. In the
construction sector, over 2,000 jobs would be generated this
way. Renovation projects generate less jobs, in fact about 800
jobs for every 1,000 housing units.
Therefore, I think it is fair to say that there are very few
sectors in our society where you can claim that a government
action would create and generate such great economic spin-offs
as those identified by the Federation.
(1750)
In spite of it all, in spite of the fact that we are aware of those
figures, in spite of the fact that, since last December, the
FRAPRU and other pressure groups have continuously been
making representations to the government, in spite of the fact
that less than three months after this government came into
office, stakeholders in social housing were already active, in
spite of the fact that we made representations, we can see that
the government, on the social housing issue, is timid, spineless
and certainly not too daring.
It is sad. It is sad, because such an attitude fosters prejudices.
And as you know, there is a lot of prejudice in our society. Such
an attitude fosters preconceived ideas to the effect that the best
government is one which governs little, while we know
perfectly well that if the government was able to take its
responsibilities and to allocate money, not necessarily a lot of
it-some years, 35,000 co-op housing units were built in
Canada-if only we could have maintained that rate, I think we
could have built up a strong housing inventory. We could have
succeeded in revitalizing perhaps not all but some urban areas
which are deteriorating.
It is for that reason that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are making
an urgent appeal to the minister. We do not have many
government members with us today; nonetheless, we are making
an urgent appeal, and we will not back down; we will keep at it
and work on all fronts so that this government understands how
necessary it is to invest in social housing, not in the timid
renovation program it is offering. It is an interesting beginning,
a trial run, but we would be extremely disappointed, together
with Quebecers and Canadians, if the government was to limit
its action in the field of social housing to such a timid program.
There was talk about the economic spin-offs of social housing
investments, but I would like to explain, from a social and
human perspective, why we have to invest in social housing. I
will start with a reality known to every member, I think, and that
is the low-cost housing situation. If there is no change in the
status quo in 1994-95-96, not one low-cost housing unit will be
built.
This afternoon, we witnessed conflicting styles and genres. I
heard the minister say, and he was quoted several times later,
that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was going
to invest $35 million; every time a government member uttered
that number, there was a sense of ecstasy. We must tell people
who are listening that this $35 million will not be used to build
new units, if I am wrong I will take it back, but we checked and it
appears that it will be used to pay the interests on the money
borrowed to build the existing housing inventory. The basic
truth that should not be forgotten is that not a single low-cost
housing unit will be built if the Minister of Finance does not
change the status quo.
Why is it that the low-cost housing units are so important? We
could very well, you and I, end up in low-cost housing when we
get to be 60 or 65. Why are they important? Because it is a form
community life. The people who live in such dwellings are not
necessarily incapacitated. In any event there is no cafeteria in
low-cost housing buildings. They are really only apartment
buildings, but there are community rooms where residents get
together to play cards or whatever. Any member of Parliament
who is close to his constituents knows that there is a real
community life in this type of housing. The lack of low-cost
housing is sorely felt and we hope the government will be able to
put the situation to right.
(1755)
As far as co-operatives are concerned we know their
economic significance but we also know that those who are part
of a co-operative are people who invest in society. Each of them
has tasks to perform: paint the fence, take the garbage out, take
charge of public relations with the neighbouring community.
Those people give and receive and this is why that formula has
become so popular.
In conclusion, we sincerely believe that if the present
government, which in the past has associated liberalism with
generosity, is serious and has a social conscience, I believe that
the Minister of Public Works-we do not even call him Minister
of Housing since housing is so low on the list of
priorities-should march to the beat of a different drummer. He
should be the social conscience of that government. He should
not be afraid to stand
1455
apart from his cabinet colleagues because that is what is
expected of him.
Too often we are told that the Minister of Finance will decide.
I say no. We must be able to count on the Minister of Public
Works to act as an aggressive and uncompromising champion of
social housing. Only when the minister, acting as the voice of
the less privileged in terms of social housing, puts his foot down
will the Minister of Finance act accordingly in his budget.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to commend the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for
his excellent and brilliant presentation.
Given the federal deficit which has now accumulated and
exceeds $500 billion, do you agree that this House should
substantially increase the funding of the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation or other related agencies in order to
provide more low-income housing?
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, as René Lévesque said, facts are
always more stubborn than the interpretation one gives them. I
believe so, since the question was put that way; I think it would
be good for the government to put more money into low-income
housing. Other possibilities exist, which I did not have time to
mention because I ran out of time.
In Montreal, there are four purchasing corporations. What are
purchasing corporations? Perhaps the minister should come to
Montreal and see. These purchasing corporations bring people
together in a non-profit organization. They have some
money-of course, they have help. They have been helped by
the McGill Fund or by the people who probably haunted your
childhood, the good Sisters of the Holy Cross. With this initial
funding, they can take housing out of the speculative market,
renovate it and then make it available to the community.
I believe that this is a promising approach for the future. I
understand that the hon. member also wants to be this
government's social conscience. Since he is a Montrealer, which
pleases me, I think that we should convince the minister to come
to Montreal and try out this approach and use it as a way for
society to act in the market.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I want
to make a brief comment and perhaps ask the member a
question.
First I want to make it absolutely clear that the New
Democratic Party supports the notion that more rather than less
needs to be spent on social housing, not just in Quebec but
across the country. It is something we have always supported. In
the past we have pressed previous governments to make a
greater commitment to social housing and were disturbed by the
cuts in social housing made by the previous Conservative
government.
I listened earlier to a Reform member of Parliament who
asked a question of the Bloc Quebecois member about what they
would be prepared to give up and what would they be prepared to
not spend money on in return for spending more money on social
housing.
I do not want to presume to answer the question for the hon.
member, however it seems to me that if we were looking for
more money for social housing and for other social priorities
one thing we could look at is the tax system.
I am reading an extensive article by Neil Brooks called ``The
Changing Structure of the Canadian Tax System,
Accommodating the Rich''. It is a very lengthy article in the
Osgoode Hall Law Journal in the spring of 1992 and outlines the
way in which the tax system has been changed over the last 10
years to accommodate the rich.
(1800)
One of the ways we could find that kind of money for social
housing and for other things is to look at changing the tax
system. One of the things that has been floated around in the last
little while is trying to bring down the amount of money that
people are able to put away to avoid taxation on through the use
of RRSPs. I wonder what the position of the Bloc is on that.
It would seem to me that people who have $13,000 left over to
put into RRSPs and therefore avoid paying taxes on it are not the
people who need social housing. Obviously a big gap exists
between the people who benefit from this particular tax policy
and the people who are in need of social housing.
It certainly would seem to me that some amelioration or a
reduction of the amount that people are able to hide in this way
might help to provide money on the other side for social
purposes.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member wishes to answer,
he still has about four or five minutes left.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, you are very generous.
In his question, the hon. member suggested an answer with
which I wholeheartedly agree. I think our leader and my
colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois made it very clear, from the
very beginning, that social justice, which is a main goal of ours,
flows from tax reform, but not just any tax reform, and not
necessarily one which will affect ordinary Canadians and
low-income taxpayers. On a corporate level, we know about the
tax avoidance devices available in Canada and also all the
measures used by richer taxpayers.
1456
I agree with the hon. member, but I cannot tell him that this
is the position of my party, since it is the responsibility of our
finance critic, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot,
to do so. However, from what I understand, the hon. member
is absolutely right in saying that RRSPs should be taxed
according on a progressive scale. We are not talking here about
a freelancer who puts $1,000 in a RRSP, but rather about rich
people who use this tax instrument. I would have absolutely no
hesitation in saying that progressive taxation should apply to
these rich people.
Thus, I do agree with most of what my colleague had to say,
Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have a working as well as a personal
interest in the area of housing.
For several years I was chairperson of the Metro Toronto
Housing Authority, MTHA as it is commonly known, the largest
public housing agency in Canada. We house approximately
125,000 individuals in rent geared to income facilities. The
majority of the MTHA stock was built in the 1950s and 1960s
and was characterized by large scale projects targeted to low
income households.
Through my work in housing and my contact with my
constituents, I am aware there is a pressing need for affordable
housing especially in the metropolitan Toronto area and in other
urban areas. I am also aware of the aboriginal people and the
pressing and critical need there is for housing in their areas.
In the early 1970s the Liberal government introduced
community based non-profit and co-operative housing
programs to better integrate socially assisted housing in all
communities. To this end we took a different route from that
taken by the United States. These new social housing programs
were developed in partnership, with municipal, private,
co-operative and non-profit housing corporations and were
based on the tenets of self-help and volunteerism.
(1805 )
I believe this progressive housing initiative by the Liberal
government of the time greatly contributed to Canada's
reputation as a country of relatively safe communities. Unlike
the United States, Canada does not have abandoned inner city
areas or communities teaming with homeless people. I fear,
however, that this may change if the short sighted policies of the
previous government are not reviewed.
Poverty in Canada's inner cities is on the rise and hundreds of
thousands of people are living below the poverty line. The
greatest proportion of their income goes toward rent, making
them dependent on food banks and other forms of assistance.
Since social housing makes up less than 6 per cent of Canada's
total housing stock, these low income households have no other
choice but to rent private market housing.
The Conservative government had no interest in investing in
social housing. During its time in office it chipped away at all
social housing programs. Housing budgets and programs
underwent drastic cuts and culminated in the cancellation of a
good many programs.
The Conservative government did this despite the knowledge
that one in eight households, ranging from the working poor to
those with special needs, cannot afford its housing or is in an
inadequate or substandard dwelling. The cancellation of social
housing programs made the chances for these households
getting housing assistance equivalent to winning a lottery.
We have a different scene now. In our red book we said that
the Liberal government wanted to support local communities as
the source of social stability and economic strength. Canada's
social housing programs go a long way in meeting these goals.
We realize on this side of the House, as does everyone in the
House, that adequate shelter is a fundamental need of society
and a prerequisite for community prosperity.
Our government is committed to rebuilding community
well-being and restoring individual dignity. We will do this by
helping to house Canadians in affordable, suitable and adequate
shelter. Our commitment in maintaining a strong role in housing
is clear and we have made this clear. We have expressed this in
several avenues. We will continue to fund and support the
652,000 households at approximately $2 billion per year.
The need for adequate housing for all Canadians is a very
serious issue. The federal government recently in the throne
speech reaffirmed the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance
Program. A total of $100 million over the next two years will be
available to help low income households bring their homes up to
health and safety standards.
I know of this concern and this need for government to
achieve efficiency and savings in delivering an acceptable level
of service to Canadians. We want to do this in the most cost
effect manner.
I was made to understand that CMHC has already begun to
discuss direct lending to finance and refinance social housing
projects as one way of making better use of resources and
reducing expenditures. We expect to save some $120 million in
subsidy costs over the next four years, providing scope for new
housing initiatives.
We need to develop additional ideas, invigorating, inspiring
and creative ideas. Those ideas can come from all sides of the
House.
(1810 )
The need to combine cost effectiveness as has been mentioned
over and over goes along with creativity in our funding
approaches. We must combine creativity and funding
approaches
1457
to meet the theme which is needed and echoed on this side of the
House.
The provinces and the federal government had a meeting.
They came away with a sense of co-operation and a resolution
that together they must provide the hard working taxpayer a
return for the dollar. This is why we must work together to
achieve efficiencies and savings and to address overlap and
duplication.
The federal and provincial ministers of housing will be
meeting at a summer conference. It is hoped the co-operation
we have started in working with our provincial counterparts will
be exemplified there. They will be working not only on
strategies as to the cost effectiveness and efficiency of
administering the existing social housing portfolio but also will
be discussing the partnership required to meet the needs.
Efficiencies can be realized in the operating costs. A few
examples are: improved energy efficiencies; streamlining the
professional fees such as audit and legal fees, et cetera, that are
done in the social housing field; reducing property and liability
insurance costs; and bulk purchasing of goods and services. All
those avenues offer excellent opportunities and potential for
savings.
We need to build in a spirit of co-operation and partnership.
We need to renew our thinking for the nineties, to find new and
creative ways to meet the need before us as a country, a need
facing all Canadians but especially those for whom social
housing is the only answer. We need to consider innovative
ways. We need to look outside our existing structures.
As Canadians we offer much to the world. I have participated
in international conferences where as Canadians we stood up
and participated on a level way above what a number of other
countries presently involved were doing.
Partnerships among levels of government in Canada have
historically worked well. They will continue to work well as
long as there is co-operation within the federation. With our
current fiscal reality we need to continue to do this and do it
even better. Existing partnerships must be reviewed to
determine how we can put them together to benefit not only the
housing market but also for the jobs that could be provided in
that area.
Creative new funding opportunities must include the third
sector contribution, charitable organizations and all those
involved in the area of meeting the housing needs of Canadians.
Housing policy can no longer be considered as something by
itself isolated in a vacuum, the responsibility of a government
agency, body or ministry. It cannot simply be measured in terms
of public expenditures. It must be linked to other public policies
and co-ordinated with them to get the most from available
resources.
It is very important on this side of the House that as we speak
about the ideals of what the 21st century offers to us, as we begin
to review the needs of Canadians, as we begin to look at our
entire social security system, that we see social housing as a
very important part of that discussion.
(1815 )
Today's topic is timely. The input from members today will go
into the discussion that will and must occur as we move forward.
This type of thinking reflects what is already occurring in a
number of provinces.
Demonstration projects are now under way in New
Brunswick, British Columbia and other provinces. They are
looking at income supplements to enable welfare recipients to
enter the workforce and become self-sufficient. The emphasis is
on training and education and finding jobs for those able to
work.
These programs stress enabling individuals to overcome
barriers to personal development and employment. It enhances
their dignity and self-reliance to compete in the job market. We
need to involve others to focus their energies, resources and
creativity in developing solutions to housing problems.
I worked quite closely with individuals in my last occupation
as chair of metro housing in the empowerment of individuals.
Residents had a say on the issues that dealt with their quality of
life in the places in which they lived.
I look forward to building on this spirit of co-operation as we
extend the provision of housing to all Canadians in need, as we
look at the innovative and cost effective ways in which we can
provide housing for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I realize my colleague shares many of our concerns
about social housing. I praise her for that. It reminds me of a
debate during the election campaign with, among others, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel, a Montreal riding, when we both held
the same views and criticized the Conservative government
policies cutting all subsidies for co-operative housing.
We had met the same groups between 1990 and 1993 and
signed the same petitions to support all those who are involved
in, promote and manage co-operative housing. My question to
the hon. member is this: Did the government confirm in the
throne speech, without my knowledge, its promise to reinstate
the co-operative housing program? I may be wrong, but it was in
the red book. The throne speech is silent on this matter, although
both Liberals and Bloc members criticized Conservative poli-
1458
cies. Liberals promised time and again that when they came into
office they would reinstate the co-operative housing program.
Maybe I missed something, but I am sure they will be true to
their promise and a decision has already been made. I did not see
it, but I would like my hon. colleague to tell me when that
decision was made and where it is to be found in the throne
speech. Maybe it will be announced in the Minister of Finance's
budget speech next Tuesday. I would really like to be better
informed.
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew what was in next
Tuesday's budget, but in fairness and in response to the
member's question I just want to confirm what was said earlier.
We are committed to job creation. We recognize that housing
and everything relating to housing is a stimulus to job creation.
We are committed to ensuring that Canadian society functions.
We are committed to helping people in needy situations. We are
committed to responding to the needs of people who find
themselves in difficult situations especially in our urban areas
where there are waiting lists of thousands of people who require
housing. There is a commitment to respond to those needs.
(1820 )
We have committed timelines and deadlines to some of the
programs. We have committed to CMHC. We mentioned what
we will do in the area of the aboriginal and the dollars we will
spend in that area. We talked about our commitment and support
to the national strategy for the integration of persons with
disabilities. It is there. It is within our commitment to ensure our
support. We will ensure that Canadian society and those who
require assistance will be so afforded.
We have talked about how many dollars, where we are going
with all of this. We spoke about partnerships. We talked about
working together. The whole business of the co-operative
movement is a partnership. There is support for this and I know
that the minister is committed to ensuring that together with the
finance minister he can come up with some alternatives.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, it is a fact
that when the state gets heavily involved in housing there is less
incentive for private landlords to build housing units. This
means less housing overall and higher rents, which only hurts
low income Canadians.
Does the government consider these secondary but very real
effects in considering how to approach this problem?
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, there is full knowledge on the
part of everyone involved in the housing industry as well as
everyone on this side of the House. We recognize that we have a
responsibility and it is a partnership.
We are also fully aware of what happens in the market. We
have seen over the last while with the increase in prices what has
happened to those that are neediest and those for whom the state
has to provide some assistance. We have seen the homeless in
our midst growing. That reality is there in terms of the push and
the pull in the market and the support that is given.
We have again campaigned on job creation. We recognize that
housing starts and the housing market have to go hand in hand
with the promise of job creation.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, in my riding,
Bourassa, in Montreal North, the housing situation is tragic: 42
per cent of tenants spend more than 30 per cent of their income
on housing; 73 per cent of the 90,000 residents of Montreal
North are tenants. Of these 90,000 residents, 22 per cent are
women who spend more than half of their income on housing.
This is the highest percentage in all of Quebec. The situation is
alarming.
Yesterday, the Organisation populaire des droits sociaux de
Montréal-Nord and the Front d'action populaire en
réaménagement urbain gave a press conference. During the
election campaign, I visited many co-operatives. The people
were very worried following the subsidy cuts in funding made
when the Conservative government was in power. There are also
many minorities in my riding.
I would like to ask my hon. friend if special measures are
planned to protect the right to housing of minorities,
particularly of visible minorities.
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, the question of protection for
minority individuals is important. I will say that there is, and I
am speaking on a personal note, as far as I can see. The co-ops
and co-op programs through which individuals can put together
through their community a request and build and house
themselves as a result of their own activity are parts of the
continuing program. There are special avenues. I can talk about
several communities in which efforts are made to empower
individuals to participate in the communities in which they live
and to be very much an integrated part of their communities.
(1825)
In this country we do not have areas in which minorities or
various groups take residential patterns because this is the only
place in which they can live. Therefore all programs are open
equally to everyone regardless of race, colour, nationality,
creed, length of stay of Canada, et cetera. The programs for
those individuals are really empowering programs to help them
to be partners in programs of co-operation where individuals
have a sense of belonging, a quality of life, and are able to
participate freely in society.
1459
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
really appreciated the comments of the hon. member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I understood, from her remarks, that she
really cares about social housing, all the more so since she was
director of the largest social housing complex in Toronto for a
while. She even said, and I quote: ``Adequate shelter is a
fundamental right''. It is a concern that we share, of course.
However, there is a lot of confusion on the government's part
because, even with all the nice principles being laid out, the
good intentions and the rhetoric, it seems that we cannot find out
what the government really thinks about this issue. A while ago,
someone asked if the government was willing to implement a
social housing construction program, and we got no answer.
Also, when I put a question to the Minister of Public Works, he
could not tell me if he is opposed to rent increases for social
housing units.
I would ask the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore if she
would agree to rent increases for social housing units in order to
pay for the construction of more units.
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, it is a very legitimate question
and one that is usually asked. There are several ways, especially
in the area of public housing, where 20 per cent or 30 per cent is
used as a ratio and is referred to as meeting the needs of
individuals who are caught in that socioeconomic situation.
The increase in rent in the province of Ontario is an example.
We know there is some control in that specific area. Are we
talking about people who are in deep core need? Are we talking
about people who are paying market rent? Are we talking about
the present situation of the market as it is today? Are we talking
about the needs of individuals to get into housing as a result of
the size of their families?
When we ask a question about rent and speak about people in
social housing there are a number of things it is important to take
into consideration.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
will try to make my comments in two minutes and leave one
minute for a response.
I have listened to much of this debate today. I want to make it
absolutely clear that there are many people in the Reform Party
who believe strongly in the need for social housing. We
understand that decent housing is the cornerstone of many
families. It is the first real step many families take to work
themselves out of poverty. We have to be thinking in terms of the
children, not of the adults, in terms of the potential of the
children to have firm, consistent roots from which they can grow
into adults.
We still have to pay the bills. We as a Parliament have to set
priorities. We have to decide where we can spend money, where
we can get money and where we can allocate it. In my view there
are probably very few areas of spending that we could define
that should have a higher priority than housing, particularly for
the poor and also for single parents who are primarily female.
The problem is that somehow we have to make these projects
self-liquidating. We have to ensure that the social housing
projects do not all gravitate to one geographical area. They need
to be spread out through the community so that we do not get
blocks of high income and low income. We should be able to
spread them out through the community.
The co-op programs we have work very well-
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to
inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(19)
proceedings on the motion have expired.
[Translation]
* * *
The House resumed from February 15 consideration of the
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 45(5)(a), it is my duty to put forthwith all
questions necessary to dispose of government order No. 7.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 5)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
1460
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLaren (Etobicoke North/Nord)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
Ouellet
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sudbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-190
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-51
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Bakopanos
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Canuel
Copps
Debien
Goodale
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
[Translation]
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being seven o'clock, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)