36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 194
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 11, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
1005
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-68. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1010
| CANADA WATER EXPORT PROHIBITION ACT
|
| Bill C-485. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
| ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-486. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| NATIONAL DAY AGAINST IMPAIRED DRIVING ACT
|
| Bill C-487. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1015
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Motion
|
| MOTION NO. P-26
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Industry
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Motion
|
| NATIONAL SYMBOL OF CANADIAN UNITY ACT
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| PETITIONS
|
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
| Violent Offenders
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Merchant Navy Veterans
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1020
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Pay Equity
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
|
| Bill C-61. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1025
| Mr. Bob Wood |
1030
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
1035
1040
1045
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
1050
1055
1100
1105
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1110
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1115
1120
1125
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Second reading
|
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
1130
1135
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1140
1145
1150
1155
1200
1205
1210
1215
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1305
1310
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1315
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1320
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1340
1345
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1350
| Mr. John McKay |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADA CORD CEREMONY
|
| Mr. John Cannis |
| MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1400
| FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| NATIONAL FARM SAFETY WEEK
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| NATO
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1405
| ORGAN DONATIONS
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| FOREIGN AID
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| LUC PLAMONDON
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| NUCLEAR CHALLENGE
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
1410
| INFO FAIR
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH
|
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
| FAMILIES
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| YEAR 2000
|
| MARKHAM PHILHARMONIA SOCIETY
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1420
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1425
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1435
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1440
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| PUBLIC SERVICE
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| SNOW GEESE
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
1445
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1450
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1455
| ELK BREEDING
|
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| THE HOMELESS
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| YEAR 2000
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1500
| URBAN SMOG
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Hon. Sergio Marchi |
| POVERTY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments During Question Period
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Second reading
|
| Mr. John McKay |
1510
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1515
1520
1525
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1530
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1535
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1540
1545
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1550
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1555
| ROYAL ASSENT
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Second reading
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1600
1605
1610
1615
| Mr. René Canuel |
1620
1625
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1630
1635
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1640
| THE ROYAL ASSENT
|
1645
1650
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Second Reading
|
1655
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
| Bill C-66. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1700
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1705
1710
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1715
1720
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. John Bryden |
1725
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1730
| Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Program for Older Workers Adjustment
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1735
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 194
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 11, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion. It has been discussed between the leaders of
all parties in the House:
That the hours of sitting and order of business of the House on
Thursday, April 29, 1999, shall be those provided in the standing
orders for a Wednesday;
That the address of the President of the Czech Republic, to be
delivered in the Chamber of the House of Commons at 10 a.m. on
Thursday, April 29, 1999, before members of the Senate and the House
of Commons, together with all introductory and related remarks, be
printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates for that
day and form part of the records of this House; and
That the media recording and transmission of such address,
introductory and related remarks be authorized pursuant to
established guidelines for such occasions.
1005
Just to assure all hon. members, this is the identical motion we
had for His Excellency President Nelson Mandela with the
exception of course that the name of the individual has changed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th
report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans which
recommends that it be granted leave to travel the week of March
22, 1999 to Nain and Cartwright, Labrador to hold town hall
meetings in connection with fisheries issues.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I suggest we defer this item with the
permission of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The document is tabled.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we fully intend to debate this issue and would agree with the
government deputy House leader that it could be deferred but we
would like to know deferred until when.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As it stands right
now the paper is simply tabled. It might arise again depending
on what happens under motions. At that time it would be dealt
with
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification
on that. Is it the ruling of the Chair that this issue would
arise today or any day subsequent to this introduction?
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if we could rescind the matter while there are
negotiations among the parties and we will deal with the matter
forthwith following some consultations with representatives of
the official opposition and other parties who might have an
interest in the same subject matter.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We may well be
getting the cart before the horse. The document is merely
tabled. There is no motion before the House. If the member for
Miramichi at some future date under motions rises then it would
be dealt with at that time, or with notice.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, dealing with this under
motions today, or any other day, without consultation with the
other parties—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are not going one
inch further down this road right now. We will go to the
introduction of government bills.
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-68, an
act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend
and repeal other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1010
CANADA WATER EXPORT PROHIBITION ACT
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-485, an act to prohibit the export of
water from Canada by pipeline, railway tank car, tank truck,
tanker or interbasin transfers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would prohibit the export of
water from Canada by pipeline, railway tank car, tank truck,
tanker or interbasin transfers. Water will be the defining issue
of the coming century and the centuries beyond. It is the most
cherished by Canadians of the values that define our natural
heritage. The overwhelming desire of Canadians is to protect
their water from export. The bill simply attempts to do this.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-486, an act to change the name of the
electoral district of Edmonton East.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I introduce this bill on behalf of an
overwhelming number of my constituents who truly believe a change
like this is appropriate. Edmonton Centre-East would properly
describe this riding in full whereas at the present time the
centre of the city of Edmonton to 109th Street is not described
by the title of Edmonton East alone. The bill has overwhelming
support and I am presenting it for that reason.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
NATIONAL DAY AGAINST IMPAIRED DRIVING ACT
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-487, an act respecting a national day
against impaired driving.
He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill in the
House that will call to the attention of Canadians the need to
continue to fight against drunk driving. This private member's
bill will dedicate August 14 each year in Canada as the national
day against impaired driving.
Each year in our country so many good people are killed or
injured by those who deliberately drink and drive. This bill
will remind us all of our obligation to resolve the problem. This
bill was inspired by Sharlene Verhulst whose twin sister Cindy
was killed by a drunk driver. I dedicate the bill to Mark
Roffel, Cindy Verhulst, my niece Sheena, a very special person in
my life, my niece Krista, and all victims of drunk drivers. This
bill should be know as Cindy's bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1015
WAYS AND MEANS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among the parties and I think you would
find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the questions on Government Orders, ways and means
proceedings Nos. 23, 24 and 25, be deemed to have been put, and
divisions requested and deferred to the expiry of the time
provided for the consideration of Government Orders on Monday,
March 15, 1999.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
MOTION NO. P-26
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I seek unanimous consent to remove Motion No. P-26 from the order
paper. It is up for debate today and I have received the
documents I want under production of papers.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Somme hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among the parties and I think you would
find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Industry be authorized to travel
to St. Hubert, Quebec, on Monday, March 22, 1999 for the purpose
of visiting the Canadian Space Agency, and that the necessary
staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
NATIONAL SYMBOL OF CANADIAN UNITY ACT
INCOME TAX ACT
CRIMINAL CODE
(Bill C-413. On the Order: Private Members' Business)
Second reading and reference to a committee of Bill C-413, an act
to provide for the recognition of a national symbol for the
promotion of Canadian unity—Mr. Lynn Myers
(Bill C-414. On the Order: Private Members' Business)
Second reading and reference to a committee of Bill C-414, an act
to amend the Income Tax Act (wages of apprentices)—Mr. Lynn
Myers
(Bill C-425. On the Order: Private Members' Business)
Second reading and reference to a committee of Bill C-425, an act
to amend the Criminal Code (public disclosure of the names of
persons who have served a sentence of imprisonment for an offence
of a sexual nature)—Mr. Lynn Myers
(Bill C-426. On the Order: Private Members' Business)
Second reading and reference to a committee of Bill C-426, an act
to amend the Criminal Code—Mr. Lynn Myers
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to
withdraw my private member's bills. They are Bill C-413, C-414,
C-425 and C-426.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Orders discharged and bills withdrawn)
* * *
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
on the matter of human rights signed by a number of Canadians,
including some from my own constituency of Mississauga South.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights violations continue to be rampant around the
world in countries such as Indonesia. They also point out that
Canada continues to be recognized as the champion of
internationally accepted human rights.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to continue to
speak out against human rights violations and to seek to bring to
justice those responsible for such abuses.
VIOLENT OFFENDERS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have another 7,500 names, which makes it now over 21,000 names.
The individuals signing this petition are informing the House
that between April 14, 1997 and February 1998, a period of 10
months, four sexual assaults took place in the Abbotsford area.
All four were committed by residents of the Sumas Community
Correctional Centre.
They would like you to know, Mr. Speaker, that there would be
fewer devastating sexual and other assaults if legislative
measures would be taken.
Therefore the petitioners ask that Sumas Community Correctional
Centre officials have the right to refuse violent, repeat and
dangerous offenders who could pose a danger to society, and that
habitual violent offenders and sexual perpetrators should not be
allowed to reside at Sumas Community Correctional Centre any
longer.
There are more names coming. I urge the House to follow up and
follow through on this petition.
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish today to present to the House five petitions by hundreds of
Canadians who are concerned about merchant navy veterans.
Their concerns can be basically summarized as seeking war
veteran status, prisoner of war benefits, recompense for years of
denial of equality, and ceremonial day recognition.
1020
I submit these petitions today on behalf of merchant navy
veterans and their concerns.
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the people in the riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes,
who sincerely believe in equality between men and women and in
justice, I have the honour of tabling two petitions, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, demanding that the government withdraw its
appeal against the public service pay equity decision and give
effect to the court ruling in this regard.
This petition combines with those presented by my other Bloc
Quebecois colleagues in the past few days.
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present to the House of
Commons, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by
Canadians who are very concerned that the OECD and the head of
the OECD, Don Johnston, are continuing to negotiate a
multilateral agreement on investment.
These Canadians are very concerned about the negative impact an
MAI would have on Canada, our economy and jobs in our country in
particular. They are asking the House of Commons to impose a
moratorium on ratification of the MAI and to ask Don Johnston to
stop negotiating something that is not wanted by anyone in the
country except the large multinational American corporations that
support the Liberal government.
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the people in the riding of Charlesbourg, who sincerely
believe in equality between men and women and in justice, I have
the honour of tabling two petitions pursuant to Standing Order
36, demanding that the government withdraw its appeal against
the public service pay equity decision and give effect to the
court ruling requiring it to ensure pay equity for its
employees.
This petition combines with those presented by my other Bloc
Quebecois colleagues.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-61, an act to
amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the
Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the
Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and
Appeal Board Act and the Halifax Relief Commission Pension
Continuation Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence
thereof, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (for the Minister of Veterans
Affairs) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When shall the bill
be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (for the Minister of Veterans
Affairs) moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
1025
Mr. Bob Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans
Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak
to third reading of Bill C-61 today. This omnibus legislation is
designed to provide enhanced benefits for Canada's veterans and
their survivors. It is a tangible expression of our gratitude to
these men and women for their service and for their contribution
to their country.
It is not often that members of the House agree on the need for
swift passage of legislation. Let me at this point express my
heartfelt gratitude to all members of the standing committee who
saw the need and acted on the need by letting the bill pass
through their deliberations with speed and dispatch. The fact
they have done so is an indication of the high regard we all hold
for our veterans.
The men and women who have served in our armed forces and in our
merchant marines throughout the first half of this century have a
number of things in common. They were young. They had high
hopes for settling down, for starting families and for a bright
future, and they loved their country. When war came they would
surrender their youth and put their hopes, their families and
their futures on hold for the love of their country. When called
upon these young men and women, these ordinary men and women,
they would come to do quite extraordinary things and in the
process become quite extraordinary themselves.
When it was all over those who did not die on the field of
battle came home to build a nation, and what a nation they built.
We the generation that followed have known only peace and
prosperity for the most of the second half of this century. As
we are about to enter the new millennium we are the benefactors
of the sacrifices of those brave men and women who served in two
world wars and in Korea.
That is why the country made a pact with them which said “We
will remember your sacrifices”, a pact which said “We will take
care of you as you took care of us”. That is why over the years
we have developed such a comprehensive set of programs that
provide disability benefits for those whose injuries and
illnesses from service continue to plague them; monetary
allowances for those whose life circumstances have left them at
the low end of the income scale; comprehensive medical and dental
benefits as supplements to provincial plans; and a veterans
independence program that allows veterans to stay in their own
homes as long as possible and, when that is no longer possible,
provides access to long term beds so that their care needs
continue to be provided.
During second reading of the bill I spoke about the progress
which has been made in building and improving upon a package of
programs and services for veterans which ensures they are able to
live as comfortably as possible and with the dignity they so
rightly deserve. Our challenge now is to make sure that these
programs and benefits continue to meet their needs which are
changing with the passage of time. The bill will do just that.
Like most omnibus legislation, Bill C-61 is not about making
great changes to policy. It will generate no great newspaper
headlines. Rather, it concerns itself with the details that will
affect, for the better, the day to day lives of many of our
veterans. In short, the legislation is another step forward in
providing top notch quality care to these men and women and their
dependants.
What does Bill C-61 do for veterans? Very briefly, it brings
the merchant navy under the same legislation as armed forces
veterans and it puts an end to any uncertainty regarding their
status as veterans. It also opens up the disability pension
process so that more widows of veterans might be eligible for an
increase in their pension payments. More than 35,000 widows fall
in this category.
1030
We are recognizing the special needs of former prisoners of war
and affording them the opportunity to receive an attendance
allowance to help with their day to day personal care.
Bill C-61 seeks to defer the deadline for termination of war
veterans' allowance payments to allied veterans residing outside
Canada. In so doing we will remove the possibility of any undue
hardship which might be caused by requiring these individuals to
return to Canada in order to continue to receive their payments.
We are also looking for changes to the Department of Veterans
Affairs Act to allow for more orderly procedures regarding grave
markers and financial assistance for funerals and burials.
There are proposed changes as well to the Veterans Review and
Appeal Board Act to help smooth the process for the board's
hearings and to make the scheduling of these hearings convenient
for the board and, more importantly, for the appellant. Finally,
through the bill we are providing continuing pension payments for
those survivors of the terrible explosion in the Halifax harbour
in 1917.
What is also noteworthy about these amendments is that they
respond to priorities identified by the main veteran
organizations. Bill C-61 demonstrates that we are listening and
that we are prepared to act. Most importantly, it will provide
direct improvements for the lives of these most cherished of our
citizens.
I hope we can send another signal to veterans groups by
demonstrating that we are prepared to act soon. I urge all
members of the House to lend their support to this bill. We owe
it to Canada's veterans by showing them that we care and that we
have not forgotten them.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I wish to speak of Canada's unknown navy, the navy
shamefully not found in many of our schools' history textbooks,
the navy Canada's young know not of.
Canada's merchant navy of World War II developed into a force of
12,000 men and women who collectively sailed 25,000 merchant ship
voyages. Canada's unsung soldiers moved vital war supplies
through enemy lines not by mule, not by truck, but by ship at a
horrendous cost.
Young men and women signed up for this service, just as they did
for others. Restrictions on enlistment were lesser for the
merchant navy, allowing the under-age and under-weight to still
serve their country with dignity and pride. Dedication to
service came at a high cost to these brave Canadians and
Newfoundlanders. The first service causality of the war was with
the merchant navy. On September 3, 1939, Hannah Baird of Quebec
was killed aboard the unarmed vessel SS Athenia when a
German submarine sank it.
To emphasize, as has never been done before in this Chamber, the
real price of peace, the real sacrifice to merchant mariners, I
would like to make mention of the lost ships. Canada's merchant
navy was very small in the early days of the war. At that time
it only consisted of 38 ocean-going vessels. By war's end, five
years later, that fleet grew to 410 ships. Merchant crews were
often unarmed and were forced to sail under rough sea conditions
to supply the war effort. The crews did receive some training,
but often that was done on the calm and safe inland waters such
as the marine engineering instructional school located in
Prescott on Lake Ontario.
By later 1940 the merchant fleet had grown from 38 vessels, but
losses had already claimed eight vessels. In 1940 seven ships
were lost: the Erik Boyle was torpedoed; the Magog
was torpedoed and shelled; the Waterloo was bombed by
German aircraft; the Thorold was bombed by German aircraft;
the Kenordoc was attacked by submarine gunfire; the St.
Malo was torpedoed; and the Trevisa was torpedoed.
We must remember that each ship also took the lives of many
brave young Canadians to the ocean floor.
Death was not often quick and painless. Badly burned, a person
would swim until shocked to their death in the cold, oil-topped
North Atlantic. Other ships in the convoy would do their best to
help, but also had to consider their own safety.
1035
Many veterans say, the worse the weather the better they slept.
A calm, clear night with a full moon was cause for insomnia. A
calm evening might end with the engine's monotony shattered by an
attack that suddenly turned their world from peace into hell.
This was all too familiar in 1941 as 13 more ships were lost:
the Maplecourt was torpedoed; the Canadian Cruiser
was sunk by a raider; the A.D. Huff was sunk by a raider;
the J.B. White was torpedoed; the Canadolite was
captured by a raider; the Portadoc was torpedoed; the
Europa was bombed by German aircraft; the Collingdoc
was mined; the Lady Somers was torpedoed; the Vancouver
Island was torpedoed; with the Proteus the loss was
unknown; the Nereus was another unknown loss; and the
Shinai was seized by the Japanese.
Canadians were not the only ones busy building for all-out war.
In 1942 the German U-boat fleet grew from 91 to 212. This made
the situation for the merchant ships deteriorate further. The
addition of Canadian built, highly manoeuvrable Corvettes to
Canadian convoys helped, but losses were still tragically high.
In 1942 alone 31 ships were lost: the Lady Hawkins was
torpedoed; the Montrolite was torpedoed; the Empress of
Asia was bombed by Japanese aircraft; the Vicolite was
torpedoed and shelled; the George L. Torian was torpedoed;
the Lennox was torpedoed; the Sarniadoc was
torpedoed; the Robert W. Pomeroy was mined; the
Vineland was torpedoed and shelled; the James E.
Newsom was shelled; the Lady Drake was torpedoed; the
Mildred Pauline was shelled; the Mont Louis was
torpedoed; the Calgarolite was torpedoed; the
Torondoc was torpedoed; the Troisdoc was torpedoed;
the Frank B. Baird was shelled; the Liverpool Packet
was torpedoed; the Mona Marie was shelled; the Lucille
M. was shelled; the Prescodoc was torpedoed; the
Princess Marguerite was torpedoed; the Donald Stewart
was torpedoed; the Lord Strathcona was torpedoed; the
John A. Holloway was torpedoed; the Oakton was
torpedoed; the Norfolk was torpedoed; the Carolus was
torpedoed; the Bic Island was torpedoed; the Rose
Castle was torpedoed; and the Charles J. Kampmann was
also torpedoed.
These were tremendous losses taken by the merchant navy with
their ships sunk out from under them.
1942 was the year the ongoing battle of the Atlantic continued
in earnest. German U-boats were infesting Canada's waters.
Several ships were lost in the St. Lawrence River. Concern was
at an all time high when even harbour anchorages did not put
men's minds to rest. The wrath of the German U-boats was felt
from the warm Caribbean seas all the way up to the chilly waters
of Atlantic Canada.
As the war went on the Canadian contribution became so much
more important. Supplies in continental Europe were quickly
being depleted and supply lines into Britain were under constant
attack. At one point it is said that a crisis developed when
there existed less than 30 days of stocks and Canada was
responsible for bringing the situation back to a manageable
level.
Canada supplied to the war material as no other nation, save the
United States, with 17,000 aircraft, 900,000 land vehicles and a
million men and women in uniform. This truly was a war of
material supply. Canada contributed raw materials like wood and
foodstuffs, but also multitudes of manufactured materials like
airplanes, vehicles, tanks, weapons and clothes. All of this
material was transported by our merchant navy.
1040
There was no such thing as a typical merchant navy ship. Ships
of every description were utilized as the need for supplies
across the ocean multiplied. Many of the vessels used had
previous lives in industry before the war erupted. Some ships
had sailed all the oceans, while others had never left Canadian
waters before. Some were lakers recruited for war on the high
seas. The same could be said for their crews.
Many seamen had high seas experience, but others had never left
Atlantic Canada or even the Great Lakes. There were men who had
sailed the west coast and had never dealt with the threat of
icebergs before. Despite all of these obstacles, each one of
these men was proudly Canadian and knew their lives were not safe
on the seas, but they felt a duty to serve king and country.
Just as there was no typical ship, there was no typical seaman.
Many of the people in the merchant navy had been working on their
respective ships prior to 1939, so they were not the young
teenage men we often picture. Many had families, children and
grandchildren.
Just as the merchant navy was home to older, seasoned sailors,
it was also home to our youngest seamen. With the adrenalin of
the war effort, men and boys of all ages wanted to serve Canada
overseas. With manpower in desperate need, many questions were
not asked.
Just as the young could skirt the rules to enter the merchant
navy, so could those with health problems and disabilities. Many
barely missed the cutoff for the armed forces, but driven by
patriotic pride they joined the war via the merchant navy.
We must remember that not all members of the merchant navy were
men. There were also many women who participated. Of the 1,500
who died, eight of them were women.
Many young lives were lost in 1943 when three ships were lost,
bringing the total to 54 vessels: The Angelus was
shelled; the Jasper Park was torpedoed; and the Fort
Athabasca was blown up.
As the war progressed many of the sailors had sustained injuries
and many had lost a friend or two, if not their entire crew.
Many wanted to return home to comfort grieving parents and some
had not seen their wives for several years.
The tension of the battle of the Atlantic was several years old,
but by 1943 the tide was turning to victory. However, losses in
1944 were still triple that of the previous year. Mines were
taking a greater toll and the threat of enemy aircraft seemed
worse, even as the RCAF and RAF began to gain air superiority.
In 1944 nine more ships came to rest at the ocean bottom: the
Fort Bellingham was torpedoed; the Fort St. Nicholas
was torpedoed; the Watuka was torpedoed; the Fort
Missanabie was torpedoed; the Albert C. Field was
torpedoed; the Fort Norfolk was mined; the Nipiwan
Park was torpedoed; the Cornwallis was torpedoed; and
the Fort Maisonneuve was mined.
The final year of the war was 1945, but the merchant navy
continued its work long after the war's end, delivering
humanitarian aid to the citizens of Germany. They still ferried
supplies required for the rebuilding and restocking of Europe.
Merchant navy seamen were encouraged to continue on the ships by
our government of the day. While a few were able to remain
aboard the ships, most gradually lost their jobs when the ships
were sold to other countries.
Merchant navy veterans were not entitled to the benefits of
other veterans. They did not have the same access to education.
They were disadvantaged as a result.
In early 1945 the merchant navy lost another six ships: the
Point Pleasant Park was torpedoed; the Soreldoc was
torpedoed; the Taber Park was mined; the Silver Star
Park was lost in a collision; the Green Hill Park was
blown up; and the Avondale Park was torpedoed.
We must also remember that the ships Watkins F. Nisbett
and R.J. Cullen were also lost for unknown reasons on
unknown dates. To this day their families are still wondering
what happened and when.
The total of the merchant ships lost was 72. If a ship was
lost, on average, only 50% of the crew survived.
1045
I will reread some relevant comments I made in the House this
past year in Statements by Members:
Canada's merchant navy of World War II is proud of its
contribution to a free world and should remain the recipient of
the enduring respect of all Canadians.
Canada's veterans of this global conflict are deserving of our
undying gratitude for their service to our country.
Canadians must recognize fully that our existence and privileges
enjoyed today are due not only to the efforts of our veterans,
but also to the efforts of their missing comrades throughout the
world.
Few finer examples of Canadian wartime success and magnificent
effort can be found than in the annals of the battle of the
Atlantic where merchant seamen sailed the enemy infested sea in
keeping Allies supplied in World War II.
Many dedicated individuals have worked to have the merchant
navy's concerns addressed. Their work will be remembered as part
of the lengthy battle for equality.
I take a moment to pay a personal tribute to a man who has the
utmost respect of all veterans and members on both sides of the
House. Mr. Gordon Olmstead was forced to step back from the
frontlines of this battle due to his health but he remains a
respected voice among his peers. He was a prisoner of war and
was instrumental in having this legislation drafted. No better
tribute could be made than to call this bill the Gordon Olmstead
act. I am pleased we can have this legislation passed without
unreasonable delay.
Last year I was able to get the agreement of all merchant navy
groups on these four points of outstanding concern: to be
recognized as war veterans, to receive prisoner of war benefits,
to receive compensation for years of denial of equality, and to
receive recognition on ceremonial days. This legislation will
address three of these four points and for this I am very
thankful.
The fourth point will be addressed in committee due to a motion
which I successfully had all parties support in committee. For
the first time we will examine the issue of merchant navy
compensation claims. The committee is committed to deliver a
report with corrective recommendations to the House before the
summer recess. Finally we will be able to bring closure to this
unfortunate chapter in Canadian history. For the first time a
formal committee will study the compensation aspect of the years
of denial of equality.
I look forward to bringing closure to this long outstanding
issue this year. Recompense is the final concern which begs for
settlement.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak at third reading of Bill C-61. This bill amends the War
Veterans Allowance Act and certain other acts in consequence
thereof.
It is with respect and honour that I will pursue at third
reading the same objective I pursued at second reading, which is
to improve the services provided to veterans and their
dependents, to ensure the recognition of a unique status for all
those who participated in these wars, and to pursue the
retroactivity claim for merchant navy veterans.
Even though the bill is very incomplete, the Bloc Quebecois
supports it because it provides benefits to veterans and
because, for the first time, those who served in the merchant
navy are given the same status as other veterans. This
legislation is governed by the same acts that recognize the
critical role of merchant navy seamen in the victory of the
nations that fought for freedom. This legislation also puts some
order in the various acts that apply to veterans and it ensures
a degree of fairness.
The bill meets the concerns of a number of associations. During
the debate at second reading, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Veterans Affairs announced that the House would
respond positively to a key priority of the National Council of
Veterans Associations, by allowing former prisoners of war to
receive the special allowances.
He indicated that, in passing these changes, the House would
also respond positively to the number one veteran's priority of
the Royal Canadian Legion, which is to increase pensions for
survivors.
1050
The merchant marine veterans presented two demands: recognition
under the same laws and the benefits they did not receive for
the past 50 years retroactively.
Why is the government denying today what it wanted yesterday?
The Minister of Veterans Affairs said the following before a
committee on April 29, 1998, and I quote:
I have personal knowledge of this. It was the fall of 1991.
Three members of the opposition, including myself, took it upon
ourselves to address what I personally had felt had been an
injustice for many, many years, and the other members agreed
with me.
In opposition, this member tried to repair the injustices. Now,
in power, as the minister, he remembers nothing.
Why did this member, now Minister of Veterans Affairs, not
include provision for retroactivity in his bill? Is he really
serious as he cries over the fate of these veterans?
On the whole, this bill is intended to correct the anomalies of
the past and to include financial compensation, which would
repair the deeds of negligence of a previous government.
That government passed a bill giving numerous benefits to armed
forces veterans returning to Canada after World War II, but did
not extend these benefits to merchant navy seamen, who
volunteered to serve their country.
In 1992, legislation was tabled to give merchant navy seamen the
same benefits to which army veterans are entitled, but not the
same status.
It took 45 years for the role played by merchant navy seamen to
be recognized and the same benefits, but not the same status, to
be extended to them. Now they are being given the same status
as members of the armed forces, but not the retroactive benefits
of which they have been deprived all these years. Their demands
are slowly being met. However, the average age of these
veterans is 75.
Thus the bill is incomplete, since it does not accept
retroactivity of the rights now recognized for merchant seamen
back to the time they joined the battle. They have been
deprived of 50 years of benefits. They have suffered all their
lives because of this refusal.
Unlike other veterans, they never had the advantage of financial
assistance for trade training or university. They never had
priority for public service hiring, they never had access to
land, housing or business funding.
At one of the committee hearings, a witness told us that most
merchant seamen would discuss their post-war experiences amongst
themselves, but hesitated to do so publicly, because they felt
ashamed, although they were wrong to feel this way.
They felt it was their fault that they could not support their
families the way their fellow Canadians who had been in uniform
could, with the help of government subsidies.
Yet they too were in the line of fire. In 1941, the monster
Adolph Hitler issued the following order: “Attack the merchant
marine, particularly on the return route, with all possible
means. Sinking merchant marine vessels is more important than
attacking enemy warships”.
The merchant seamen were exposed to dreadful working conditions
and heavy loss of life. They sustained more losses than any
other Canadian combat forces.
During World War II, 13% of merchant seamen lost their lives, or
one in seven. Personally, I would have preferred to be on board
an armed ship and attack the enemy rather than on a defenceless
cargo ship to be used as a human shield.
These brave Canadians, who plied the corridors of hell, played a
vital role in our war effort, one as vital as that played by the
regular forces, and one that is recognized throughout the world.
1055
It would appear from the strong support the public gave the
former merchant marines who organized a hunger strike on
Parliament Hill, that they do not support the longstanding
government negligence in this matter.
The government has fallen short of its responsibilities and of
the justice required by the sacrifices these men have made,
because from the outset, it could have included retroactivity in
this bill.
It is hypocritical, even.
It gives the impression of wanting to gain time and let history
hide the facts, and when the hour has sounded for the last of
these brave defenders of freedom, the Minister of Veterans
Affairs, as has happened in Europe at certain commemorations,
will weep warm tears over the fate of these defenders of
democracy. However, he is untouched by their great suffering,
especially their mental suffering.
At second reading of this bill, all the opposition parties
called for either retroactivity or a lump sum payment to replace
the benefits they did not receive after serving their country.
Only the Liberal government remains intractable.
Great Britain gave full veteran status to the merchant marine
seamen in 1940.
In the United States, merchant navy veterans gained the same
status as regular forces veterans in 1988, while Australia
recognized full equality in 1995. Here in Canada, they had to
wait until 1992 to get the same benefits, but not retroactively.
In 1993, the government decided to improve its image by inviting
a few merchant navy veterans to participate in a pilgrimage to
Liverpool, to commemorate the battle of the Atlantic. In 1994,
the government made another symbolic gesture with the placement
of a merchant navy book of remembrance in the memorial chamber.
It lists the names of Canadian merchant mariners who lost their
lives.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs
said, at second reading of this bill, and I quote:
I want to assure members that merchant navy veterans are
veterans in every sense of the word and this bill underscores
that fact. By using the same acts to respond to the needs of
both merchant navy and armed forces veterans we send a powerful
signal that we value the service and sacrifice performed by the
merchant navy during the wars.
If this intention and this assurance are real, why did the
government not recognize the mistake made in this bill,
apologize and make the whole thing retroactive?
Members will agree with me that Canadian merchant navy veterans
can no longer wait: they have already been waiting for over 50
years. In addition to social benefits and disability pensions,
they need a compensation package. Does the government have the
necessary money?
An examination of the amounts not spent by the Department of
Veterans Affairs over a 15-year period shows that it is not for
lack of money that merchant navy seamen are not being
compensated.
The Public Accounts of Canada lists the amounts not spent by
the Department of Veterans Affairs for the years 1982 to 1997.
They are as follows: in 1982-83, $22,903,618; in 1983-84,
$56,128,372; in 1984-85, $70,082,937; in 1986-87, $33,631,696; in
1987-88, $56,647,600; in 1988-89, $56,050,578; in 1989-90,
$40,103,973; in 1990-91, $35,262,562; in 1991-92, $20,073,856; in
1992-93; $50,489,052; in 1993-94, $154,747,329; in 1994-95,
$113,023,778; in 1995-96, $83,742,347; and in 1996-97,
$49,530,866.
A total of $887,960,424 was not spent. Merchant navy seamen are
asking for approximately $40 million.
1100
This bill could have restored this unspent money. For reasons
unknown, the government put these funds into general revenue, as
it does with the EI surpluses, cuts in provincial transfer
payments, and unpaid commitments to Quebec.
In this regard, the following amounts are owed to Quebec: $435
million for Hydro-Québec towers after the ice storm; $58.7
million for the Palais des congrès de Montréal; $33.6 million
for the Oka crisis; $70 million for day care centres; $86.7
million for young offenders; $351.4 million for social
assistance. And I could go on and on. The total unpaid bill
for Quebec is $3,807,400.
The refusal of this government to pay retroactivity to the
merchant seamen is just one of many similar acts.
Instead of solving problems, the government is concerned only
with looking good, with enhancing its visibility. Such is the
case, for example, with the millennium scholarships, although
education is a provincial responsibility. Today the federal
government is going to invest billions of dollars on
window-dressing to create havoc and create duplication just to
improve its image.
Nevertheless, in 1993, merchant marine veterans agreed to join
with armed forces veterans in a visit to Liverpool to
commemorate the Battle of the Atlantic.
Last year, they were again part of the delegation to commemorate
that battle, and were also along on the pilgrimage to mark the
50th anniversary of various World War II battles and campaigns
I was also there. The Army veterans' recognition and respect
for the merchant seamen was obvious. The merchant seamen showed
no bitterness. Why are they still being refused what they are
entitled to, 50 years later?
The government is very good about these pilgrimages. They make
it look good. But all this show does not, when it comes down to
the nitty-gritty, do much for the merchant marine veterans. As
we saw last summer, right here in front of the Parliament
Buildings, it just leads to hunger strikes and to despair.
Is it not this minister's mandate to provide veterans, civilians
and their families with the benefits and services to which they
are entitled, in order to ensure their well-being and
self-sufficiency within the community and to ensure that all
Canadians remember their accomplishments and their sacrifices?
Was it ensuring their well-being and self-sufficiency, was it
fulfilling the governments' mandate in this respect to refuse
the same benefits and services to which merchant seamen were
entitled retroactively, right up until 1992? And what about
that other responsibility, of ensuring that all Canadians
remember that war? The people of Europe and Asia, who lived
through it, already do remember.
What happens in these former theatres of war in Europe or in
Asia when a whole contingent of youth and invited guests turns
up? Most of the time, a handful of local people attend.
I think these veterans should be allowed to return once in their
life to a theatre of war accompanied by a relative. But at the
moment, it is pretty much always the same people who go on these
trips: the deputy minister and his team.
Why not establish a real national day of remembrance in Canada?
It is Canadians we should be informing and involving. We should
open Parliament the entire day to school children and veterans
with their relatives, their MP and their minister and take the
evening to remember those who were lost. In my opinion,
providing documentaries to the media is a means of keeping alive
the memory of their dedication.
Having a real day of respect, of thanks and of commemoration.
This first day could be devoted to the members of the merchant
marine to compensate for the error of the past.
1105
In committee, I introduced an amendment that was ruled out of
order. However, included in the bill, it would have resolved
the problem once and for all. It read as follows:
All payments of allowance or other benefits under the Pension
Act or the War Veterans Allowance Act in respect of a merchant
navy veteran of World War I or World War II or a Canadian
merchant navy veteran of the Korean War are payable for a period
beginning on the day on which that veteran would have otherwise
first become entitled to the payment if the provisions of this
Act had been in force on the date of commencement of World War
I, World War II or the Korean War, as the case may be.
I once again call on the government so that the members of the
merchant marine may obtain justice and the reparation of past
errors through retroactive redress or a lump sum payment.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today on behalf of my New Democratic colleagues in support of
Bill C-61.
As veterans affairs spokesperson for the federal NDP, I am
pleased that part of the stain on the record of how Canada treats
its veterans has been removed. This bill should become law so
that in word and from now on in deed merchant mariners will be
treated as full equals to other Canadian veterans instead of
being relegated to the margins of Canada's official military
history.
These brave Canadians played a central role in Canada's war
efforts. Many lost their lives and their health for our country.
Families suffered. Communities suffered. As a result our
country was poorer for the loss of so many merchant mariners, yet
so much richer for the role they played in bringing victory to
all of us.
While many of those whom we remember and honour today are those
who served in the regular military, we must not forget the many
others who served their country in a unique yet very important
way, either as special construction battalions or merchant
marines.
I am pleased to once again take the opportunity to commend the
merchant marine veterans, their organizations, families,
activists and supporters for bringing this bill into being.
Without their tireless and for the most part thankless work, we
would not be discussing this bill today.
What happened to the Canadian merchant mariners upon their
return to Canada? In Britain they returned as full and equal
veterans with equal access to post-war programs, services and
benefits. In Canada they returned to virtually no support. They
were denied upgrading courses at technical, vocational and high
schools offered to regular forces veterans. They were denied
health support and employment opportunities available to army,
navy and air force personnel.
I am proud to support Bill C-61 which declares as law the equal
status of merchant navy veterans with regular forces veterans.
I am not proud of this Liberal government's abject failure in
providing just compensation for these Canadians. I mentioned at
the outset of my comments that part of the stain on Canada's
record of honouring and dealing with merchant mariners is to be
scrubbed clean with this bill. The issue of compensation, one of
paramount importance, remains a dark blotch on our record.
This government saw fit to provide an ex gratia payment of
$23,940 each to Hong Kong veterans who were Japanese prisoners of
war. This payment was promised last December. It strikes me as
at least an effort to achieve a just settlement.
As mentioned earlier in my comments, it is a disgrace that this
government has betrayed Canada's merchant mariners by refusing to
compensate them for the discrimination that the merchant mariners
faced upon their return home from serving Canada's war efforts.
It has been estimated that merchant mariners are dying at the
rate of about 12 per month.
On November 24, 1998 in response to a question I put to the
Minister of Veterans Affairs, the minister said concerning
compensation negotiations for merchant mariners “I am there to
listen”. I already mentioned earlier that debating Bill C-61
before this House signals a time to act. Justice delayed is
justice denied, particularly when the death rate among these
veterans who served Canada so nobly is so high.
1110
The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
is slated to explore this compensation issue after the passage of
Bill C-61. Assuming that the committee comes forth with a
recommendation, I worry a bit that the government will then take
its time to respond and make an announcement. How many more
honourable Canadian merchant mariners must die before the Liberal
government does the right thing and provides just compensation?
Even today as I am speaking I am reminded of Mr. Gordon Olmstead
who has fought long and hard on this issue and is currently in
the hospital dying of cancer. It is just a matter of time
probably, unless the good Lord sees otherwise. From where the
New Democratic members sit, one more death before proper
compensation is provided is one too many.
Further to this point, it is high time that the government
supported improvements in the health care package available to
all veterans, particularly those at a venerable and often
vulnerable age.
I sincerely hope that the spirit of justice in Bill C-61 has an
effect on the government's treatment of other Canadian veterans.
What about Canada's aboriginal veterans? First nations men and
women served their country well alongside non-native forces
personnel despite the fact that when World War II ended, they
were not allowed to vote or even own their own land.
Many first nations veterans were never told they were entitled
to educational opportunities or that they were able to purchase
land at a cheap price. Some even returned to Canada to learn
that their reserve lands had been seized by the federal
government to compensate non first nations veterans.
I also think in particular of the Canadian veterans who were
wrongly sent as prisoners of war to the Buchenwald concentration
camp by Hitler and the Nazis. This government disgraced those
brave Canadians when they were sent cheques for $1,098 to
compensate them for the horrors they faced in the concentration
camp, horrors which are in some cases relived in the minds of
these veterans over and over again.
Our Liberal government has failed miserably where so many other
governments have succeeded. I hope the spirit of Bill C-61 has
some effect on the government so that it moves to ensure the
Buchenwald survivors find the justice they so richly deserve.
I am indeed pleased that this bill provides for the continuation
of disability pensions for victims of the 1917 Halifax explosion.
As the member of parliament for Halifax West, I am all too well
aware of the horror of that tragedy and the pain, death and
destruction it wreaked.
I am also pleased this bill clarifies which merchant navy
veterans of the Korean War will be eligible for benefits.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to lend my support to the third reading and passage of Bill
C-61. This bill is something that many of our merchant navy
veterans have been looking forward to for many years.
I have great feelings for those men and women who served in
World War II, being the sister of two brothers who were overseas
through the whole conflict of World War II. We were very
fortunate that both my brothers came home safe and sound. I will
never forget the day. I was only a little girl, about seven
years old. I remember my uncle who was shot in the first world
war, and we thank God that he lived through that, telling me,
“Put on your very best dress, dear. We are going to the train
station for the boys are coming home”.
The veterans are very dear to my heart. The first real
legislation to deal with the Canadian merchant navy was brought
in in 1992 by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, by
the Hon. Gerald Merrithew who was the Minister of Veterans
Affairs. At that time, omnibus Bill C-84 was brought in with an
additional $100 million of funding to be allocated directly to
the merchant navy and their claims. The bill brought in by my
former colleagues was not perfect but it was a huge step in the
right direction.
The reality of this legislation is that it took this
administration six years to address the concerns of the veterans
with the original legislation.
1115
Bill C-61 will make changes to address some of the biases
merchant navy veterans have faced when applying for benefits. By
placing them under the coveted War Veterans Allowance Act, it
puts an end to the cross-referencing each of the merchant navy
veterans was subjected to when applying for benefits.
This I am sure will please many of the veterans as it now means
that they will qualify for benefits they should have been
receiving since World War II. Great Britain recognized the
merchant navy men as the fourth arm of its services at the
beginning of World War II and they received all the same benefits
as other members of the armed forces.
It will also provide an additional $8 million to address the
needs of those merchant navy veterans who were prisoners of war
and be used to assist those who were widowed.
My heart goes out to all those across this nation who lost a
loved one in the line of duty and to those who died later due to
the complications of war related service, the soldiers who gave
their lives, the air force men, the navy and our merchant navy
men, so that all Canadians from Victoria to St. John's,
Newfoundland could enjoy the freedom we have today. A large part
of the war effort was filled by the bravery and tenacity of the
Canadian merchant navy.
To all the merchant navy veterans who are listening today, many
from across the country waiting to see what will happen with Bill
C-61, I want to say thank you.
Is it enough for us to just say thank you, knowing what we know
to be true and how the merchant navy was treated after World War
II? How they must have felt, each and every one of them, as they
watched their counterparts receive many benefits.
The counterparts should have received benefits, but they were
benefits the merchant navy men never received. One of eight of
every merchant navy men died at sea. This is the largest
percentage of any of the armed forces groups.
Imagine serving your country well, with pride and dignity, and
returning after the war you see your counterpart who was on the
same boat with you given everything and you are given nothing.
How would you feel? You would feel hurt. You would feel let
down. I was not there. I can only imagine what these men must
feel today.
Some of those men come into my office with tears in their eyes.
Their wives, as well, get in touch with me. It has been 54 years
that they have been fighting for equality.
The question remains whether we, as a country, owe these men
something. I believe the answer we would hear from most
Canadians is yes.
Why would people feel this way? People today are well informed.
After the hunger strike held here by some of the merchant navy
veterans last fall, Canadians from coast to coast took the time
to become more informed.
Last year when those men were on a hunger strike people from
Germany, Japan and China came to visit Ottawa. They came up on
the Hill. They could not believe our merchant navy men were on a
hunger strike. They signed a petition asking our government to
please give them some compensation.
They know these veterans were not really paid a high premium for
their service. A privy council document from 1941 showed that
these men were not to be paid any higher than a sailor in the
navy. This certainly dispels the myth that they were paid a
higher wage and therefore should not receive any compensation.
The reality of the post-war era for merchant navy men was that
they were the big losers after the war. A video has been made by
Mr. Cliff Chadderton, president of the National Council of
Veterans Associations in Canada, entitled Sail or Jail.
1120
I have a copy in my office and when I watched the video it truly
brought tears to my eyes. I do not know how Cliff was able to do
this video but it shows when they were torpedoed. It shows when
they were in the water and it shows them dying. It is there. I
will share the video with any of my colleagues in the House if
they want to see it. It quickly becomes apparent in watching
Sail or Jail what the merchant navy lost. One of eight
merchant navy men was lost at sea.
Regular forces veterans were given clothing allowances, and
rightfully so. They were given rehabilitation grants,
transportation costs to return home, re-establishment credit,
employment reinstatement and out of work allowances for up to one
year. They were also given education assistance, trades
training, disability treatment, land grant opportunities and
waiting returns allowances. I am pleased and proud that we gave
these to them.
What was offered to merchant navy men? They were given hope as
the government of the day talked about developing and maintaining
the merchant navy. This is difficult to say but if we look at
the history of the merchant navy, it appears that the government
of the day did not want to pay benefits to these men so they were
not given the opportunity to be part of the demobilization effort
of the government. They were kept busy cleaning up the seaways.
After the troops were demobilized the boats they worked on were
sold. The men were offered jobs on ships that were held in
foreign registry and were paid wages in foreign currency. I know
that may be attractive today but it certainly was not attractive
in those days. After World War II the foreign currency being paid
was not enough for people to survive on in Canada.
I had great concerns this week when I saw in the estimates
tabled that $1 million was to be taken from the veterans
independence program. I thank the parliamentary secretary for
responding and telling us no, $1 million will not be taken from
the veterans independence program because they need it.
Think about it, 54 years. Think of how old these men are today.
They cannot go out and shovel. They cannot do the cleaning that
has to be done. They cannot do the cleaning within the home.
They need that part time service. We do not want them to be
totally independent.
I am proud to be a Canadian. I do not think anyone would
question that. When I think of how these men were treated after
the war I get very angry inside and a bit ashamed. However, there
is hope.
The Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
is about to begin to study the issue of compensation. The
findings of this study will then be turned over to the government
for a response. I want to make it perfectly clear. There are
all kinds of rumours out there that the merchant navy is looking
for a great big lump sum payment. According to Cliff Chadderton,
some would get $5,000. Is that not a big lump sum payment? I
think the maximum was perhaps $30,000, although for very few of
them.
I am told that every month we lose probably six or more of our
merchant navy men across this country. There may be around 2,000
still living today.
I feel very strongly when I look at the fact that we have had
lapsed funds in our veterans affairs that have not been used. The
money is there. We can do this. We can give these men back
their dignity. We can show them that we love and respect what
they did, that they took my brothers over there safely and they
took over their needs, ammunition, food and clothing, so that
they could fight for you and me and could come back safely.
Like many Canadians, I hope the response given is in favour of
the Canadian merchant navy request for compensation. It would not
justify the 54 years of neglect, as I have said. At least they
would feel we have finally said we thank them for the work they
have done.
1125
It would not stop the years of pain felt by those widows who
could not apply for benefits to help them along the way and it
would not turn back the clock, but it would help ease the pain
through the simple act of recognition of service to their
country, not just through simple words of kindness but through a
payment of some sort to say thank you for what you have done.
I know many of my colleagues on the government side agree with
me. I thank today the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Veterans Affairs for his assistance and his help.
When we went to him when the men were on Parliament Hill on a
hunger strike he said he would meet with them and he did. They
appreciated it. He came to my riding. He sat down with them.
That is what we need, that kind of dialogue to get the
understanding we need. I thank him very much today.
I also thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the other
committee members from all parties who have been working together
to put this study in place and making Bill C-61 hopefully
unanimous today when we vote.
It is our role and the role of all those on the government side
to tell all of those merchant navy men today that we support
them, to stand up for what is right and proceed forward with
compensation after the study is referred back to the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Hon. Marcel Massé (for Minister of Public Works and
Government Services) moved that Bill C-66, an act to
amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation Act and to make consequential amendment to
another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a great honour for me to launch the debate on Bill C-66, an
act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation Act.
First I congratulate the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services who is responsible for CMHC for providing us with such a
progressive and balanced piece of legislation.
Indeed Bill C-66 will simplify the National Housing Act by
removing unnecessary restrictions, enabling CMHC to respond
quickly to the needs of Canadians and to opportunities in an ever
changing market.
Since it was created over 50 years ago, CMHC has made an
unparalleled contribution to help house Canadians. Over the
years it has been involved in every aspect of housing from
building units to direct financing, urban planning, mortgage
insurance and now trade development.
The achievements of CMHC have benefited the country. Many of our
own families and communities have been helped. Through
partnerships with all levels of government, community
organizations and the private sector, CMHC works to allow
Canadians to obtain the shelter they need.
1130
The government also works on a number of fronts to assist low
income Canadians and the homeless. One important tool is the
CMHC's renovation programs which have provided assistance to low
income Canadians for over 20 years. The funds provide help to
repair unhealthy and unsafe homes. They help to upgrade
accommodations for the homeless, or for those at risk of becoming
homeless, and to modify units for persons with disabilities.
Other CMHC initiatives such as Homegrown Solutions and the
Canadian Centre for Public-Private Partnerships in Housing are
fostering community based initiatives that address the problem of
affordable housing, some of which are specifically directed at
serving the needs of low income people.
All members will agree that we want to ensure the benefits
provided to past generations of Canadians will continue to be
available to future generations. Passing the legislation will
help ensure that Canadians continue to have access to housing,
have a choice of housing and benefit from new housing research.
The benefits of the bill are threefold. First, Canadians will
benefit from these changes because CMHC will be able to respond
to shifts in consumer demand and market conditions. They will
also benefit from the availability of low cost funds and access
to mortgage financing, no matter where they live in Canada.
Second, CMHC will be able to better promote Canadian housing
products and services abroad. This will result in job
opportunities for Canadians here and abroad. Third, CMHC will be
able to provide better service to all Canadians.
I will illustrate how Bill C-66 reflects several of our
government's priorities and what they mean to Canadians. I will
begin with CMHC's mortgage loan insurance function, a key part of
our efforts to provide Canadians with access to housing in all
regions of the country.
In recent years CMHC has been approached to support many new and
innovative products. Unfortunately under the current National
Housing Act the CMHC has not been able to bring the benefits of
some of these new types of home financing products to our
marketplace.
With these amendments CMHC will have the flexibility to consider
products such as insurance for a reverse equity mortgage enabling
older homeowners to use the equity in their homes to obtain funds
currently while allowing them to continue to live in their homes.
The CMHC would also be able to develop non-mortgage financing
for remote areas where the land registry system does not
facilitate mortgages. It would also include similar financing
arrangements on Indian reserves where restrictions exist on
providing land as security for mortgages.
The corporation would also be able to ensure a greater variety
of financing options for the housing rental industry. Another
benefit is that the CMHC will be able to respond quickly to
shifts in consumer demand and market conditions with new and
innovative home financing products.
With these legislative changes Canadians for generations to come
will have access to the benefits of public mortgage insurance. By
giving CMHC the means to better manage its business, these
amendments will ensure that CMHC's mortgage insurance activities
remain competitive while being managed in a financially
responsible manner. With this new legislation the CMHC will be
able to respond quickly to changes in domestic and international
markets as well as to organizations looking to use Canadian
housing expertise.
The legislation will greatly enhance the government's ability to
better promote the products and services of our Canadian housing
industry abroad. To illustrate this point, I will use the
minister's own participation in last fall's trade mission to
Chile. Thirty housing industry representatives joined him on
that mission. The delegation was made up of provincial and
territorial governments, builders, manufactured housing
suppliers, products and services providers, and urban planners.
The members for the ridings of Kelowna and Québec also
participated in the trade mission. The minister was pleased to
lead this group of entrepreneurs and officials, successfully
opening doors to Canadian exporters in this important Latin
American market.
Through CMHC's market development programs and services it is
anticipated that within one year following the mission this group
of exporters will have generated over $35 million in new
business, which translates into direct economic benefits to all
Canadians.
Two more trade missions are planned for Korea and Germany in May
and October 1999. Similar public-private sector collaborations
have recently been undertaken with Poland and Germany. This is
what I mean when I say the legislation will help the CMHC create
job opportunities for Canadians here and abroad.
1135
Consumers in the housing industry, indeed taxpayers of Canada,
all stand to benefit from these amendments which will result in a
modernized and more efficient approach to housing. The
corporation's greatest strength has been its ability to identify
and respond to emerging needs.
Such initiatives are developed either by CMHC on its own or in
partnership with other governments or the private sector. CMHC
either moves once the private sector players have developed the
ability to take on the challenge or becomes part of the ongoing
solution.
The amendments that are presented today will build on CMHC's
ability to adapt to changing circumstances and help the
corporation to carry out the government's vision for the future
of housing.
Earlier I mentioned that these amendments reflect our
government's priorities. This is demonstrated in several ways.
For example, one of our government's top priorities is its
commitment to stimulating job creation and economic growth. We
are proud of the fact that more than 1.6 million new jobs have
been created since the government was elected in 1993.
However we want to do more. We know that the housing sector is
a key component of the economy, with considerable job creation
potential. For every $100 million spent on construction, 1,500
person years of employment are created both directly and
indirectly. Behind every construction worker many other workers
are producing the materials needed to build a home.
Clearly the objectives of the housing industry and the
government's goals of expanding international trade and
stimulating economic growth are one and the same.
CMHC is proud of its record in participating in team Canada
trade missions to many of the emerging world markets, unlocking
opportunities for the Canadian housing industry and creating jobs
at home. Canada's international reputation for excellence in
housing technology helps to open doors to the Canadian housing
industry in many foreign markets.
The corporation has helped foster that reputation through
international representation and research. Now, through the
Canadian Housing Export Centre, CMHC continues to play a key role
in supporting the efforts of Canadian housing firms to market
their products and their expertise abroad.
CMHC has also been a leader in helping to establish and research
new building practices. The result has been improved housing
quality, affordability and choice for Canadians. In so doing the
corporation supports research and development, another one of our
government's top priorities. As we can see, CMHC is helping our
government turn its commitments into action in a wide variety of
areas.
The amendments proposed in the bill will enable the corporation
to continue these achievements by providing it with the tools it
needs to move forward with its expanded role. At the same time
the corporation will be able to ensure the long term viability of
its mortgage loan insurance function.
Millions of Canadian families bought their first home thanks to
the insurance program. In fact, one in three Canadian homebuyers
have been helped by CMHC in this way. Through the bill we want
to ensure that future generations of Canadians can continue to
benefit from this service.
As one of Canada's oldest crown corporations, CMHC has always
been a pioneer. As such, it has introduced government to a new
way of delivering services. At the same time CMHC's core mission
is not all that different from what it was 10 or even 50 years
ago. Through the legislation the corporation will be able to
continue to do what it has always done and will be able to do it
well.
The bill to amend CMHC is part of the government's broader
efforts to modernize government operations and ensure the
efficient use of taxpayers dollars while improving services to
clients.
CMHC will continue its most important basic function which is to
help provide homes for Canadians. I encourage all members of the
House to support the legislation and enable the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation to carry on with its work well into the
new millennium.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to enter into the debate on Bill C-66. The bill amends
the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act. There a consequential amendment to another act.
I couch my remarks with regard to the bill in terms of some
questions I would like to ask. Does the legislation bring the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation closer to the purpose and
intent as stated in the National Housing Act?
Are the proposed changes in the specific legislation consistent
with efficiency in terms of administration? Are they consistent
with effectiveness, in other words reaching the goal or the
purpose more effectively? What are the financial costs? What
are the economic costs? What about the quality of life?
1140
These are the questions I wish to address. Within that context
I would like to refer to some discussions we have had with the
officials of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They have
indicated rather clearly that the policy of the government is the
object of what Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation does. Its
purpose is to implement the government's policy on housing. The
details of that policy are in fact contained in the corporate
plan.
I will refer to the corporate plan for 1998 to 2002, in which
the mandate for CMHC is stated as follows:
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is Canada's
national housing agency. Founded in 1946, CMHC's general
authorities are derived from the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act. CMHC is a crown corporation within the meaning
of part 1 of schedule 3 of the Financial Administration Act (FAA)
and is subject to the various conditions and requirements set out
in this legislation. CMHC's specific authorities in housing are
embodied in the National Housing Act (NHA). The NHA provides
CMHC with a range of authorities and tools to address the housing
and related needs of Canadians. These tools can be grouped under
four main headings: housing finance, assisted housing, research
and information transfer, and international activities.
In early 1995, CMHC's mandate in the area of housing research
and information transfer was reaffirmed by the Treasury Board of
Canada. Later that year, the government determined that CMHC
should be given the authority to sell products and services in
support of housing exports. In the 1996 federal budget, the
government announced its intention to operate the mortgage
insurance fund (IMF) and the mortgage backed securities guarantee
fund (MBSGF) on a more commercial basis. At that same time, the
government also announced that it was prepared to offer the
provinces and territories the opportunity to take over the
management of the existing federal social housing resources.
Is that not an interesting way of saying we are getting out of
the business? In other words, we do not want it any more and
will download it to the provinces. The government did not
consult with the provinces. It simply said that it would not do
it any more and in fact cut their funding. I will have more to
say on that later. The plan continued:
Amendments to the NHA and CMHC Act are required to implement
aspects of CMHC's new mandate.
The changes to CMHC's mandate have significant implications for
the way the corporation will conduct its business in the future,
necessitating changes to current products, structures and
processes. The mission, vision and core value statements on the
following page were developed by CMHC to reflect the new mandate.
We will stop there for the moment and indicate that the
legislation before us today, March 11, 1999, follows the
introduction of the corporate plan which clearly indicates what
the direction will be.
Where is CMHC right now? I would like to go into some details
as well. They too come from the corporate plan. With regard to
mortgage loan insurance it stated:
Under the mortgage loan insurance program, CMHC provides
insurance against borrower default on residential mortgages in
consideration of a premium. Through default insurance, borrowers
with down payments as low as 5% have access to mortgage financing
at terms and conditions comparable to those with much greater
equity. Financial transactions and mortgage loan insurance are
recorded in the Mortgage Insurance Fund (IMF).
This is very useful for many young people or people with lower
incomes that have not been able to accumulate a down payment of
sufficient size. They are helped tremendously. It is a boon to
families and to couples that wish to by either a condominium, a
townhouse or a single dwelling house. It is a wonderful program.
That is what it is doing. It continued:
For 1997, mortgage insurance volumes were on track with more than
442,000 units.... Insurance-in-force was expected to reach $152
billion by the end of the year. Under the NHA, the aggregate
outstanding amount of all loans for which insurance policies are
issued had previously been limited to $150 billion.
1145
It could not go beyond the $150 billion.
In other words it was increased to $200 billion. It is very
interesting that the bill does not change that. This is an
interesting development. The corporation is running the show. It
is fascinating and I will say more about it as we move along.
At the end of 1996, the MIF was in a surplus position of $18.1
million. A loss before taxes of $23.8 million was forecast at
mid-year 1997, compared to a $76.1 million before tax income
projected in the original 1997 plan. This decline in 1997 is
attributed to an increase in claim expenses. By the end of 1997,
the Fund was expected to have a small surplus.
In mid-1997, Treasury Board approved a policy whereby CMHC will
make annual payments to the government for its backing of the
Mortgage Insurance Fund.
This is interesting. In 1996 it had a profit. In 1997 it
looked like it was barely going to have a profit, but in 1997
Treasury Board said that it now had to pay it because it had
access to the consolidated revenue fund.
As well, CMHC will begin to fund the additional policy reserves
required by private mortgage insurance by the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) imposed on the
private sector. This applies to new commercial mortgage
insurance business initiated after 1996.
What is beginning to develop with CMHC is very interesting. It
is no longer simply a crown corporation. Legally it is, but it
is entering into direct competition with the financial
institutions. I will explain that a little later. It goes so
far as to put itself under the same kind of guidelines and
provisions that OSFI imposes upon other financial institutions,
particularly federally registered trust companies, banks and so
on. That is one area.
CMHC is also involved in mortgage backed securities.
Through the Mortgage-backed Securities (MBS) program, CMHC
provides a guarantee of timely payment on securities based on
qualifying pools of NHA-insured mortgages. Financial
transactions for the MBS program are recorded in the
Mortgage-backed Securities Guarantee Fund (MBSGF).
Projected MBS insurance for 1997 has been revised to $3.9
billion, up from the original plan of $2.1 billion and reflecting
renewed interest from lenders. In 1997, the MBSGF was projected
to generate $13.0 million in revenues, compared to the original
plan of $10.7 million.... Higher cash flows and resulting
investments of $52.7 million were also expected. The year-end
surplus was expected to increase to $36.6 million.
The mortgage backed securities business expands beyond NHA
mortgages or guaranteed mortgages. There is an MBS guaranteed
fund but there are also other mortgage backed securities. As we
go along, we will find that CMHC now wants to get into mortgage
backed securities that are not NHA guaranteed mortgages. It is
getting into direct competition with the private enterprise
sector; a crown corporation is getting into competition.
Let us go into other areas. Canada Mortgage and Housing gets
into assisted housing.
Unilaterally or in partnership with the provinces and
territories, CMHC subsidizes, on behalf of the federal
government, more than 656,000 units of social housing. The
portfolio is operated through long-term administrative and
funding arrangements between CMHC and the provinces and
territories, and between CMHC and locally-based housing
organizations.
The federal government announced a new On-Reserve housing policy
in 1996.
Throughout 1997, CMHC has been phasing in the policy. This
involves the conversion of the existing NHA Section 95 non-profit
Housing Program into a full-subsidy program, and First Nations'
capacity development to help them take on responsibility for the
housing in their communities.
To reduce overlap and streamline existing administrative
arrangements in social housing, CMHC began negotiations in 1996
to transfer to the provinces and territories the management of
existing federal resources, with the exception of housing
programs for Aboriginal people living on-reserves. The Government
of Canada will continue to honour its long-term funding
commitments to social housing (currently $1.9 billion per year).
1150
In fact it is just under $2 billion. In 1997, agreements were
signed with Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Nova
Scotia and the Northwest Territories to get out of social
housing. This is very interesting. This theme will develop as we
go along here. What is happening here is significant.
CMHC today is also involved internationally. The hon.
parliamentary secretary referred to that in some detail. I want
to commend the people who went on the Chile trip. I was one of
the participants in that trade venture. It was a good one. It
was well organized. The industries involved paid their way.
There was no government subsidy at all. I commend the way in
which it was conducted. Some good things are happening in that
area.
The question however is whether this is a function that CMHC
should be undertaking in the first place. That is a different
issue altogether. What has been done in this area is very good
and I compliment it. But the real question is, is this a proper
function of a crown corporation?
There are other initiatives.
From time to time, CMHC is called upon to administer short-term
housing initiatives linked to federal policy priorities. The
1997 Federal Budget included funding of $51.9 million for 1997
short-term initiatives linked to job creation, including $50
million for the continuation of the Residential Rehabilitation
Assistance Program (RRAP), the Emergency Repair Program (ER),
Home Adaptations for Seniors Independence (HASI), and the Shelter
Enhancement Initiative (SEI) for victims of family violence. An
additional $1.9 million was included in ongoing annual funding
for the SEI. In total, assistance for an estimated 12,868 units
was delivered under these initiatives in 1997.
The corporate account is another area.
CMHC is a large mortgage and loan administrator as a result of
activities in support of various housing programs. Including its
land holdings, CMHC's asset portfolio is currently $15 billion.
The Corporation's profits are the result of the margin on its
financing operations and gains on the disposal of land. In
addition, CMHC offers services to government departments and
agencies on a cost-plus basis in areas such as land development,
inspections and appraisals, and mortgage administration.
We begin to see the intricate web that is being woven as to the
involvement and then the extrication and involvement again in all
kinds of affairs. That is what it is now.
There is a history with CMHC as well. I want to address that
for a couple of minutes.
Although the federal government built some housing for World War
I veterans, the groundwork for a federal housing agency was not
laid until 1935, with the creation of the Dominion Housing Act.
By 1938 the act had helped finance almost 5,000 housing units.
During World War II the Wartime Housing Corporation built 46,000
units, mostly for war workers, and helped prepare and modernize
thousands of existing units. When the war ended, more than a
million Canadians in the armed forces were ready to return to
peacetime life which created a housing demand the private sector
could not meet. The federal government responded in 1946 by
creating Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. That was
the beginning. That is why it was created.
CMHC built thousands of housing units for veterans, but from the
beginning the corporation's mandate was to improve housing for
all Canadians. In 1954 the corporation began insuring mortgage
loans made by private investors. The Bank Act was amended to
allow Canada's chartered banks to lend money for mortgages, and
the amount of mortgage funds available to consumers quickly
increased.
Small surprise. There is no risk left for the lending
institution if it is guaranteed by a crown corporation. Why
would the financial institution not increase the amount of money
available?
1155
In the 1950s CMHC focused on improving the quality as well as
the quantity of Canadian housing. The 1960s brought an emphasis
on redeveloping inner cities, while new CMHC programs in the
1970s worked to maintain and improve existing communities. Since
the 1980s the corporation has given priority to environmental
concerns, sustainable communities and the housing needs of native
peoples, the elderly and disabled.
There are other dimensions but before going into them I want to
focus attention on the purpose and intent of the National Housing
Act. It is very short. The housing act states very simply that
it is “an act to promote the construction of new houses, the
repair and modernization of existing houses, and the improvement
of housing and living conditions”. That is it.
We all know that adequate shelter for all households has long
been a social goal of federal, provincial and municipal
governments in Canada.
Although housing is within provincial jurisdiction as a matter
of property and civil rights, or matters of a merely local or
private nature, since the 1937 passage of the National Housing
Act, the federal government has played a major role in its
provision, mainly through the federal spending power.
In 1946 the federal government established the Canadian Mortgage
and Housing Corporation. Since then, CMHC has carried out the
federal government's commitment to provide Canadians with equal
access and opportunity to suitable, adequate and affordable
shelter in safe, healthy environments. This commitment means
providing assistance to the most disadvantaged of Canadians, a
fundamental value that underlies Canada's social safety net. It
also means encouraging self-sufficiency in the private housing
market through support to financial markets and to the housing
industry.
Social housing ranges from single detached family homes to
townhouses, walkups and apartments. It includes rental units
owned and managed by the government, non-profit units owned and
operated by community and charitable organizations, co-op housing
units, units provided for aboriginal peoples on and off reserve,
and privately owned units subsidized by governments and rented to
low income people.
Of the social housing portfolio which had CMHC assistance in
1990, over 34% was public housing, 24% was non-profit housing and
close to 21% was low rental housing. The balance entailed co-op
housing, 8%; rental supplements, 7%; and aboriginal housing, 6%.
I am reading from paper No. 8 by R. E. Jenness, published on
March 23, 1994.
There is also a historic federal and provincial partnership
here. Until the mid 1960s, government housing projects entailed
relatively minor expenditures. There was a small public housing
program under which capital costs and operating costs were shared
on a 75/25 federal-provincial basis, and a small limited dividend
program creating privately owned housing units to rent at
slightly less than market rates.
As the 1970s progressed, CMHC expanded and diversified its
programs. The upshot was a de-emphasis on high density public
housing projects and increased reliance upon the following.
One, a non-profit and co-operative housing program, fully
federally funded, that provided an ongoing subsidy to sponsoring
organizations, including urban native sponsors, and added new
units to the stock of social housing.
I raise these points because this is the area the federal
government is getting out of.
Two, a federal-provincial rent supplement program, cost shared
equally with the provinces that subsidized units in private
buildings for rent geared to income clients.
Three, a residential rehabilitation assistance program, fully
federally funded, that made loans, partly forgivable, to
homeowners, landlords or non-profit groups to undertake repairs
and alterations. The minister announced that the program was to
come to an end. He recently announced there would be an infusion
of money into that program again so it will continue.
Four, a rural and native housing program, mostly cost shared,
75% federal and 25% provincial, to provide new housing and
renovation assistance for low income native and non-native people
in rural areas.
Indeed, during the 1970s and early 1980s the federal government
along with the provinces, municipalities and community groups
steadily increased their collective commitment to social housing.
According to the Canadian housing coalition, construction of new
social housing units rose from 110,213 in 1971-75 to 185,000 in
1981-85.
1200
In 1986 after a task force report and consultations with the
provinces, new directions were taken on social housing. Changes
were made with respect to program targeting, the nature of
subsidy assistance, caps on special purpose housing, program
planning and financial contributions from the concept of where
need was accepted, and a housing needs allocation model was used
to distribute federal resources among provinces under three
federal main budget housing projects, non-profit, rent
supplement, rural and native housing.
The lead responsibility for delivering the programs was in most
cases given to the provinces. That is really the issue here.
They were given the lead. Also, they are extremely capable of
doing that.
I want to look at one of the most recent developments that I was
very cognizant of shortly after I took over the lead critic role
in this area. It has to do with co-op housing.
The government said for sure that it wanted to get out of social
housing. It wanted to download it to the provinces. There are
many different kinds of co-op housing but two basic ones, those
that are federally operated and those that are provincial.
The federal government said the provincial ones are not its
concern but the federal ones are. It wanted to download this.
Then the association of federal co-op housing got a load of this
and thought if this is to be downloaded, it is afraid it will
lose its co-operative status.
Lo and behold, enough pressure was created that the minister
changed his mind. He said that federal co-op housing would stay
where it is.
The philosophy co-op housing I support 100%. It provides pride
of ownership. There are two kinds of co-op housing. One I really
like is equity co-op housing. The individual buys a unit and
begins to build up an equity they can use. They have the pride
of ownership, the involvement and this is a good thing. It would
be great if all social housing had some kind of pride of
co-operative ownership. We all want this.
It is very interesting that as the government moved out of this
the provinces recognized that if this would happen, they had
better do something. They have been aware of this for quite some
time.
I am not sure in Ontario where the numbers go, whether 16,000
co-op units are federal and 18,000 are provincial, but it does
not matter very much. It is about a 50:50 split.
The province of Ontario has downloaded much of this to the
municipalities. It is very interesting that I came across a
study that I am sure members are aware of or have seen. It is
the report of the mayor's homelessness action task force entitled
“Taking Responsibility for Homelessness: An Action Plan for
Toronto”.
I would like to read what these people are dealing with and
compare it with what we talked about in terms of the CMHC. This
report deals with simplifying and co-ordinating the service
system. What would be simpler than to have one level of
government involved instead of three?
Exactly what these people are talking about are what services
are available at present, why the current approach does not work,
changing the role of urgency hostels and shelters and making
drop-ins and outreach more effective. We are getting rather
specific but it gets more specific. They talk about specific
strategies for high risk subgroups, families with children.
There has been a dramatic increase. Some of these shelters are
being populated to a large degree now by families. I do not
think I have time to get into some of the statistics but they are
very revealing.
They mention youth, abused women, aboriginal people, immigrants
and refugees and go as far as to talk about prevention strategies
and how we can prevent the problem, shelter allowances, rent
banks, housing help, legal assistance, anti-discriminations
measures, additional strategies for social assistance recipients,
individual support, discharge policies and practices and
community economic development, the whole area.
What about the health component in all this?
1205
We are talking about homeless people but we are dealing with
more than simply not having a house: an overview of existing
services, removing barriers to health care, mental illness and
homelessness, addictions and concurrent disorders, and the whole
area of supportive housing. The report goes into affordable
housing and the case for public investment, lessons from our
past, producing new low income housing, preserving existing
affordable housing and finally implementation. There are some
110 recommendations that follow this report.
It is an excellent piece of work but I do not think it is the
end. When I talked to the councillor in charge of social housing
for Toronto he said they were just beginning.
We have to come to grips with this. One government can do this.
As we go into this corporate plan it is interesting to note what
CMHC says. In the 1998-2002 plan CMHC says it:
—plans to conduct a forum on “best practices” for addressing
homelessness. This forum will bring together experts on the
homeless, representatives of service providers and various levels
of government to share information on homelessness and to
recognize and promote best practices in the area. This will
provide the basis for potential partners to work together to
develop future strategies to alleviate homelessness.
How many different ways do we have to look at the same problem?
One would almost think the city of Toronto was doing this in
isolation. This task force received assistance from all kinds of
experts. Did it get it only from Toronto? No. Let me read into
the record where they went to obtain some assistance. They
received assistance from Canadian cities like Calgary, Montreal,
Ottawa, Vancouver and Winnipeg. They also went to American
cities like Boston, New York, San Francisco and Washington.
This task force is not made up of amateurs. These are not people
who do not care about policy. These are not people who are
unaware of what is to be done. Now CMHC says it will conduct a
forum. We have the information we need. We say it is only
Ontario. It has a 50:50 split on co-op housing. It knows all
about this.
I refer to what is happening in British Columbia.
This task force reported in January 1999. A 1992 amendment
to the municipal act required municipalities to include housing
policies in their official community plan. Additional amendments
have provided municipalities with a greater range of powers to
address community housing needs.
In summary, municipalities have reviewed or are in the process
of reviewing their OCP. Nearly all have adopted or are in the
process of adopting housing policies within their plan.
Definitions of affordable housing have been or are in the
process of being written in several communities. In a number of
cases housing strategy documents outlining definitions, policies,
procedures and specific methods to address housing issues have
also been produced.
A variety of housing related techniques such as density bonusing
and housing agreements is currently being utilized by
municipalities to increase the diversity of the housing stock or
to produce affordable housing units.
To increase residential density, many municipalities are
permitting housing above shops, manufactured home parks,
secondary suites and small lots for single family housing.
A definition of special needs housing has been developed or is
nearing completion in many municipalities. Although the
definitions vary, they speak to the importance of creating both
market and non-market housing for individuals with special needs.
Municipalities are taking up the challenge and finding
innovative ways to meet the need for special needs housing.
Committees or task forces are dealing with special needs
populations or addressing disability issues at the community
level in a large number of municipalities. Reports or surveys
identifying the special needs population have been produced or
are underway in several areas of the province.
Municipalities are developing guidelines for adaptable housing
and several are promoting this type of housing to provide access
to suitable housing for individuals with special needs.
1210
The provinces are able and competent to deal with this issue and
constitutionally they have been given that responsibility. That
is their job and now we have an intrusion into much of that
through the National Housing Act and the central mortgage and
housing act. There was a time when this was significant, in 1935.
We have gone through this and we know what it is but it has
changed into something quite different.
The involvement of multiple levels of government creates basic
inefficiency. It creates mutual recriminations. If one level of
government is not doing it, then the other level says it is your
job, you go do it. As a result the very people who were intended
to be helped by this act are the ones who lose. Most important
in all this is the confusion, the chaos, the conflict, the
confrontation and the contradiction that develops because of
these different levels of government getting involved in each
other's way. We do not need that. It could be simplified so
easily. Then comes the worst of all, the lack of consistency in
housing policy.
I suggest there is no consistent social housing policy as far as
the federal government is concerned. There are immediate
expedient types of solutions presented. The time has come for us
to bring rationality to bear on this situation. The provinces
have recognized this responsibility, have contributed to meeting
that responsibility and have demonstrated they can do the job.
As a federal government we need to create an environment that
makes it possible for them to carry out the job they have ably
demonstrated they can do.
We now know the CMHC has achieved many worthwhile things and is
continuing to do that. This is not inconsistent with what the
minister of housing has said. I quote directly from the
statement he made on August 26, 1998 in Ottawa when he found
agreement with Yukon:
Having only one level of government involved in the
administration of social housing will maximize the impact of
taxpayers' dollars. The territorial government will have the
flexibility to meet the needs of its residents while adhering to
national principles and an accountability framework.
Let us do that. This act does not come to grips with those kinds
of things. It simply moves along and makes what is into law.
Some of the things that are not yet approved are already
happening and we just have not had the legislative provisions to
do that.
I believe the CMHC has lost its way in another area. Not only
has it not dealt specifically with some of the people who are in
need, but listen to this strategy which comes from the corporate
plan of 1998-2002. The strategy in one sentence is level the
playing field for private-public competition. Interesting. The
CMHC will now get into competition with the private sector.
It goes on to say:
This strategy involves behaviours consistent with the corporate
value of entrepreneurship, as well as the creative and effective
use of housing finance tools to achieve fair competition for the
CMHC and the private sector, and otherwise support competition in
housing markets. Collectively these measures will place CMHC on
a more competitive footing with private competition by reducing
costs through operational efficiencies, effective asset
management and product improvements.
These are the key tactics:
In 1998, CMHC will fund additional policy reserves and commence
payment to government, based on the capital and additional policy
reserves that the office of the superintendent of financial
institutions (OSFI) requires of private insurers.
That is the very point I made earlier and that is what is to be
done here.
Based on current projections, total fee payments to the federal
government are forecast to be $197.9 million over the 1997 to
2002 period.
CMHC plan improvements to its mortgage insurance product line.
In 1998, CMHC will complete implementation of a plan for
restoration of rental insurance viability through changes to
existing products and the introduction of new products.
Also in 1998, CMHC will review revisions made to the First Home
Loan Insurance (FHLI) program in 1997 to determine the impacts on
the commercial viability of the product, and make more
improvements if required.
1215
In this whole area we have a private company that does
essentially the same thing, G.E. Capital.
I mentioned earlier that CMHC was going to get into another
aspect of mortgage backed securities.
To improve MBS program competitiveness, and in conjunction with
improved program processes, the MBS fee structure is being
reviewed to make MBS more competitive under a wider variety of
interest-rate and liquidity conditions. In 1998, CMHC will
introduce a new few structure for the MBS program that is more
responsive to current market conditions. The Corporation will
pursue CMHC-led multi-lender MBS pools in 1998. In the latter
part of the planning period, CMHC plans to develop MBS pools for
non-NHA mortgages and non-mortgage loans subject to legislative
changes. An annual payment to the government is currently being
developed.
That is exactly what this law does. It allows CMHC to get into
another area of non-NHA mortgages, to put these into mortgage
backed securities. There is a market that exists now. CMHC does
not have to get into that mortgage backed security market. It is
already there. It is simply getting into direct competition.
Here we have a crown corporation with total assets of the
consolidated revenue fund of the country of Canada competing with
private enterprise. I think that is wrong in principle. I do
not think it is fair at all.
It goes on:
For seniors, CMHC plans to introduce a Reverse Equity Mortgage
(REM) insurance product through at least one Approved Lender by
1999. The objective is to ensure REMs are available through two
or more Approved Lenders by the end of the planning period. The
Corporation also plans to consider MBS for REMs in 1999 or
thereafter if there is evidence that Approved Lenders are unable
to use their own resources to issue REMs.
What does a reverse equity mortgage mean? This is for seniors
who own a house or who have very high equity in a house. They
take a reverse equity mortgage, draw down more money and the
interest rate goes up.
Here it is with a reverse equity mortgage insurance program, or
at least that is what it is thinking of putting together.
Last night I had the opportunity to meet with a representative
of the Bank of Nova Scotia. I asked this gentleman how he would
insure a reverse equity mortgage. He looked at me with a blank
look on his face and asked me what I was talking about. I told
him that I had just read that the corporate plans for CMHC state
that it is going to introduce a new product called reverse equity
mortgage insurance. He said that he did not know how it would
work and he did not understand how it could actually work. He
went on to tell me that it was actually a very small market to
begin with.
Maybe that market will grow. I am not here to debate whether
one should or should not get into a reverse equity mortgage.
That is another issue. However, one of the major financial
institutions in Canada does not understand how this product could
work. There is something fundamentally wrong in what is going on
here.
We need to come to grips with a much bigger issue, which is the
whole housing issue and how best it should be handled.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with my colleague and friend, the hon. member
for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. Over the next 20 minutes, I will
address Bill C-66, which is currently before us.
1220
At the end of World War II, the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, commonly called the CMHC, was given the mandate—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I apologize for interrupting
the hon. member.
If he wants to share his time, he must first
get the unanimous consent of the House.
Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I will resume, Madam Speaker. As the
previous speaker pointed out, the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation was established in 1946.
At the time, its role was to implement a program designed to
create housing units and thus meet a basic need, particularly
for the troops coming home. These young people wanted to start
families and to settle down. They would often come back to
settle down in a region that was not necessarily their place of
origin.
Following the signing of the peace treaty in 1945, cities such
as Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa welcomed large numbers of new
residents.
With the large increase in the number of immigrants, the CMHC's
mandate was broadened in 1954 to open up Canada to immigration
and to make it possible for people coming from countries the
world over to at least have a decent roof over their head.
The CMHC therefore began to guarantee the loans certain
financial institutions made to these new residents of towns and
cities so that they could build their own home, even if they
lacked the necessary capital for a down payment.
The CMHC continued in this role over the years, with the odd
legislative amendment to its status, a name change, and so
forth.
The primary role of the CHMC has been to put in place mechanisms
making home ownership possible for many people and allowing them
to live decently in our society.
As the years went by, the CHMC also acquired know how, and
because of its involvement in loan insurance and housing
development, invested in research and development.
Building materials unknown at the end of the last war became
popular and were used almost constantly, because one of the
things the CHMC did was approve new materials, supervise the
quality of construction. It also had a program under which, when
it was loaning money or guaranteeing loans, it sent out
inspectors to check that housing was up to code.
The party I represent in the House admits this. We are not
necessarily congratulating the government, but all Canadians
who, back then and even today, have made the CMHC and its
mandate possible.
It did not spring up out of thin air.
CMHC was not created with money that came out of thin air. It
was created with public funds, with the money of all Canadians,
through their various taxes and other means.
1225
However, despite CMHC's good intentions, it is not entitled to
hog all the control over a specific area.
I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, who is responsible for
administering CMHC, that when housing is considered according to
the areas of jurisdiction set out in the 1867
Constitution—unfortunately none of us here today were present at
its signing—it is a provincial responsibility.
In the past, there was an implicit acknowledgment of this by
CMHC, since most of its programs were joint efforts with
provincial authorities.
The situation in Quebec is rather special, because we have the
Société d'habitation du Québec, which is kind of the Quebec
equivalent of CMHC.
Judging by my experiences with several transactions, it seems to
me that—at least in the eyes of the general public, or even the
smaller group of those involved in real estate transactions—there
is, or at least was, a certain degree of harmony between the
texts and policies of the two, Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation and the Société d'habitation du Québec.
There was a throne speech, in 1994 I think, before the time of
the Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs. Much
has changed since this troublemaker has been on the scene. When
he enters the lions' cage, they do not attack him, but devour
each other instead. This troublemaker comes out unscathed.
But before the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs arrived, in
a speech from the throne in 1994, the federal government—which
at the time, before the arrival of the troublemaker, showed some
understanding, indicated a certain intent to work with the
provinces on matters of varying degrees of difficulty—indicated
that social housing would be returned to the provinces.
Following the sudden urgency that brought about the creation of
the CHMC, the situation calmed down somewhat, and the government
considered that, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
having fulfilled its mandate, it might be time to give back to
the provinces the jurisdiction that was theirs to begin with, a
jurisdiction they could exercise in the normal course of events.
Unfortunately, with the arrival of the troublemaker, these
things are no longer the case, and this is reflected in Bill
C-66, which is currently under consideration.
This bill reflects in many of its terms what the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation did or does, but it goes further. We
may well raise questions. We know that the Government of
Canada, a member of the OECD, negotiates WTO, world trade
organization, agreements. It almost got taken as well in its
negotiations on the multilateral agreement on investment, MAI.
A government, like the federal government, does not like to
become entrapped. In international negotiations, they do not
like to have to say to their negotiating partners “Sorry, this
area is not completely under federal jurisdiction, we will have
to ask the provinces, we need their approval. We cannot say yes
immediately, we must consult at home”.
1230
This gets to be embarrassing. We are not at fault. As I said, we
were not there when the Constitution of 1867 was signed, and we
were not there either when the Constitution of 1982 was signed.
Quebec was never there.
It is embarrassing for a government to have to say “Listen, we
cannot make a decision and sign right away. We must go back home
and see what the provinces think about this”.
This is happening in several areas. The federal government
decides to go over the head of its provincial partners and to
enter into high level international agreements that affect
jurisdictions which come under the provinces by virtue of our
Constitution of 1867.
The spirit of Bill C-66 is a first reflection of this. I am
convinced that the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will
elaborate on this, because I know he is in full agreement with
me, and so is the hon. member for Châteauguay.
I was hoping the bill would provide that “If the CMHC wants to
finance construction and residential development projects, it
should reach an agreement with the provinces, including Quebec”.
I realize the other provinces do not have a housing corporation
such as the Société d'habitation du Québec. But let us not blame
Quebec for exercising its legislative and constitutional
jurisdiction, for assuming its responsibilities. This is why it
created its own housing corporation. It could not let others
look after its problems, because the cost was too high. No. With
all the courage that such a measure implies, the Quebec
government established the Office municipal d'habitation and
manages what comes under its constitutional jurisdiction.
And then, in 1999, the troublemaker, with his colleague the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, ups and
produces a bill that appears to ignore the policies announced in
the 1994 and 1996 throne speeches. A new policy is taking shape
and, as always, this government is inconsistent.
One example is the trade missions, where the Prime Minister
invites a gaggle of businessmen from all sectors, informatics,
housing construction, modular housing, or whatever, to accompany
him to Asia. They all head overseas, contacts are made and the
foundations for future trade relations are laid.
There are people in my riding who excel in modular construction
and are establishing contacts in China to try to sell their
products, houses that are made in the lovely riding of Chambly,
which I have the honour to represent here in the House.
Business cards are exchanged and there are handshakes all round.
When the Chinese indicate an interest in coming over here to
examine the modular housing they have been hearing about, and
wonder if there are factory models they can actually see and
touch, they are encouraged to make the trip, but are refused a
visitor's permit that would enable them to enter Canada and see
which of our products they might like to buy.
This has happened in my riding.
The excuse given was that there is some concern that the
Chinese—presidents of Chinese corporations who have the buying
power—will not want to return to China and that this will become
a problem for Canada, and so all the good intentions shown by
both groups during the trade mission to China come to nothing.
1235
One might say that the right hand in this government does not
know what the left hand is doing. This is not the first such
case I have seen; it happens frequently. It is far less
alarming if it is a Quebec company that is unable to export its
know how or its products to another country. If an Ontario
company had been involved, I think the reaction on the other
side of the House would have been much faster in coming. This
being a Quebec company, however, the reaction is much slower,
the urgency less. We have learned to live with that.
I am certain that, given its expertise and its finished product,
the business in question will eventually manage to export.
Perhaps it will manage to export its first modular home in two
years, because this government is such a piecemeal operation.
It is my impression that the ministers do not speak to each
other much, with the exception of the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, who talks to everybody, and issues
orders right and left. I am sure he is listening to my words
with great interest, this man whom I have just described as a
troublemaker, but of course I did not mean that in a bad way.
I just want to point out that I might have been inclined to
accept the bill, as it stands, to see some good in it. When
those of us in the Bloc Quebecois say that we are a constructive
opposition, it has to show; we have to ensure that we give
people concrete evidence of that. We have never been untrue to
that vocation.
We do indeed want things to go well, but with this bill again I
have unfortunately to tell you that the government is once again
denying an area of Quebec jurisdiction accorded under the
Constitution. They are meddling in an area that is not theirs.
They circumvent the provincial government with provisions such
as the one now enabling the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation to undertake negotiations or discussions with
municipalities, organizations, business groups or any other
body. They are circumventing provincial authority, which
despite all, has jurisdiction in this area.
As a Bloc Quebecois member, I cannot allow that. I do not know
whether my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is more forgiving
than I am, but I find it unacceptable. Once again the
government is treading on provincial jurisdiction.
Why? To gain visibility it cannot gain through good management,
by doing a good job, realizing savings, not on the backs of the
poorest with money literally stolen from the unemployed, but by
cutting operating costs by so many millions—or billions—of
dollars through good management.
Government spending has not significantly decreased in the past
five years. At best, it has dropped by 9%. On the other hand,
the income of the unemployed has dropped by about 100%. This is
where the savings are made and this is what they hold up to the
public as a success. We are not fooled. I find no interest at
all in this bill.
Before concluding, I want to briefly say that the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation guarantees loans when borrowers
do not have the 25% for their mortgage equity, which is the rule
with the banking system. People are told they can buy a house by
putting down 5% of the purchase price. The CMHC lends the rest
of the money.
Take, for example, a house being sold for $100,000. A young
couple interested in buying that house could get it with a 5%
downpayment. The CMHC would then lend $95,000, to be repaid over
a 25-year period perhaps, and an insurance fee would be added to
that amount. If I am not mistaken, the fee on a $95,000 loan is
3.5%.
1240
The downpayment on a house is often less than the fee required
to guarantee the buyer's loan. This does not make much sense.
First, we help the buyer and then we hit him hard.
Worse yet, the CMHC does not appraise the property for which it
guarantees the loan. The buyer figures “If the CMHC is prepared
to lend me $95,000, this means the property is worth that much”.
Not so. The CMHC now proceeds by appraising large groups or
sectors; as a result, it often ends up taking back properties
for which people paid $100,000, but that are hard to sell back
for $40,000 or $45,000.
It is not the government that loses. It is ordinary people, with
the insurance fee they area charged. They are the losers,
because it is this 3.5% fee that is used to pay for all that.
However, if things were properly managed and buildings were
appraised, people might be charged 2% instead of 3.5% on a
$100,000 loan. It would feel more like the CMHC is helping
someone buy a house, which was the ultimate goal of the act.
I will end on that note. I am convinced the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve will go into much more details and discuss
much more detailed cases than I did.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with no small pride that I share my time with the member for
Chambly. We both have points to bring to this issue, and I will
try to make mine well.
I dedicate my speech to our colleague, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, who is here in the House. I will be
referring to a federal-provincial dispute and presenting a few
points of analysis, particularly as we both hail from the same
political science department, he as a professor and I as a
student. I am sure he has wonderful memories of the time I
spent in the department. I do not have any bad memories of the
days when he was a professor of organizational theory and the
public service.
That having been said, we would have liked to support this bill.
Why? Because we are all positive people. I think that is
known. Examples of an opposition more responsible and
constructive than the Bloc Quebecois in recent years could not
be found.
But there is a problem. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs knows very well that the throne speech is sacred,
because it is a sort of blueprint of what the government intends
to do during its term of office. As such, the throne speech
contained a commitment, just as sacred, to decentralize a
certain number of powers to the provinces. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs cannot fail to recall that housing is
one of the sectors the government was going to give back to the
provinces.
How can it be that we end up with a bill like this one, when
what is needed is recognition of the full jurisdiction of the
provincial governments over housing? I would like someone to
explain this to me in the course of this debate.
There are two problematical clauses. I do not want to get into
technicalities, but there is clause 58(1)—I am sure that the
minister is familiar with it—which reads as follows:
58.(1) The Corporation may make loans and contributions for the
purpose of assisting in the payment of, or providing allowances
for, expenses that, in the opinion of the Corporation, are
related to housing accommodation, and may forgive amounts owing
on those loans.
This raised questions in my mind, which I put to the staff.
My thanks to those who made themselves available to me,
particularly Mr. Asselin, who was extremely kind.
I had the feeling that it was possible the federal government
might be tempted to use this clause to create a national housing
allowance.
1245
So I asked him directly, and his reply was “Yes, that is a
possibility”. This is of concern to the Bloc Quebecois, and we
would not view such a possibility favourably, since it would of
course lead to encroachment on a provincial jurisdiction.
Our second area of concern is that this bill opens the door to
the very real possibility that, with respect to housing, the
federal government could deal directly with intermediary bodies
such as municipalities, co-operatives and others involved in this
field.
We do not understand how such a clause can be in a bill. If the
government wants the Bloc Quebecois to support the bill, I would
ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in the same
spirit of positive and open co-operation that has always guided
us, to be this voice in cabinet. We ask him to draw on clause
88(2) of the bill and to broaden its scope. This clause, Madam
Speaker, I dedicate to you. It reads, and I quote:
(2) Loans or contributions may be made and amounts owing on
those loans may be forgiven under this section only with the
approval of the government of the province where the
corresponding rental housing project is, or will be, located.
In other words, to synthesize, as we learned in political
science, we are delighted that this government wants to invest
in the housing sector. It is well known that there is a
tenuous, almost incestuous, link between the fight against
poverty and housing. I will come back to this.
If the government has money for housing, it must go through
those whose mission this is primarily: the provinces. The
Government of Quebec is the only government in Canada to have a
housing corporation, with the expertise, know-how, tradition,
planning and management required to meet the housing needs of
its citizens.
I ask the government to take note, and we will introduce
amendments as we consider this bill, at committee stage or at
third reading. It will all be considered to ensure that no
direct intervention is possible in the housing sector without
the provinces being involved.
I see that Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is nodding. I
would ask him to share this idea with his cabinet colleagues.
The second issue of concern to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs is the whole matter of the $1.9 billion. The federal
government is negotiating with the provinces so they will be the
only ones to intervene in matters of social housing. That is
good news. We have long awaited that. However, the amounts
involved are totally ridiculous. I want to be very clear,
because there is no room for generalization.
Canada wide federal spending on social housing is approximately
$1.5 billion. In fiscal year 1995-96, $362 million of that
amount went to Quebec.
A quick calculation shows that Quebec receives 18.7% of federal
spending on housing. I imagine the parliamentary secretary is
listening to the interpretation, so I repeat that Quebec is
getting 18.7%. This means that 81.3% of federal spending on
housing takes place outside Quebec.
But what is Quebec's demographic weight within the Canadian
federation? It is 25.3%.
1250
How many households are living in poverty in Quebec? Still with
respect to 1995-96, there are 341,000 such households. I appeal
to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to note that 29% of
Canada's poor households are in Quebec. Yet 18.17% of federal
spending on housing is all we get.
All governments have decried this trend. I could tell members
about someone who has the respect of the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, an intellectual in Quebec society,
for that is what he is, by the name of Claude Ryan. Some people
will immediately think of the beige paper, others of the 1980
referendum, others still of Robert Bourassa.
However, the reason I am mentioning Claude Ryan today is because
he was once minister of housing. And in that role, he made the
same arguments as I have. All this to say that there is a
strong consensus that Quebec has not received its fair share.
Madam Speaker, is there unanimous consent for me to table
figures that could be passed out to members, particularly to the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is seeking
leave of the House to table a document. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I think members will be the
richer for it. Please pass it out on that side.
I mentioned earlier that the federal government wants to
transfer $1.9 billion to the provinces under this proposal. Have
you any idea how much is being offered to Quebec? I could not
believe it when I first heard it. Quebec is being offered a mere
$289 million, which is less than what the federal government
spent on Quebec in 1995-1996.
I have the breakdown here. Last year, the federal government
spent $362 million on housing in Quebec, but now, under this
proposal, it wants to transfer $289 million to Quebec. The
Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who is also
the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, will have to work
hard and meet with his counterpart, Mrs. Harel, one of the most
endearing members of the National Assembly, with whom I have the
pleasure of sharing some of my constituents.
The federal government will have to discuss the issue with the
Quebec government and try to settle this once and for all.
Quebec is ready to take on all of the responsibilities for
social housing. It makes perfect sense. Which of the governments
is best suited to adequately and efficiently meet the housing
needs of the people and solve the housing problem? Quebec, of
course, since it is the government nearest to the people.
However, Quebec does not want to incur losses. What the federal
government wants to do is to transfer a lump sum that will keep
on shrinking. You have to understand that, with a housing stock
for which mortgages were signed 20, 25 or 30 years ago, at the
time when the money starts decreasing, more and more repair,
renovation and restoration work will have to be done.
That is why the Quebec government is asking for $440 million
just for the transfer, plus 3 tax points. If that were on the
table, the Quebec government would not hesitate to sign an
agreement and to meet its responsibilities.
I hope our voice can be heard and I hope we can count on the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who we know is not afraid
to speak loudly on some issues, to defend Quebec's interests.
This brings me to another issue. Members will recall that we
were elected in 1993 but, since the Prime Minister had to attend
a NATO conference, parliament convened only in January 1994.
1255
In 1994, in the first budget of the current Minister of Finance,
the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation was asked for a
contribution over a number of years, ending in 1998-1999.
If members add all the amounts the federal government took from
the CHMC, they will see that the total comes to $487 million. It
is a lot of money. Now it would appear that, over the next few
years, there will be money available in the budget for housing.
The CHMC will therefore be able to use for other purposes the
$487 million and all the money it was supposed to send to the
Treasury Board or to the Minister of Finance.
We hope this money will be used for the development and
construction of social housing, through the provinces, of
course. I think this cannot be avoided. Housing initiatives must
be linked to land management, income security and the fight
against poverty.
Again, I repeat and I hope they are listening, my question is
for my colleagues across the way: Which government is better
able to meet the needs of our fellow citizens in the most
efficient and direct way? The Quebec government, of course. It
is closer to the people. The main areas of provincial
jurisdiction, such as health, education and income security, are
central to our fellow citizens' lives.
This is why we want money to be invested in social housing. If
the hon. member for Chambly was to trade places with me, I am
sure he would be just as passionate as I am in his defence of
social housing. I know this is an issue of great concern to him.
I am sure he will fondly recall going door to door in the riding
of Sherbrooke, which resulted in a resounding victory for us.
I believe we should still today celebrate our victory in the
riding of Sherbrooke a few months ago.
All this to say that the hon. member for Chambly personally went
door to door in the riding of Sherbrooke. I had the opportunity
to talk to him about this, since he knocked on every door in a
low cost housing project and has fond memories of this. I dare
not say it was a revelation to him because he was already quite
aware of the problem, but he came face to face with it and was
able to see with his own eyes—the member for Chambly is a hands-on
kind of guy—how important low income housing, co-op housing, is in
terms of social action.
What is low income housing about? It is about people who form a
community and know that no matter what happens to them, they
never have to be alone.
These people can count on a community room, but also on a
support network and a solidarity that are always there, in good
times as in bad times.
Again, this bill is a grave source of concern, since two of its
clauses would allow the federal government to get directly
involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This bill seeks to
give a more commercial role to the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. It sends a conflicting message.
On the one hand, the government said, in its throne speech, that
it wants to decentralize things and give back to the provinces
the responsibility for social housing, but on the other hand, it
gives greater powers to the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
We would love to support this bill, because we realize something
must be done in the area of social housing. But there has to be
the assurance that this will be possible, to the extent that
provincial governments, including the national government of
Quebec, agree to that. It is our hope that this will be included
in the bill.
How? I ask government members to look at clause 88(2). I will
read it again, because I think this provision should be a model,
a source of inspiration. If this condition were met, we could
support the bill.
1300
Clause 88(2) reads:
<“may be made... only”. These words mean something. I will read
the rest of the clause:
This is not rocket science. We are not asking for the
impossible.
We are asking that provincial jurisdictions be respected. If
this is put in writing in the bill, we will be very pleased to
support it.
Before concluding, I want to ask the government to resume
negotiations. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs must do
his utmost to have Minister Harel and the Minister responsible
for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation sit down
together and come to an agreement regarding traditional demands.
I will conclude by saying that all the governments in Quebec,
regardless of their political stripes, have asked for more money
from the federal government for social housing.
I am pleased to have taken part in this debate. I hope we will
be able to support the bill. However, we will not do so without
the assurance I have asked for today.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague
from Sackville—Eastern Shore.
If I were to summarize this bill in one word it would be
destructive. It is destroying the hopes and dreams of Canadians
who can only imagine living in decent housing and who see this
bill as the final step away from any chance of their dreams being
fulfilled.
These are people from across Canada who can talk of the
difference social housing has made in people's live. However, as
the member of parliament representing the community of Reserve
Mines I feel I have a unique perspective on what we will lose if
this bill is allowed to go through. It was in Reserve Mines that
the first housing co-operative in Canada was built. At one time
people in Reserve Mines were forced to rent houses from the
mining company that were overpriced and often substandard.
Owning their own homes was a dream many thought was
unachievable. However, with the encouragement of their parish
priest, Father Jimmy Tomkins, the co-operative that the people of
Reserve Mines formed succeeded in planning, financing and
building houses for its members. For people who had never
thought they would have a decent home for themselves and their
families, it was a dream come true.
The dream of living in well maintained affordable homes that
inspired the people of Reserve Mines in 1938 continues to be the
driving force behind efforts to build and maintain social
housing. Unfortunately in the last few years the federal
government has been doing its best to kill that dream.
On the surface Bill C-66 appears harmless. The government has
attempted to portray this bill as little more than a housekeeping
measure to simplify the current legislation, remove unnecessary
restrictions and improve the flexibility of the CMHC. To use an
old saying, the devil is in the details. There are a number of
details to which this government is not keen on drawing
attention. It is these details that administer the coup de grace
in the Liberal government's retreat from social housing. They
pave the way for the privatization of social housing in Canada.
We have already seen the first step in the destruction of social
housing in Canada with federal downloading. Every province
except Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia has had the complete
social housing portfolio dumped on them. It is disappointing but
not surprising that my own province of Nova Scotia was the first
to agree to the downloading. Housing activists warned that the
compensation offered by the federal government for taking over
its housing responsibilities would not be enough in the long term
but, as with DEVCO, a small pile of cash persuaded the Nova
Scotia Liberal government to bend over backwards to capitulate to
Ottawa.
In contrast, New Democrats in British Columbia have held out
against the download. They have looked at the long term costs of
downloading and they know the federal government has an important
role to play in housing. I know housing activists appreciate the
efforts of British Columbia to get the federal government to live
up to the commitments made in the many operating agreements it
signed with individual non-profit housing providers across the
province.
1305
In the provinces that have accepted the downloading we have seen
that the end result is abandonment of social housing. For
instance, the Filmon government in Manitoba has made clear its
intention to gradually withdraw all funding from social housing.
In my own community we see the effects of abandonment of housing
by the federal government.
The Open Door shelter is one of two homeless shelters in Sydney.
The building it is in is 60 years old and is in need of repair.
In a region where the real unemployment rate is 40%, there is not
a lot of money to go around. Since the federal government is not
providing support for the community, the staff and board of the
shelter must go elsewhere to look for money.
In the last few months I have had constituents coming to my
office desperate for help. There are people in my riding who are
living in homes with plastic sheeting for a roof. They are
looking for help from the federal government and all too often
there is none.
Now the federal government is preparing to take the final step
toward abandoning any responsibility or obligation for responding
to housing problems in this country.
Current statutes contain very clear definitions of what is meant
by terms like public housing project or eligible contribution
recipient. This bill eliminates these definitions from the act
and puts them at the discretion of CMHC. This opens the door for
private, for profit corporations to be recognized as social
housing providers. This bill also eliminates the statutory
requirements for social housing to be safe, sanitary and
affordable. These are currently minimum requirements for social
housing units. Now this Liberal government apparently feels that
getting rid of these requirements will, to use its language,
remove unnecessary restrictions.
It would be nice to believe its intentions are honourable. It
would be nice to believe that the maintenance of social housing
projects across Canada is so good that including any minimum
standards in the legislation is redundant.
Unfortunately the evidence points to another, nastier
conclusion. The reason the Liberal government is getting rid of
these requirements is so it will not be required to live up to
them.
The government has tried to justify getting rid of these
definitions on the grounds it needs flexibility. According to
it, dumping minimum standards for housing is just a little
housekeeping measure.
What I want to know is exactly why requiring homes to be safe,
sanitary and affordable is so restrictive. Is the government
trying to tell us it needs the flexibility to allow people to
live in fire traps, to allow conditions where diseases develop
and spread, to raise rents through the roof?
Either one believes all Canadians should have a right to decent,
safe, affordable accommodation or one does not. By removing
these requirements the government is saying it does not think the
homes of Canadians should have to meet even the most minimal
standards of safety, sanitation or affordability.
I would also like to touch on the proposed changes to mortgage
insurance. Under the current CMHC act, if the CMHC takes any
losses when it underwrites someone's mortgage, the federal
government absorbs those losses. This enables CMHC to underwrite
mortgages for people who cannot get mortgage insurance from banks
such as people with low incomes, people with poor credit ratings
and people in remote areas who do not have access to a bank or
credit union.
What the government is proposing is that CMHC will have to
absorb any losses from underwriting mortgages itself out of the
mortgage insurance fund. Having to absorb any losses itself may
force the CMHC to deny mortgage insurance to high risk
applicants. This will exclude applicants with low incomes.
Under the current mortgage insurance system the CMHC acts as a
bulwark against a recession because it can underwrite mortgages
in poor market conditions without risk. This encourages housing
development at a point in the market cycle where the market may
discourage it. This will change with the commercialising of
CMHC's mortgage insurance. CMHC will now be forced to weigh risk
according to market cycles. Thus it will no longer be able to
play this valuable counter-recessionary role in the economy.
Now we come to the real reason for these changes. It is well
known that GE Corporation of the United States, which has large
interests in the insurance industry, wants to expand into Canada.
It is well known that it has been lobbying the Liberal government
for the commercialization for CMHC's mortgage insurance to make
this possible.
1310
In this bill, the agenda of GE seems to have been put ahead of
the needs of Canadians. According to the government, there was a
risk that if it did not make the changes in this bill, GE could
have forced the changes using NAFTA. In which case why, if NAFTA
is such a fundamentally flawed agreement, was this government
willing to sign it in 1993 and why has it not tried to change it
since?
I would like to touch on what this bill says about the real
agenda of this government. In the last few months we have heard
regular expression of concern from this government about the
problem of homelessness. The recent announcement that social
housing would not be transferred to the province of Ontario was
portrayed as an attempt to protect social housing in that
province.
This bill proves that all the lip service the Liberal government
has paid to the problem of homelessness was nothing but hot air.
Homelessness has skyrocketed since the Liberal government came to
power. More and more Canadians are freezing to death on the
streets. This bill could have addressed these problems. Instead
it will make things dramatically worse.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise today with great pleasure to speak on what I
consider to be one of the most important debates in the House of
Commons when it comes to the social housing needs of all
Canadians.
I wish to give accolades to my colleague from Churchill, the
critic for this area. She has done an excellent job on behalf of
the New Democratic Party in pointing out the major flaws within
this bill.
Members may wish to have a copy of a book written by our member
for Vancouver East entitled Homelessness, An Unnatural
Disaster: A Time to Act, a guide to the study she did across
the country with members from social housing, NAPO and groups of
that nature to discuss the social housing needs.
I also recognize that the Conservative Party of Canada is now
doing a similar tour of its own. I wish the party good luck with
coming up with long term solutions for the problems that exist.
As a young lad in 1974, I attended the UN sponsored habitat
conference in Vancouver on housing and the need for housing not
only in Canada and the Americas but around the world. It is
interesting to sit here today in the House of Commons and now
have this debate on a domestic level 25 years later. It is quite
fundamental.
I want to start with something very interesting which is how
Liberals, especially those in cabinet, can flip-flop and change
their opinions literally at the drop of a hat.
In 1990 the then official opposition and chair of the Liberal
Party task force on housing, the current finance minister,
condemned the government of the day for doing nothing while the
housing crisis continued to grow out of control: “The
government sits there and does nothing. It refuses to apply the
urgent measures that are required to reverse this deteriorating
situation. The lack of affordable housing contributes to and
accelerates the cycle of poverty, which is reprehensible in a
society as rich as ours”.
I and my party could not agree more. The question is why did
the finance minister change is mind. Why did the Liberal Party
change its mind on many other issues? On such a fundamental
issue as this one, why did the so-called caring finance minister
change his mind and literally destroy the advancement of 75,000
new social housing units in this country?
I come from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia where the
federal government has abandoned all responsibility for social
housing and literally tricked the current Liberal government in
Nova Scotia to take over responsibility for it. It is absolutely
reprehensible that a federal Liberal government would abandon its
social housing policies in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia.
I would like Liberal or opposition members to come with me to
Catalina, Newfoundland. When we did a fisheries tour with the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans we saw a row of houses
completely abandoned because those people had no more jobs and
there was no more work. They had to go elsewhere in Canada to
find a place to live and work. Meanwhile, a perfectly good home
was left abandoned. This is the history of our country. Farmers
in the prairies and in the Atlantic provinces and fishermen in
the east and west have had to abandon their homes to look for
work elsewhere in the country because the centralized governments
of our day completely abandoned the extremities of this nation.
1315
There is no way we can support the bill because of what it does
to aboriginal people and first nations reserves. I will not go
into the details of it as it has been explained quite well
already.
All members of the Liberal Party of Canada have to do is read a
fantastic magazine out of Newfoundland called The
Downhomer. The Downhomer will send them at a cost of
$36 Canadian, no tax, a copy of a Ted Stuckless print. It is a
picture of two Newfoundlanders in a dory with a make and break
engine. They are towing a home on logs across the bay as was
done during the resettlement program. That picture says a
thousand words on the devastation of the resettlement program
which moved people from their ancestral homes for so-called
economic development. People from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia
are abandoning their homes now and moving elsewhere to other
parts of the country.
Homelessness is no surprise. Cities like Toronto, Winnipeg,
Vancouver, Montreal and Halifax are in a crisis state. It only
makes sense. They cannot keep taking, taking, taking and
destroying the social programs and then turn around and say it is
a surprise that there is homelessness in Toronto. They cannot
say “What a shock” or “When did this happen”.
For the life of me I cannot understand why the Liberal
government abandoned all of the principles of their sixties
agreement. Back in the sixties the current deputy minister was
left of centre and has now completely abandoned all those
principles. The government has abandoned the great principles of
former Prime Minister Lester Pearson. It has abandoned the
principles of Warren Allmand. It has abandoned most of those
principles for the so-called fiscally conservative right which
benefits the few and puts the majority at disadvantage.
I recommend that the Liberal Party of Canada, especially the
deputy House leader, if he wishes, go to Newfoundland, or The
Downhomer would be proud to send a lovely print of the two
Newfoundlanders in the dory with the make and break engine. I
have a copy of that beautiful print hanging on the wall of my
office. Every day it proves to me that we have a serious crisis
when it comes to homelessness.
A fundamental basic right of the nation and of all world
citizens should be decent shelter. I do not understand why a
rich and wealthy country can abandon that basic, simple
principle. It just does not make sense.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I followed carefully the hon. member's speech on this
subject. He was in a big rush to condemn the Liberal Party and
every other government. He forgot to mention the NDP in
Saskatchewan and B.C. B.C. did not sign on to RRAP.
Would the hon. member comment on the refusal of the British
Columbia NDP government to sign on to that program to help the
homeless?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, I welcome the question
from my hon. colleague for whom I have great respect. He
basically premised his question in a very answerable way.
Housing is a federal responsibility. To try to manoeuvre the
provinces to say it is their responsibility is absolutely false.
Social or co-operative housing should always be a federal
responsibility, not a provincial responsibility.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my hon. friend telling us his
points of view on housing. I have some personal interest in this
area as I used to be the president of a housing co-op that was
seeking allocations of units so we could build social housing
within the inner city of Winnipeg.
The Liberal member of parliament who I defeated in that riding
joined my housing co-op to show that he was interested in social
housing. That is the only reason he would pay $10 to join our
co-op. At the only meeting I saw him attend he said that Canada
was the only country in the world which did not have a national
housing strategy.
He made that comment because prior to 1993—this is what I was
leading into and I would like the member to comment on—it was
Mulroney who started to tear down any kind of a national housing
strategy.
1320
Members opposite were incredibly critical of that. I remember
passionate debates and arguments that Mulroney was doing a
terrible thing by tearing down the national housing program.
There were campaign promises to the effect that the Liberals
intended to reinstate some kind of national housing program.
In the inner city of Winnipeg none of the normal market controls
or influences work. The value of the property is too low to
interest landlords in investing in low income housing. In the
absence of social housing, or some kind of subsidized housing, no
new units will be built. We are facing a ghettoized situation
where we have a donut shaped city.
The result has been epidemic arson. Landlords are turning in
desperation to torching their houses. It looks like burn baby,
burn in the late sixties in Watts. There were 80 or 90 arsons in
a 12 block area in three months. That is five or six a night
sometimes, places being burnt out of desperation. I would argue
this is because of the complete absence of any commitment to a
national housing strategy.
In the member's personal experience in the communities in which
he has lived, has he seen a similar deterioration of housing
stock without new housing being built through social housing
programs?
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague is
absolutely right. It is something we have been saying time and
time again: Liberal, Tory, same old story. The Liberals have
reformed Tory policies. That is exactly what they have done.
My hon. colleague is absolutely right. The Liberal government
has abandoned its heart when it comes to policies on medicare, EI
and especially social housing. It is a national disgrace. In
the next election the Liberals will be paying for it.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on Bill C-66
which proposes amendments to the National Housing Act and the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Act.
I have divided my speech into two portions. I would first like
to speak about the bill as proposed. There are a few things in
the bill that are good and I would like to talk about some of
those areas. However, our party also has some serious concerns
with some of the provisions in the bill. I would like to walk
members through some of the proposed changes and explain exactly
our concerns.
Specifically I would like to deal with the proposal to
commercialize mortgage insurance and the effects this would have
on the risk aversion of corporations and the $200 million payment
to the federal government from CMHC for the crown backing of its
insurance and loan guarantee operations. I would also like to
discuss the changes to the structure of CMHC's board.
In the second part of my speech I want to talk about the social
housing sections of the bill or, more specifically, what has been
left out of the bill and how the government has missed a prime
opportunity to address some of the problems involving affordable
housing and homelessness.
CMHC is mandated to deliver federal housing programs in four
general areas. First, under housing finances, CMHC promotes the
availability, accessibility and choice of housing funding. For
many home buyers this takes the form of mortgage insurance.
Second, CMHC strives to encourage competitiveness in and the
health of the housing market by conducting research, by improving
housing, by supporting the housing market and by the
dissemination of information.
Third, CMHC has an ongoing responsibility for federal assisted
housing initiatives, including support for aboriginal communities
in their efforts to become self-sufficient in developing and
maintaining their housing.
The federal government provides the corporation with $1.9
billion of funding each year. The lion's share of these funds
goes to meet the long term financial obligations arising from
subsidies for 656,000 social housing units such as non-profit
housing, public housing and housing co-operatives.
1325
Early in its first mandate the government announced that it
would withdraw from funding further social housing units. Since
then the government has signed agreements with seven provinces
and territories to offload social housing on to them. Finally,
CMHC supports the export of Canadian housing products and
expertise.
Bill C-66 contains the most extensive changes to the National
Housing Act and the CMHC Act since 1985. Among other things, the
government is proposing changes to CMHC's mortgage insurance
activities.
In essence, the government wants to commercialize the
corporation's mortgage insurance functions. Any losses as a
result of mortgage insurance underwriting must come out of CMHC
rather than general government revenues. This removes any
competitive edge the government agency has in the marketplace and
puts CMHC's mortgage insurance on a level playing field with
private insurance.
CMHC would be able to introduce new mortgage products such as
reverse equity mortgages. These mortgages enable older residents
to use the equity in their homes to obtain funds to supplement
their income while allowing them to continue to live there.
The changes will also allow CMHC to accelerate the growth of the
secondary market by providing a wider range of secondary mortgage
market products through mortgage backed securities guaranteed
funds.
The pooling of individual mortgages provides lenders with a
lower cost source of funding and ensures an adequate supply of
mortgage funds. These commercialization measures are a response
to potential challenges under the North American Free Trade
Agreement. While these changes would give Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation the flexibility to offer new products, they
also eliminate the advantages of government underwriting.
For example, forcing CMHC to cover any losses will decrease its
willingness to finance high risk borrowers such as low income
people. If it also makes it more difficult for borrowers in
rural Canada to qualify for mortgage loan insurance, speaking as
someone who grew up and lives in rural New Brunswick it would not
go too well in my riding.
The second problem we have with the proposed change to CMHC's
mortgage insurance activities involves the payment to the federal
government in compensation for the crown's backing of its
insurance products retroactive to January 1, 1997.
I understand the objective of the new section 18 in that the
government wants to create a level playing field with the private
sector sellers of mortgage insurance. It has to pay compensation
for the backing of its insurance operations. To be fair, CMHC
should have the same obligations. I agree with that.
The problem arises when it is realized that over the next few
years the government will pull $200 million out of the
corporation. According to CMHC's summary of the corporate plan
for 1998 to 2002, by the year 2002 the government will have
starved Canada's social housing programs by $197.9 million to pay
this fee.
How can the government possibly justify taking $200 million out
of CMHC that is charged with helping house Canadians while
thousands of Canadians are forced to sleep in shelters each
night?
The government needs to find a way to reinvest this money into
social housing programs so that no Canadian who is in need of
housing suffers because of this measure. It seems the government
has not completely thought this issue through.
Another problem that concerns my party and should concern all
Canadians involves one proposed change to the CMHC Act with
respect to the composition of CMHC's board of directors.
Presently the board consists of the chairman of the corporation,
the president, a vice-president, two public servants and five
political appointees, for a total of 10. All in all this is not
a bad balance. We would have a board of five highly qualified
housing professionals and five people appointed by the Liberal
cabinet.
I would not want to speak against the Liberals, but the
government has developed a reputation, deservedly so, of
appointing Liberals to government boards, qualified or otherwise.
The minister is proposing in the bill that we should reduce the
number of qualified professionals on the board by three and
replace them with Liberal appointees.
Under the legislation the requirement to have a vice-president
and two public servants sit on the board would be removed. Only
the chairman and the president would remain and the Liberal
patronage appointees would have a healthy majority of eight of
the ten director positions.
1330
Aside from the distasteful nature of this change that could put
three more Liberals on the CMHC board, it would also threaten the
independence that CMHC enjoys as a crown corporation. Just
think, right now CMHC management has to answer to a board that at
least has some balance between five highly qualified
professionals and five Liberals. However, under the new board
CMHC management will be under the direction of a board comprised
of a majority of Liberal appointees.
Just as important as what is proposed by the government in this
bill is what was conveniently left out of it. I will take a few
minutes to talk about social housing policy in general and how it
relates to this bill.
In the past month the government missed two prime opportunities
to deal with the problem of the lack of affordable housing in
Canada and its impact on homelessness in particular. The first
opportunity occurred on February 11 of this year when the bill
was introduced and the second was when the budget was brought
down on February 16.
It is ironic that the person who introduced the budget, the
finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was once the
champion of social housing. In 1990 he and his colleague, the MP
for London North Centre, published the report of the national
Liberal caucus task force on housing. In that document the
current finance minister set out a manifesto on how a Liberal
government would provide affordable housing for all Canadians and
eradicate homelessness.
Alas, like so many other broken Liberal promises, like the GST
and free trade, the finance minister's promises on social housing
were relegated to the dustbin just as fast as the Liberals took
power in 1993. That may suit the finance minister just fine, but
he and his government have done nothing to provide affordable
housing for Canadians and to eliminate homelessness. It is
exactly the opposite.
If the government is looking for some good ideas on what should
be included in Bill C-66 to deal with these problems, I will
quote liberally from both its party's task force document as well
as a report that was released in January of this year by the
Toronto task force on homelessness, chaired by Dr. Anne Golden,
entitled “Taking Responsibility for Homelessness.”
In his report, the finance minister promised that a Liberal
government would recognize in the Constitution the right to
adequate shelter. It never happened. He said that housing is a
fundamental human right and that a Liberal prime minister would
discuss housing rights at a first ministers' conference. We are
still waiting.
He told Canadians that he would provide more money for housing
in provincial transfers, but instead he cut provincial cash
transfers by 40%.
He promised a new federal-provincial social program to assist
the working poor with housing costs, but none ever materialized.
He told anyone who would listen that his government would
increase funding for housing co-operatives and look for new ways
to use housing co-ops to provide affordable housing. Instead it
froze and then decreased funding for co-ops. Now it is trying to
offload housing co-ops to the provinces and cut off funding
entirely.
This is my favourite. The finance minister promised that he
would eliminate all substandard aboriginal housing by the year
2000. I guess he has missed that target.
According to the Assembly of First Nations, almost 50,000 or 60%
of the 83,000 housing units on reserves are inadequate. More
than 10,000 of those units have deficient or non-existent water
and sewer services and 16,000 units are overcrowded. So much for
the word of the finance minister.
With respect to this bill, there are some concrete steps the
government could take to deal effectively with the problems of
inadequate housing. As I have already mentioned, many of these
proposals were outlined by Dr. Anne Golden in her report released
in January. In her report she refers to four causes of
homelessness: increased poverty, lack of affordable housing,
deinstitutionalization and a lack of discharge planning, and
social factors such as domestic violence and physical or sexual
abuse.
Because the scope of Bill C-66 deals only with housing issues I
will limit my discussion to how the government could increase the
supply of low cost rental units and rooming houses, and the need
for increased support for social housing.
1335
The federal government has been a key player in social housing
development for over 50 years, since the founding of the Central
Mortgage and Housing Corporation after the second world war. The
decision by the Liberal government to offload social housing on
to the provinces has contributed to the growing shortage of
affordable housing.
Indeed, the Golden report notes that among major western
industrialized countries only Canada has no policy on
homelessness. It recommends that the federal government provide
capital assistance for the construction of new affordable housing
and the rehabilitation of existing affordable housing. Because
the federal government is largely responsible for aboriginal
people, immigrants and refugees, it also suggests that Canada
should fund projects to prevent and reduce homelessness among
these groups at risk.
The report also recommends that the federal government should
change the mortgage and valuation rules so that in addition to
commercial transactions through the CMHC mortgage insurance fund
the government could introduce policies that encourage not for
profit rental construction. Right now CMHC permits lower debt
coverage ratios for certain special purpose projects and it could
do the same for non-profit rental projects, including innovative
housing forms that may have uncertain market values such as
single room occupancy units.
The Golden report suggests that CMHC get into direct mortgage
lending. Direct lending is the cheapest source of financing and
could generate revenues for the corporation. Additional mortgage
funding could be piggybacked on to the mortgage backed securities
that now fund social housing mortgage renewals. It also
recommends that the federal government provide land at less than
market value from its holdings of surplus land and buildings
through Public Works, CMHC and the Canada Land Corporation.
The report also calls for an investment of up to $300 million in
capital support for new low income housing and for CMHC to
reinvest the savings realized each year for the devolution of
social housing to the provinces. Unfortunately, as I noted
previously, the Liberals have instead decided to take $200
million out of social housing, which is disgraceful by any
measure. Perhaps we can persuade the government to change its
mind.
Another recommendation of the report calls on the government to
channel federal capital to new affordable housing by way of an
infrastructure program for housing or set up local foundations
for affordable housing and/or a tax incentive for contributions
to eligible foundations or projects. The residential
rehabilitation assistance program should also be expanded to
include rental apartment buildings, rooming houses and second
suites.
Finally, it is very difficult for the operators of rooming
houses to obtain mortgage financing or insurance. When they are
successful it almost always at a premium rate, reflecting the
higher perceived risk by lenders. Since CMHC has expertise in
mediating lending rates, the report suggests that CMHC assist
rooming house owners in accessing mortgage financing.
These are all simple steps the government could take in part
through Bill C-66 to alleviate homelessness and to increase the
supply of affordable housing for all Canadians. The Liberals,
through the finance minister, promised they would deal with this
problem. They have recently had two opportunities, through this
bill and in the budget, but they have not.
There could be no more potent reminder of the need to find
solutions to the housing problems in Canada than we saw a week
after this bill was tabled and a few days after the budget. A
few blocks from Parliament Hill, Lynn Maureen Bluecloud, a 33
year old homeless, five-month pregnant aboriginal women was found
dead in a park at the corner of Nicholas Street and Laurier. She
died from hypothermia.
We need action on homelessness now. The government must live up
to its promises and use the means available to it to increase the
supply of affordable housing for all Canadians.
There is much room for improvement in the bill. I look forward
to dealing with this bill in committee so that we can propose
ways of doing just that.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, what we have heard is a change of policy from the
Conservative caucus.
1340
I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of quick questions,
but I will make a brief statement beforehand.
In 1993 the Liberals were responding to what the Tories were
doing to social housing policy and what they were going to do to
social housing in this country. Is this a change in the
Conservative position with regard to social housing? Does he not
believe that all the Liberals have really done is reformed Tory
policies?
I do not want to pick on the hon. member that much because he is
a decent fellow from New Brunswick.
He is absolutely right that this bill needs a lot of work. I
wish him and his party, along with our party and other parties,
the best of luck in committee in putting amendments in place. He
is absolutely right when he says that all Canadians deserve
affordable housing no matter where they live in this country. I
wish him and his party the best of luck when they go on their
cross-country tour to discuss homelessness and poverty issues.
Would the member not agree that with CMHC becoming more
privatized that would in effect set up a privatized for-profit
social housing policy in this country?
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
from the NDP for his question. I have a great deal of respect
for that gentleman, but it is too bad for his line of questions.
When the member speaks he makes us feel as though the NDP is the
only party that has ever said anything right in this House. Over
the years the Conservative Party has said some good stuff, which
was right, as well as the Liberals.
When we were in power between 1984 and 1993 we had our own
record on housing. We had a lot of money attached to it. When I
open this to the second page I see that under the National
Housing Act from September 1984 to November 1988 some $4.8
billion went toward social housing in this country. Today there
is $1.9 billion going toward social housing. Therefore I wonder
why he criticizes the previous Conservative government.
He also said that my party has changed its mind. The money was
there and we did great stuff to make sure that every Canadian had
affordable housing.
I will go even further than that. In 1986 we put money upfront
to help persons with disabilities. In 1986 we increased
assistance to renovate housing for persons with disabilities from
$1,500 to $5,000. That was done under the previous Conservative
government. The NDP was never in power.
I will go even further. Today the budget of Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation is $1.9 billion for 656,000 homes. In
1992-93 we had a $2 billion cap on social housing for 652,000
homes. Today we have 4,000 more homes, but less money. That is
where the gap is.
In our 1993 budget we said that we would continue to fund all
existing social housing stocks, which included co-ops.
In December 1991, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation rural
and native housing programs were to receive $33 million in
additional funding over what they were already receiving. This
followed discussions with interest groups in meetings across
Canada. From 1986 to that time the program had helped over
96,500 rural households across Canada. It said that it would
spend $108.4 million in 1993-94 for on reserve social housing.
I was listening to the national news last night. Peter
Mansbridge was saying that Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation or Public Works would contribute an extra $20 million
to help natives on reserve.
1345
Today a contractor who purchases land and builds a house will
have to put in a sewer system and dig a well. A well would have
to be dug especially in rural areas where the reserves are
because they do not have city water. This adds to the
construction costs of the house. Building a house today with all
those incentives, $80,000 a house, there will not be much luxury.
By the same token, using the price of $80,000 for a house, $20
million will only build 250 houses to help the natives of this
country.
The same report last night said that over 100,000 new houses
were needed on reserves to help families. Pictures of the inside
of some of those houses were shown last night. I was very
disgusted to see that in as rich a country as Canada is.
Aboriginals are Canadians too.
I live four kilometres away from the second biggest reserve in
New Brunswick. I own a little business and 85% of my business is
with those people. They are good people. I am also associated
with the Knights of Columbus on that same reserve. I am not
saying they do not have any problems, but problems can be fixed.
People should see the number of people who live in a small house
or a small room. They should see the condition of some of those
houses. I cannot describe it.
We have to work together. I am not trying to bash anyone. I
say to members on the government side and to all parties on the
opposition side, let us all work together so that we can have a
good housing bill so that we can put money up front. It is money
that is not going to be wasted. The money will go to Canadians
who need a good and decent home to raise the kids of today.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
commend my hon. colleague for his excellent speech on this bill.
However, I cannot help but smile when I hear members of the New
Democratic Party pick on my party. I have a lot of respect for
the hon. member, but a little bit less for his party.
Take the situation in Ontario for example. When they were in
office, the New Democrats have put the province in a very
difficult position. The people can thank the Ontario
Conservative Party for getting the province's fiscal house in
order.
The Conservative member mentioned that, as a result of the
reform brought about by this bill, rural areas would have more
trouble qualifying. Could he elaborate on what he meant when he
said it would be harder for rural areas to qualify for this
program?
[English]
Mr. Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member from my party. He is a great colleague and a next door
neighbour to my riding.
[Translation]
I will say it in French since my seatmate from the Bloc is
telling me to speak French.
I am saying that rural communities will be affected because I
believe the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is going
commercial instead of answering the housing needs of Canadians
in urban as well as rural areas.
When we look at the bill, we realize that the corporation would
rather do business abroad. I understand substantial amounts will
be invested outside Canada because the CMHC will have the power
to sell new products.
My father taught me that charity starts at home.
There are Canadians who are homeless. I know families of 15
living in one home, sharing a small room.
1350
What is going to happen with the new CMHC insurance is that $200
million a year will have to be paid to the government of Canada.
This will mean $200 million less for the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation. If I wanted to buy a house, it would be
easier for me to borrow the money from the CMHC than from the
bank.
[English]
It is going to be harder for them to give me the money. I am
going to be at a higher risk because I live in a rural area,
maybe with seasonal work six months of the year. That is a big
concern.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter as
homelessness is of considerable concern to the people in my
riding and to the people of Toronto generally.
Coincidentally, the mayor of Toronto was here yesterday for a
meeting with the Prime Minister. It is ironic. Toronto fancies
itself as the centre of the universe and indeed it is an economic
engine and does house many of Canada's largest corporations.
There is a level of prosperity in Toronto which is seldom matched
in the rest of the country. Toronto, as I say, is a bit
conceited in seeing itself as a world class city.
One would therefore think that the topics on the agenda between
the Prime Minister of Canada and the mayor of Canada's largest
city would involve something like the Olympic bid or a fixed rail
link between Pearson airport and downtown Toronto. I regret to
inform the House that the number one topic between the Prime
Minister and the mayor of Canada's largest city yesterday was
homelessness. That is distressing.
Homelessness is an enormous problem in Toronto and I dare say it
is an enormous problem in various other centres across the
country. At least 5,000 people are homeless each and every night
in Toronto. In my riding alone there are 1,100 homeless people
each and every night. They are from everywhere. They are from
every province and virtually every city in this nation and from
around the globe. They are not overly fussy where they come from,
but they all end up in my riding.
Let us take a tour of my riding. My riding is at the east end
of Toronto. It butts up against Lake Ontario and the Rouge
River. It used to be the entrance to Toronto before the 401 was
built. As a consequence, there are a number of motel units, 23
motel units in all, of which 11 are retained by metro housing to
house homeless people. This was supposed to be a temporary
solution. As a consequence, when someone is homeless from
anywhere else in the country and is in Toronto or lands at
Pearson airport, the likelihood is that he or she will end up in
my riding that night. There are 1,100 people each and every
night.
It simply overwhelms our school system. The local school, West
Hill Public School, has a 200% to 300% turnover for children on
an annual basis. I do not know how the principals and the staff
cope. I do not know how the children cope. How can they expect
to run a soccer team or conduct a science fair when all of their
schoolmates are leaving for other places. Similarly with food
banks, there is an endless lineup at food banks.
I am extremely proud of my community because we have coped
magnificently. The local churches have stood up to the plate.
They provide meals on a weekly basis, whether it is a breakfast
or a dinner. However, we are starting to have compassion
fatigue. We cannot continue to cope with 1,100 people in my
riding each and every night. In some respects, I would dare say
that the people of Scarborough East are being unfairly asked to
house the rest of the people from Canada and around the world who
are homeless.
All forms of housing are linked.
In some respects Scarborough East can be seen as a microcosm of
the country.
1355
In my riding we can buy a $2 million house. We can literally go
from a $2 million house, to a $1 million house, to a half a
million dollar house down to townhouses, to apartment buildings,
to social assistance housing. Twenty-five per cent of the people
in my riding are on social assistance of some kind. Then we get
down to the motel units.
If a family was a functioning family when it entered one of
these motel units, I dare say by the time it exited the motel
unit, the family would have become dysfunctional. These motel
units are no way to house homeless people. I dare say that anyone
in this House who spent any amount of time with a spouse and
children in these motel units would not have a functioning family
when they left.
All forms of housing are linked. This bill addresses those forms
of housing. It is a mark of a civilized society as to how it
shelters its people. That is fundamental. It is a mark of a
civilized society as to how it houses its people particularly in
a northern climate. There is no choice. We cannot have people on
the street in a northern climate. This bill somewhat addresses
that issue. The purpose of the bill states:
The purpose of this act, in relation to financing for housing, is
to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate access
to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of, housing
finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding for
housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the
well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.
The test of the success of this bill will be how it meets its
purpose.
I address the House's attention to clause 8 which provides
insurance for reverse mortgages. This is a form of protection of
housing for elderly people. This is a response in some measure to
the feeling that people who are in a certain situation, a certain
age bracket, are unable to stay in their home and stay there
together.
I notice that time is going on, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I will
continue my speech after question period.
The Speaker: The hon. member will have in excess of 13
minutes left and he will be recognized first. We will now go to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADA CORD CEREMONY
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to recognize a group of young women from my riding
of Scarborough Centre.
The Canada Cord Ceremony was recently held for Pathfinders who
achieved this award in 1998. For those who are not aware, the
Pathfinders are part of the Girl Guides of Canada, and the Canada
Cord is the highest award which is earned by successfully
completing levels which emphasize experiences with the community,
the world, and leadership, among others.
I want to congratulate Katherine Atkinson, Cheryl Brown, Gayle
Brown, Lisa Gasson, Heather Goodyear, Jeanette Jackson, Lindsey
Kirchner and Andrea Nyhuis on receiving the Canada Cord award.
I commend these young women on the time and effort they put into
reaching their goal. With the recent celebration of
International Women's Day, these young women are perfect examples
of the dedication and participation that women indeed contribute
constructively to our society for a better tomorrow.
* * *
MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this Saturday will mark the 10th
anniversary of the election of the first Reform member of
parliament, the hon. member for Edmonton North.
Few of us can appreciate the hardship and isolation that she
withstood for four and a half years as the sole Reform member of
parliament, tucked away in a back corner of this House. But many
of us will remember the pure delight she experienced the first
time she took her new seat in the front row surrounded by dozens
of her Reform colleagues.
This weekend will be a very special time for the member for
Edmonton North as she celebrates this anniversary with family,
friends, colleagues and constituents.
1400
I can assure Canadians that she will not be celebrating it in
the kitchen. They may want to check out the local Swiss Chalet.
* * *
FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to the Family and Children Services of
Leeds and Grenville located in my riding.
This organization has recently received its accreditation from
the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Society. I am proud to
say that it received 94% full compliance, the requirement set out
by that association.
I commend all those involved and thank them for their tremendous
efforts made on behalf of all children in their care.
Congratulations to the Family and Children Services on receiving
this prestigious status and on its outstanding contributions to
our community.
* * *
NATIONAL FARM SAFETY WEEK
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week is National Farm Safety Week. Having a riding such as
Waterloo—Wellington in which there are many farms and still
living on my own family farm, I realize the importance of this
nationwide event.
The farm can be a very dangerous place, as members know, if
precaution is not taken. It is very important for all Canadians,
especially those living in or visiting rural areas to learn about
the dangers surrounding farm equipment and farm animals. Children
and adults alike must acknowledge these dangers and act
accordingly.
This week offers an excellent opportunity for Canadians to learn
about and identify the possible dangers of farms. Events taking
place across the country can provide education and awareness of
farm safety procedures.
I urge all members of my riding as well as all Canadians to get
involved in this event, to learn more about what they can do to
keep their farms safe.
I would also like to commend the Canada Safety Council for
putting on the National Farm Safety Week. Its efforts in this
and other fields must be appreciated and acknowledged.
* * *
MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker,
It was 10 years ago
The records will tell
Elected to this House
Was one we know well.
Beaver River riding
Was clear in its choice
They sent a Reformer
To give them a voice.
They weren't disappointed
For you may have heard
That this is one member
At no loss for words!
Here, the welcome was cool
Her courage, tested
But Reform's pioneer
Was never bested
Hardworking and friendly
She was a stunner
Travelling her riding in
A red 4-Runner
Senator Stan Waters
Soon joined her as friend
And the next election
Loneliness would end
Today she's surrounded
By colleagues who say
We cheer our First Lady
You're the best, Deborah Grey!
* * *
NATO
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow, March 12, the foreign ministers of Hungary,
Poland and the Czech Republic will deposit the official
ratification documents to become full-fledged members of NATO.
I spoke in support of this matter two years ago to the day.
Canada's leading role helped make this day a reality.
It will mean more stability in Europe and more security for
Canadian soldiers in the region. It will mean strengthened links
between Canadians of Hungarian, Polish and Czech origins.
These communities consider NATO enlargement as the ultimate
guarantee for democracy, freedom and stability in their native
countries.
As a member of parliament of Hungarian heritage, I was proud to
meet last week with Mr. Sandor Papp, Hungary's ambassador to
Canada. Mr. Papp conveyed that next year Hungary celebrates its
1,000 birthday as a state.
Tomorrow we gain new partners in NATO with shared principles of
freedom and democracy.
* * *
BIOARTIFICIAL KIDNEY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during
National Kidney Month, it is appropriate to draw attention to
research on a bioartificial kidney that is cause for hope for
those with kidney problems.
The bioartificial kidney would be an alternative to transplants
and dialysis. Implanted in the body, it would provide relief for
thousands of sufferers. Two research projects are underway at
the present time in the United States.
I have presented petitions from thousands of Canadians who
support bioartificial kidney research. Ken Sharp of Peterborough
has organized this petition crusade, which has resulted in the
collection of signatures from all across Canada.
I congratulate Ken and all his supporters and wish them well in
their continuing efforts to help kidney disease sufferers.
* * *
1405
ORGAN DONATIONS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, organ and tissue donation represents a
personal gift of life from one individual to another. For many
people in Canada receiving an organ or tissue transplant is the
only hope for a healthy, productive life.
About 3,200 Canadians are on waiting lists for organ
transplants. Last year only half that number, 1,612 people,
received the organs they needed. Since one donor can help more
than 50 people in need I encourage my colleagues to help
Canadians improve a system in which supply has fallen tragically
behind demand. Today's promise can be tomorrow's precious gift.
* * *
MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, ten years ago on March 13, 1989 the hon. member for
Edmonton North made political history. By winning a byelection
in Beaver River she became the first elected Reform member of the
Canadian parliament.
Since then she has become a tireless champion of grassroots
Canadians, one of the best communicators in the House of Commons,
a constructive critic of two governments that needed criticism,
chairman of the official opposition caucus, the loving wife of
Lew Larson and a role model for countless young Canadians.
Those of us who know her best know her as more than a
parliamentarian. We know her as an outgoing, caring person whose
heart is still humble despite all her achievements and who still
values her family, her faith and her personal relationships above
everything else.
We love you, Deb, and offer you our heartfelt congratulations on
the 10th anniversary of your election to the Parliament of
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
EDUCATION
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Council
of Ministers of Education, Canada, has just released a report on
the performance of Canada's francophone students.
It reaffirms the great importance for governments, parents and
organizations concerned with our children's future to do their
utmost to ensure that our children are prepared for the new
millennium with a quality education.
Not only does the future of our society depend on it, but so do
the individual futures of our young people, who will have to
deal with realities that are different, and perhaps more
difficult, than they are today.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AID
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today the Canadian Council for International
Co-operation has called on the government to improve our foreign
aid policies. Our international reputation as a caring country
has been under attack for the past decade. Liberal government
cuts have caused Canada's aid to fall to a shameful low of .27%
of our GNP, a far cry from the UN target of .7%.
More money for the foreign aid program is not enough. Canada's
aid program is not doing the job it should, to be solely focused
on the elimination of global poverty. New Democrats have long
called for a move from donorship to local ownership in aid
relations, to involve Canadians in development issues and to
spend enough money to meet our global obligations. We endorse
the call today of the CCIC to cancel debts to the poorest
countries and to rebuild our Canadian aid resources to .35% of
GNP by 2005.
I salute the efforts of the CCIC and all Canadians who
understand that fighting poverty, whether at home or abroad, is
the hallmark of a truly civilized society.
Might I join my voice on behalf of my colleagues in
congratulating the member for Edmonton North on her 10th
anniversary in the House.
* * *
[Translation]
LUC PLAMONDON
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Luc
Plamondon is arguably the most prolific lyricist in the French
speaking world. He has written more than 500 hit songs, and has
had a significant impact on the careers of a number of singing
stars, among them Céline Dion, Diane Dufresne, Ginette Reno,
Julien Clerc, and Fabienne Thibault.
His first major international success was the rock opera
Starmania in 1979. Twenty years later, his prolific talent is
being showcased in the hit show Notre-Dame de Paris, a modern-day
adaptation of a classic of French literature.
Luc Plamondon believes in Quebec and in its artists.
Over and above his personal successes, he has enabled many
Quebec singers and stage performers to gain recognition in
France. He has also been a champion of copyright.
Mr. Plamondon has received many honours over the years. His
songs and his name have been on the lips of Quebeckers for many
years. Today, finally, he is being honoured by the Canadian
Music Hall of Fame.
* * *
NUCLEAR CHALLENGE
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
December, the foreign affairs standing committee tabled a report
on Canada and the nuclear challenge. We are still waiting for
the government to state its official position on that here in
the House.
However, we read in the newspapers that the government seems to
have a position on this issue, which it refuses to share with
parliamentarians.
1410
And there is more. The government is sending invitations to
groups that share its position, which has not even been
announced, and is forgetting the other side of the coin.
The consultation process is over. The government should stop
inviting groups just because they share its views. If it wants
the committee to continue to hear groups on the nuclear
challenge, it must invite groups representing both sides of the
issue. It is a matter of safety and credibility.
* * *
[English]
INFO FAIR
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure I speak for all members on this side of the
House in offering congratulations to the former member for Beaver
River, now the member for Edmonton North. I am sure we will see
her for another 10 years as the lioness of the House of Commons.
I want to recognize the work of HRDC in my riding that has put
together the Info Fair. It put 15,000 youth in a situation where
they could actually deal with the question of employment.
There are a number of people in the Oshawa area, in the Durham
region, who should be commended for this. Over 2 days a number
of partners including corporate sponsors IBM, Xerox and Power
Broadcasting put together an opportunity to recruit many of the
youth in our region.
I commend Sharyn Little, Merle Cole and Carl Gulliver of
HRDC's Durham region office, as well as Julian Luke and Darlene
Woodward of the Durham District School Board.
It is clear that when the Durham regional school boards work
together, along with the local training boards and with linkages
to HRDC and Canada's youth employment strategy, it is all
successful.
* * *
MEMBER FOR EDMONTON NORTH
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in tribute to my hon. colleague, the member for Edmonton
North. I first met her in 1989 during the Beaver River
byelection.
As we greeted the voters on the streets of Glenden I was amazed
at the warm and positive response that came from complete
strangers to this pleasant, gracious and outgoing lady. On
election night I watched the voters' choice come in from poll
after poll, amassing a landslide victory for Canada's first
Reform Party member of Parliament.
For five years she alone represented the Reform Party in this
place. I have heard her speak of that exciting period, marked by
feelings of loneliness at times as she dealt with the barbs
thrown at her by some members in the House.
I remember as well her speaking of the friendships she developed
here and her deep appreciation to these members. And you, Mr.
Speaker, stand out in this category.
For ten years this member has been one of Canada's finest
ambassadors to this place, serving Canadians with great
distinction. To the hon. member who now represents the good
people of Edmonton North I say, on her 10th anniversary,
congratulations, thank you and keep on marching.
* * *
FAMILIES
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, what Canadian mothers need is the freedom to choose
between working at home with their children and working outside
the home for pay.
Reform members believe the only barrier to women staying at home
is the tax system. The fact that the government's changes to
employment insurance prevent many women from even getting
maternity benefits escapes them.
Canadian women want to know when will the government take the
first steps toward allowing women a real choice and support them
in their choice by repealing its anti-family changes to
employment insurance?
* * *
[Translation]
YEAR 2000
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a few days ago, every household in Quebec and Canada
received a brochure entitled Your Guide to a Bug-free Home
Environment.
Designed and distributed at a cost of tens of thousands of
dollars, this guide is supposed to be a tool to demystify the
impact of the millennium bug on the daily lives of Canadians.
I read the brochure and I am happy to report to my colleagues
that they can rest in peace; the government was successful in
its research.
It is written in black and white. We can now be assured that our
lawnmowers will not be affected by the millennium bug, and
neither will be our dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, lamps, fans,
smoke detectors, barbecues, pool equipment and snowblowers. That
is what the brochure says. It is enough to make you want to mow
the lawn in January.
Even if the year 2000 is still more than nine months away, it is
obvious that the Liberal government is already deeply affected
by the bug and has been for several months. Hurrah for the year
2000.
* * *
[English]
MARKHAM PHILHARMONIA SOCIETY
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, on Friday the
Markham Philharmonia Society held its gala premiere at the
Markham Theatre. I commend founder and artistic director
Christopher Cotton for assembling such a talented group of
musicians for the society's debut.
The goal of this new organization is to develop a multifaceted
arts program in the town of Markham, York region and the entire
greater Toronto area.
1415
With the professional orchestra of 40 players, a professional
chorus ensemble of experienced singers, a community based choral
society and a youth choir, the society is well on its way to
becoming a showcase for musical excellence.
To cover the costs of its relatively modest funding, the society
needs financing. I therefore call on all levels of government to
work with community volunteers to ensure that the Markham
Philharmonic Society has a bright and successful future in
advancing fine arts in the greater Toronto area.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after six years of delay the Prime Minister has finally
agreed to changes in the Young Offenders Act.
Reforms to hold parents of young offenders more accountable and
to give victims a greater voice have been included. For that
Canadians can thank Reform MPs from Surrey North and Crowfoot.
Beyond that Canadians will be disappointed today.
For example, why did the justice minister reject the
recommendation of her justice committee that the age of
application of the Young Offenders Act be lowered to age 10?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we need to understand what the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended.
Its concern was that children under the age of 12 who commit
crimes not fall through the cracks in our system generally. We
agree with that, but we do not believe that the formal criminal
justice system is the best place in which to deal with and help
those young children.
We have sat in the House listening to this party express its
concern about children and families. We have got—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the justice committee and many members of parliament
have found that older criminals were recruiting 10 to 12 year
olds into criminal activity because they knew they could not be
touched under the act.
The idea of lowering the age to 10 was to get those young people
into the system so that the rehabilitative aspects of the Young
Offenders Act could be applied at a younger age.
Why did the minister reject that advice not only from Reform MPs
but from her justice committee?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the
Opposition misunderstands the recommendation of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Let me reiterate that we on this side of the House believe a 10
year old or an 11 year old who breaks the law does need support,
does need help. Where we need to look for that support and help
is not in jail. It is in the child welfare system and the mental
health system.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the best rehabilitative system for young people is
strong families. That is where rehabilitation and preventive
actions can occur.
If the hon. minister really believes the statistics that link
criminal activity on the part of young people to economic
deprivation in families, why does she and why does her government
support discriminatory taxation against families that aggravate
the problem?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again let me say this is a
party that talks, that blathers on about fair commitment to
children and families. This is a party which voted against the
national child benefit. This is a party that voted against
increased funding for CAPC. This is a party that would jail 10
year olds.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not interested in jailing 10 year olds, but there has been no
change.
Canadians have been demanding a change to cover 10 to 15 year
olds. The justice committee recommended that 10 and 11 year olds
be held criminally responsible for their crimes, not sent to
jail. In order to rehabilitate these children we have to get
them within the system before it is too late for them.
Why did the minister refuse to listen to the demands of
Canadians to get these kids into the system so they can get the
help they need?
1420
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that we are
not suggesting these young people should not be within a system.
It is the view of the government—and I thank my colleagues on
this side of the House for supporting me on it—that it is best
to use the child welfare system or the mental health system to
help those children under 12.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
age of application has been at issue for decades. In 1962 the
justice department recommended that 10 and 11 year olds be
included. The government refused citing economic and political
considerations.
Is the government letting politics getting in the way of public
safety? There is an extremely low number of 10 and 11 year old
offenders. Do they not deserve to be saved by our criminal
justice process and to get the help they need?
What political considerations caused the minister to fail to
comply with the wishes of Canadians?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member
misunderstands the desires of Canadians.
What Canadians want is to make sure that 10 and 11 year olds, if
they break the law, are not left to their own devices but get the
help, support and treatment they need. That is why we believe
the child welfare system or the mental health system is the best
place to provide that assistance.
I have also made it plain my officials are working with
provincial and territorial officials to make sure that together
federal and provincial governments have a seamless system of
services to make sure that no—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
owners of Davie Industries and various stakeholders want to
ensure the survival of the shipyards in Lévis.
In 1996, the Government of Quebec established a policy to
provide tax credits to assist shipbuilding.
Is the Minister of Industry prepared to offer tax advantages to
the shipbuilding industry compatible with those offered by
Quebec, in order to facilitate the sale of the Lévis shipyard
and to thus ensure the survival of the hundreds of jobs there?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member must be aware of the fact that, with the existing
tax system, there is an accelerated deduction of depreciation
costs of 33% for ships built in Canada. It is very quick, it is
direct depreciation. That means that after four years the buyer
of a ship built in Canada can deduct the entire cost of the
ship. That is a very generous tax shelter.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Industry would do well to discuss with his colleague
the Secretary of State for Agriculture, who last month said in
Le Soleil, and I quote “There are some very generous people
there—on investors. I have had contact with them. They have
set as a condition the federal government's relaxing tax
advantages for shipbuilding”.
In the light of this statement by his colleague, could the
Minister of Industry tell us why he refuses to provide tax
advantages compatible with those provided by Quebec?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would also mention the fact that with the existing tax shelter,
there is also a 25% customs duty on ships imported into Canada
outside the NAFTA agreement.
There are also internal contracts for the federal government and
funding for commercially viable transactions by the Export
Development Corporation. Not only in this sector, but in others
as well, there is the system of tax credits for research and
development that are also very favourable.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in an interview with a journalist from the Soleil, the Secretary
of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food said that the next budget
might contain new measures for shipbuilding.
As we saw nothing along these lines in the last federal budget,
are we to understand that the Secretary of State for Agriculture
and Agri-Food failed miserably in his attempt to convince his
colleagues of the importance of providing assistance for
shipbuilding in Quebec?
1425
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to note that the last budget again contained help for
R&D; in Canada and for the process of innovation.
These are some of the most important sectors for building the
industries of the 21st century here in Canada and in Quebec.
These were the same sectors that received funding in the budget
brought down a few days ago by Quebec's finance minister.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given the inflexibility of the Minister of Industry, will the
Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food go back and tell
the men of the Davie shipyard that there is nothing he can do
for them?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is not true that the federal government has done nothing for the
Lévis shipyard. It invested large amounts of money in the
shipyard for several years.
I have also just explained that there are tax shelters for the
shipbuilding industry here in Canada. The assistance that has
already been given and that will given in the future is not
negligible.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the justice minister. Ten and eleven year old
kids are being recruited to commit crimes. They are being
recruited into youth gangs in Winnipeg and elsewhere.
The minister knows what I am talking about. Yet the new package
fails to come down hard on those who would lead those kids down
that road. The bill is silent in the face of that growing
problem.
Why did the justice minister ignore the problem of the
recruitment of 10 and 11 year olds into criminal activities?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not ignored that.
There are existing provisions both in the Criminal Code and in
the existing Young Offenders Act that can deal with exactly that
question.
I am appalled to hear that from members of the New Democratic
Party. Are they suggesting, along with their friends in the
Reform Party, that we should be putting 10 and 11 year olds in
jail?
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, let me
make it absolutely clear that we are advocating the very opposite
of that.
The government seems to refuse to deal with the recruitment of
10 and 11 year olds by gangs. It is real. It is an ugly reality
but the Reform solution is not the right one. We need to get at
the cause of the problem.
Will the government amend its bill so youth gangs will stop
using 10 and 11 kids to commit crimes?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of youth gangs who aid
and abet in the perpetration of criminal offences can be charged.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the numbers do not add up. The government announced $175 million
in new moneys for the defence budget and restored a cut of $150
million, bringing the defence budget to $9.7 billion for this
year. However, the estimates state that the defence budget is
$10.3 billion.
Could the minister tell us why he did not announce the new
spending of $600 million and tell us where the money came from?
Was it transfers from the provinces, the finance minister's shell
game, or did he again dip into the military pension fund?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, none of the above. There are also
provisions in the defence estimates relevant to the disaster
financial assistance arrangement, which is not directly related
to military but does form part of the expenditures.
However, we are grateful that for the first time in a dozen
years the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces
have received an increase in their estimates. That gives us the
opportunity to pay more to our troops and to be able to deal with
issues of housing, care for the injured and support for the
families.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the air
force is currently flying 35 year old Sea Kings.
These helicopters require upwards of 60 hours of maintenance for
every hour they are flown.
1430
I know a lot of people on the government side do not believe in
the estimates. We heard that this week. However, the estimates
show that $4 million went into a new joint strike fighter
program.
Can the minister tell us why he is spending $4 million on that
program instead of spending $4 million on initiating a Sea King
replacement program? How many more crashes will we have and how
many more lives will be lost before he brings in the Sea King
program?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that all of our pilots
and all of our air crews are in fact safe when they fly any of
our equipment.
The Sea Kings are kept at a very high standard of maintenance.
We ensure that they are safe to fly.
Yes, they are getting on in years. They do cost more to repair.
There is more down time. That is why the government feels we
need to replace them and that is why I will be bringing in a
strategy for their replacement very shortly.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The new youth criminal justice bill allows for provinces to opt
out of adult sentencing. Canada's justice system is based on
uniformity and universality of application. What happened to
treating Canadians equally right across Canada?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member shows a
fundamental misunderstanding of division of power as it relates
to the criminal justice system in this country.
Our obligation and that which we have discharged today is to
pass national criminal legislation. We have done that.
The administration of the criminal justice system is left to the
provinces in this country. For example, presently under the
existing young offenders legislation prosecutors all over this
country in communities every day make decisions as to whether
young people should be prosecuted and seek a transfer to adult
court or whether they should remain in youth court. Those are
the kinds of local decisions that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the glaring problems with the old Juvenile
Delinquents Act was the discretion it provided the provinces to
create their own system of youth justice. That is why it was
changed.
Why are we going back in history? Should the criminal law of
the land not be the same in every province?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the criminal law is the same.
I would ask members, especially those of his party who come into
the House to argue relentlessly for provincial rights, to respect
the Constitution of this country in which the administration of
the criminal law rests with the provinces.
We do that so that prosecutors can reflect local values,
community values, and take into account on a daily basis those
local young offenders.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the Minister of Justice introduced a bill making
sweeping amendments to the Young Offender Act.
In the documents she tabled, she said the principles of the
current act lacked clarity, were inconsistent and contradictory.
How does she explain that it is under this supposedly unclear,
inconsistent and even contradictory act, according to the
statistics she quoted this morning at a press conference, youth
crime has come down 23% since 1991?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact there are a number of
reasons—and I think we should be happy about this—that crime
rates generally are decreasing in this country, one of which is
because of this government's insightful approach to children, to
the family and to crime prevention.
Let me remind the hon. member that, tragically, we do see
increases of certain kinds of violent youth crime in this country
and that is why we have chosen to make in this new legislation a
clear distinction between violent crime and non-violent crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since 1995, even violent crime has dropped constantly, by 3.2%.
What the minister just said is not true.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I advise the hon. member to choose his words very
carefully.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the numbers were wrong.
In spite of the so-called opting out clause, which was the object
of a calculated leak on her part, will the minister admit her
bill is her response to pressure from the right wing in western
Canada, and that the measures she is proposing are useless, ill
conceived and even dangerous?
1435
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I will not concede
that. In fact what we have presented today in the House is a
balanced and principled approach to a growing concern on the part
of Canadians in terms of their lack of confidence in the youth
justice system.
Let me remind members that in fact our balanced approach is
based upon an overarching commitment to protection of society.
We do not take a uni-dimensional approach to that challenge,
unlike some. We believe that we achieve that protection through,
first, crime prevention; second, meaningful consequences when
crimes are committed; and third, rehabilitation and
reintegration.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Justice seems to think that only she and her
government know what is good for people and she in fact says that
other people just do not understand.
Let me remind the justice minister that the member for Surrey
North is a victim of youth crime. He paid a terrible price and
he ran for parliament on those grounds.
How can the minister possibly say that the member for Surrey
North, or this caucus or anyone across the country who does not
agree with her, just does not understand?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that Canadians
do not understand. In fact, we have listened to Canadians. We
have been told by Canadians that they want a new youth justice
system which reflects their values, values of accountability and
responsibility, with a further emphasis on prevention. The other
thing they told us was, for them, that does not mean putting more
kids in jail for longer.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a degree in criminology and I do not think that putting ten
and eleven year olds in jail is the answer. I agree with the
minister.
These people need to be brought into the system. Ten and eleven
year olds need to be brought into the system so they can be
rehabilitated when we know that they are there. The child
welfare system is not going to salvage these kids, and the
minister knows it.
Again, the minister says that the member for Surrey North just
does not understand, that we do not understand about ten and
eleven year olds. How in the world does the minister think she
has all the answers and that this is going to solve the problems
of youth crime?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not suggest on this side
of the House that we have all the answers, unlike our friends
over there who have a simplistic, black and white,
uni-dimensional answer for every complex social problem.
If the hon. member for Edmonton North bothered to read the youth
justice strategy she would see that we have a multi-dimensional
approach that speaks to the real concerns of Canadians. We
prevent crime in the first place. When crimes are committed, we
provide meaningful consequences and when—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a woman who
leaves the work force to stay home with her child is
discriminated against by the employment insurance program.
Even if training may be available, she will have work 910 hours
to requalify.
Since most women who return to the work force have no job
security, does the Minister of Human Resources Development not
understand that most of them will never be able to accumulate
enough hours to qualify?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the opposite to be true.
The labour market has been rather favourable for women in recent
years.
There has been a 3% drop in female unemployment in
recent years. The bulk of jobs were full time, not part time,
as the member for Québec says.
We are making available to women who wish to return to the
workforce active measures to make that possible, as well as
training to enhance their employability. I believe, therefore,
that our reform serves women's interests.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know that
the minister is constantly telling us that women who work part
time now find it easier to become eligible, but the complete
opposite is true.
1440
Will he agree to tell us that, yes, these women pay premiums,
but 70% of unemployed women do not qualify for benefits? Yes,
they pay in but, no, they do not draw benefits.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I shall shortly have the
opportunity to table a report in this House assessing the impact
of our employment insurance reform.
I recognize the hon. member for Québec's interest in this issue.
It is true that women who work less than 15 hours are now in a
better position with our hour-based employment insurance system.
This is definitely the case for those who work less than 15
hours some weeks.
Now, for those women who work more than 15 hours and up to
somewhere around 30, there will have to be a careful review of
what the impact of employment insurance reform is on them, and
what steps will have to be taken in future.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
the Prime Minister cannot convince members of his own family that
he has cut taxes, we know things are pretty bad. But listen to
what his in-law Paul Desmarais had to say. “Why pay taxes in
Canada when taxes are so exorbitant?” He went on say “When the
government is too greedy, people find other solutions”. That is
his own family.
Since even they do not believe the Prime Minister's junk about
cutting taxes in this year's budget, why should the rest of
Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we made it very clear that we were going to bring down
the tax burden in this country and we have, by $16.5 billion over
the course of the next three years.
We also said that we would move right up the income scale, but
that we would begin with those who need it most, low income
Canadians, and then we would do it for middle income Canadians.
That is what we have done.
However, I am prepared to admit that as we move up the income
scale it may take us a long time to get to Paul Desmarais.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Paul Desmarais is also the finance minister's mentor and old
boss. Too bad his good sense did not rub off on the finance
minister.
Is the finance minister proud that even his old friend Mr.
Desmarais thinks his high tax policies are killing Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will note that in the same article what
Mr. Desmarais said was that he was going to stay in Canada and
that he was going to pay his taxes in Canada because he
recognizes that it is those taxes, the taxes of all Canadians,
which pay for our health care and education.
The hon. member talked about good sense rubbing off. I would
rather have something bigger than simply cents rub off.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we thought the government had learned a few lessons from the
APEC scandal.
But no, yesterday the government literally let the dogs loose on
the heels of the public service blue collar workers
demonstrating for equal pay for work of equal value in different
regions in Canada.
Will the President of the Treasury Board finally accept his
responsibilities and negotiate with these employees or will he
let this violence escalate on the assumption that dogs are not
as bad as baseball bats?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, negotiations
are continuing with the blue collar workers.
The government has accepted the conciliation report. We are
hoping that those currently on strike will accept it too and
that we will find a solution quickly.
In this case, obviously, there was violence because people were
not obeying the law. We hope, however, that negotiations will
conclude soon.
* * *
SNOW GEESE
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
Agriculture and Agri-Food, and Fisheries and Oceans.
Every year the crops of farmers in the St. Lawrence valley are
ravaged by snow geese in their spring migration.
Could the secretary of state tell us what the Government of
Canada intends to do to reduce the damage?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and
Agri-Food)(Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again this
year Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will be working with the
UPA and the Province of Quebec to reduce damage to farmlands.
To do so, we bill be investing $50,000 specifically to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1445
The Speaker: Order, please. The secretary of state.
Hon. Gilbert Normand: Mr. Speaker, we have to start from the
beginning. I succeeded in obtaining $50,000 to protect
farmlands in the St. Lawrence valley. We will be working with
the Province of Quebec and the UPA to find an environmental
solution to the damage the snow geese are currently causing to
farmlands.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the highest court in Ontario ruled that the Red Cross was
negligent in tainted blood in 1983. That is fully three years
before this government admits its negligence.
Why does the government not just admit that its bogus date of
1986 is absolutely incorrect and throw it out?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's preamble deals with
a court case that dealt with AIDS.
While I am not in a position to comment on court cases, I would
tell the member that our position on hepatitis C is very clear.
Negotiations are ongoing at the present time for those who were
infected in the blood system between 1986 and 1990.
A proposal has been made to provide ongoing lifetime care to
those infected outside that window. That is because this
government and the Minister of Health believe that people no
matter how they were infected deserve to have the care that they
need. We do not believe in cash compensation.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this was
not about AIDS at all. This was about the responsibility of the
regulator of the Red Cross. I have the court case right here in
front of me. It simply says that the Red Cross was responsible
and the regulator was also responsible in 1983.
The 1986 date is artificial, legalistic and bogus. Why does the
government not just admit it, pitch that date out and look after
everybody who got tainted blood and hepatitis C?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect in the
premise of his question. This government believes very clearly
that there is a very distinct difference between the infection of
AIDS and hepatitis C.
We have taken appropriate action. We understand this is a very
serious and sensitive issue. That is why we have offered $1.1
billion. Negotiations are ongoing with those infected between
1986 and 1990.
We are hopeful of an outcome that will be put before the courts
to ensure that that is approved before any final settlement is
taken.
* * *
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question for the Minister of Public Works relates to
two public projects built adjacent to the Prime Minister's
private cottage in Grand'Mère, Quebec. The first one, worth
$72,000, was to build an RCMP compound. The second one, worth
$65,000, was to build a road. I sent the contract award records
to the minister.
Could the minister confirm that these two contracts were awarded
without tender to the firm Construction R. Cloutier, Inc. in
violation of Treasury Board guidelines for construction contracts
over $25,000, and if so, why?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts straight. The Prime
Minister built a new home. It is a private matter. He paid for
it. Security for the Prime Minister is the responsibility of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The RCMP indicated that an
additional access road was required. The contractor was already
working on the property. For security reasons, he was hired under
standard government guidelines.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's conflict of interest code requires
ministers to arrange their private affairs to bear the closest
public scrutiny and not to accord preferential treatment to their
friends.
In view of the facts that Mr. Renald Cloutier built the Prime
Minister's private cottage in Grand'Mère, is the father-in-law of
the owner of the Grand'Mère Inn, and donates regularly to the
Liberal Party, could the Deputy Prime Minister explain how the
Prime Minister's conflict of interest code would permit the
untendered awarding of these public contracts to his personal
contractor, Mr. Cloutier?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, the
construction of the home was a private matter. It was paid for
by the Prime Minister. The construction of the road was a
requirement of the RCMP. The RCMP indicated it was required for
security reasons.
* * *
1450
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, after 18 months and numerous media leaks, today's
long awaited youth criminal justice act will disappoint
Canadians. As before, Bill C-68 conjures up images of false
hope. The bill does nothing to lower the age of accountability
to 10 years. It ignores provincial demands for mandatory minimum
sentences for weapons offences. The size and complexities of its
clauses and subclauses will invariably lead to confusion and
further backlog in the courts.
Why is the minister ignoring the advice of the provinces and her
own experts and refusing to lower the age of criminal
responsibility?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with this issue
this afternoon.
Let me say again that this government is not going to lower the
age of criminal responsibility below the age of 12. We do not
believe the formal criminal justice process is the best place to
deal with these young people. However, we are not suggesting that
these young people should not be dealt with, should not receive
help and support and that their families should not receive help
and support. Consequently, that is why we think it is so
important to work with the provinces to ensure that the child
welfare system—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, refusing to do so takes away a mechanism to do what
the minister would accomplish.
The Liberals have tried to please everyone with this bill and as
a result, will please no one. They have tabled a piecemeal bill
that is costly and confusing to implement. There is no concern
of the government of course because the current funding of only
30% for the cost of enforcement falls far short of the 50%
intended for enforcement.
Where is the government's commitment to restore federal funding
to properly implement a truly national and equitable youth
criminal justice system?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member
which government it was that froze funding for the provinces in
1989-90. It was the Progressive Conservative government that
refused federal contributions for youth justice.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister of Justice will
answer the question.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon.
House that it was in our budget three weeks ago that this
government made a commitment to youth justice with 206 million
new dollars.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the widow of one of our Canadian military crew members who died
in the 1998 Labrador helicopter crash is one of my constituents.
She is experiencing extreme medical, psychological and financial
hardship. I was wondering what is the minister going to do to
address this very immediate situation?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very tragic occurrence, the
loss of this pilot and the other crew members in that crash. We
are doing everything that is possible and will do everything that
is possible.
I want to make sure we support Mrs. Musselman and the family and
the families of the other crew members. There was an issue here
with respect to the retention bonus and the balance of the
retention bonus. I have now authorized its payment to Mrs.
Musselman.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when
it comes to disputes with the United States, this government has
a pretty spotty record.
This government was afraid to take on the Americans when it came
to salmon. It was afraid to take on the Americans when it came
to softwood lumber, grain and cattle. However, it was not afraid
to take the bull by the horns when it came to defending the
magazine industry.
Why is the government willing to sacrifice Canadian producers of
salmon, lumber and steel but it stands up for magazine
publishers?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has it absolutely wrong. We
do not accept for one moment the preamble to this question.
Canada is always prepared to stand up for itself. It regards
its sovereignty and its issues of national interest as paramount.
We make no apologies for being good friends and allies to the
Americans, but as our Prime Minister has said often, business is
business and friendship is friendship.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
ELK BREEDING
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
Agriculture and Agri-Food.
For over two years now, Lucien Beaupré, who raises elk in Aston
Junction, has been trying to obtain justice from Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada. The department ordered the destruction of his
herd because one animal that had just been bought had
tuberculosis. But Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had twice
certified the animal's health in writing.
Because Mr. Beaupré lost his livelihood by relying on the
department, does the Secretary of State for Agriculture and
Agri-Food not think it fair that he be adequately compensated?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and
Agri-Food)(Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the time
of these events, Mr. Beaupré received compensation of $2,000 for
each animal, as provided for in the act.
I have in fact been asked by the UPA to look into Mr. Beaupré's
case. We are doing so now.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice.
We know that the best way to prevent crime is to work with young
people, and I am glad the government agrees. But the current
funding is not enough to support the present system, let alone
the proposed changes.
Under this smokescreen of new legislation, the provinces will
pick up the costs of probation officers, of victims' involvement
in the courts, and of youth services.
How can the minister guarantee to us that the $206 million over
three years will be spent properly? What guarantees are there
that it is enough money to meet the requirements?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of us who are involved in
the youth justice system are aware of the pressures that fiscal
constraints have placed upon that system over the past number of
years. That is why we are working so hard with provincial and
territorial governments.
Now we have additional funds, and the member is quite right to
point out that they are for the next three years. They are to
implement large parts of our new legislation and build on that
which the provinces and we at the federal level are already
doing. We provide $143 million every year now and in fact we
will be providing more money in the coming years.
* * *
[Translation]
THE HOMELESS
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, at a meeting of
the Prime Minister and the mayor of Toronto yesterday to discuss
matters of mutual interest, one topic raised was an action plan
initiated by Mayor Lastman to address the problem of the
homeless.
Does the Prime Minister intend to support this initiative and,
if so, how exactly does he plan to contribute to its success?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
sort of meeting with Mayor Lastman was very productive. The
mayor complimented the Prime Minister on how well the discussion
went.
We will bear Mayor Lastman's comments in mind, but we have
already taken significant steps to help the homeless. The
problem is still high on our agenda.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister for International Trade. This
government is one that vigorously defends protected industries,
like magazines, but where is it when it comes to defending the
interests of genuine free traders in disputes with the United
States? Why does the government not get its priorities straight?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have our priorities straight. It is
the member who has his facts wrong. We make no apologies for
standing up for culture. We make no apologies for defending
Canada. The member should get on board and know who his friends
are.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Y2K computer problem has been described as a significant
threat to world peace and security of the computerized world.
Will the Minister of National Defence assure this House that the
Y2K problem in the military system throughout the world,
including China, Russia and North Korea, has been addressed in
relation to the NATO missile defence system?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been substantial discussion of
this at NATO. The NATO allies are quite understanding and quite
supportive of doing everything possible to ensure that all
military weapons systems are Y2K compliant.
1500
We have also been addressing this matter, both as NATO and as
Canada, to the Russians and to other non-aligned states to ensure
their missile and weapon systems of all kinds are bearing in mind
what will happen January 1, 2000.
I am confident everything is being done that can be done by
Canada and by NATO to accomplish that.
* * *
[Translation]
URBAN SMOG
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a recent
study shows that the level at which health problems related to
smog start occurring is five times lower than the authorized
federal standards.
It is the first time that a study establishes a direct link
between mortality rates and urban smog.
Given the study's findings, what does the Minister of the
Environment intend to do to correct this dangerous situation as
quickly as possible?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is very concerned about
air quality. We have taken significant action, including last
fall when we suggested that the levels of sulphur in gasoline be
lowered.
We are also engaged in ongoing work with the provinces on air
quality to reduce particulate matter out of air and other
contaminants. We are working with the United States to improve
air quality. We will negotiate an annex to our U.S.-Canada air
quality agreement.
We will continue to explore all the methods possible to improve
the quality of air for Canadians because it has a very direct
effect on the health of Canadians.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
was very disheartening to read that when the Prime Minister met
with the mayor of Toronto to discuss the disaster of homelessness
in that city and across the country all he had to offer was a
cold beer.
There was no offer of funding. There was no national action
plan on housing, no new social housing and no social support for
people who are living and dying on the streets. It is absolutely
shameful.
Homeless people want to know when the Prime Minister will act on
this crisis or will he continue to ignore homeless people?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as usual, the premise of the hon. member's question is
completely wrong.
The Prime Minister is taking the problems of homeless people
very seriously. This is proven by the announcements of the
minister for central mortgage and housing of millions of dollars
to provide additional shelters for the homeless. This is proven
by the fact that Mayor Lastman, who can speak very critically if
he wants to, had nothing but praise for the Prime Minister and
his approach to the problem of the homeless.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for
International Trade.
The opposition has repeatedly said it costs more to do business
in Canada than in any other G-7 country. I understand that a
study has just been released on this very subject.
I would like the minister to tell the House how Canada compares
with our international competitors.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for asking because
this afternoon KPMG International tabled its report.
The conclusions reveal that Canada has the lowest cost for
establishing a business among all the G-7 countries. It looked
at 8 countries, 64 cities and 9 different industrial sectors.
Canada came out by a country mile, clearly in first place.
What is says is that Canada has an excellent environment for
investment. We all need to tell the story loudly and proudly to
the world.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, as you know,
the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada set up its own task
force to travel across the country and to look at the issue of
poverty in Canada.
Since the Prime Minister claims to care about the poor in
Canada, what does he intend to do to solve this national
problem, which generates huge economic and social costs?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, we have invested $300
million in the residential rehabilitation assistance program,
the RRAP, and we have participated in various studies.
In 1998, through our private and public partnership centre, we
have also built over 2,600 low cost housing units, and this year
we hope to be able to build another 3,000. We are working on
this project with our partners, the provinces, the
municipalities and all the other community groups willing to
co-operate with us.
* * *
1505
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, during question period the Minister of Justice
stated the Reform Party wanted to put 10 and 11 year olds in
jail. That is untrue and I hope the minister would withdraw that
statement.
The Speaker: You are into debate.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
being Thursday, I ask the government House leader the nature of
the business of the House for the remainder of this week and for
the next week.
An hon. member: And whether we will adjourn.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the last
question first. I know some people are asking if we will have
early holidays. I regret to inform them we will not.
We will be continuing today with Bill C-66, the housing
legislation, followed by Bill C-67, the foreign bank bill.
Tomorrow we will debate the third reading of Bill C-55, the
foreign publication bill. That debate will end tomorrow.
Monday and Tuesday of next week shall be allotted days.
Next Wednesday we would hope to get a head start on legislation
emanating from the budget. Hopefully by the end of next week we
will have passed both budget implementation bills and we will
progress on legislation in the constructive way the House
generally does.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-66, an
act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation Act and to make consequential amendment to
another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the debate was interrupted for
question period the hon. member for Scarborough East had 12
minutes left.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will not take the entire 12 minutes complete my comments.
I was speaking about the situation in my riding and the 1,100
homeless people who are there each and every night and the
growing situation in Toronto which I know is being experienced by
other cities. Homelessness continues to be a significant and
major problem.
It is all linked. All shelter is linked. It does not much
matter whether one can buy a $2 million home in my riding or a
$500,000 home or if one is in a motel unit. It is all linked.
That is what this bill attempts to address.
It may be obscure to some people that things like bundling
insurance is somehow linked to homelessness.
When a package of $100 million in mortgages can be bundled and
sold off to investors, that makes a pool of $100 million
available to lenders so they can in turn lend to other housing
situations. We increase the pool. That is what this bill does.
1510
It may be obscure to some that reverse mortgages are somehow a
very limited form of shelter. If you are elderly, if you have
equity in your home and if you do not want to move, being able to
stay in your home over a period of time through a reverse
mortgage is a very useful thing to be able to do.
This bill speaks to direct assistance to housing projects. This
bill speaks to lending to charitable corporations so housing can
be provided to those people who are most in need of it. In my
riding we have federal co-op houses. There is not a person in
the Chamber who would not like to live in that kind of housing.
It is good housing and it is provided through the auspices of the
Government of Canada.
This is a good bill that deserves the support of all members. Is
it enough? It is never enough. Will it address the problem of
homelessness in its totality? Of course it will not. It does
move toward eliminating homelessness in my riding of Scarborough
East, in the city of Toronto, in the province of Ontario and in
the nation. This bill, along with the measures announced in the
budget to provide $3.5 billion in health care funding, $2 billion
in additional cash funding to the CHST and in Ontario's case an
additional $900 million in catch-up money, speaks to the
commitment on the part of this government to address the crisis
in our largest city and in all cities.
This government has responded and it is responding
enthusiastically to those issues.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the second
reading stage of Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing
Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act. Although
our party is opposed to the amendments to these two acts, I am
pleased to have this opportunity because the issue of housing and
social housing is a very important fundamental issue in Canada
that affects millions of Canadians and regrettably it rarely gets
debated in the House of Commons.
Contrary to what the government member said a few moments ago,
the amendments will not in any way improve or increase the supply
of affordable, not for profit social housing in Canada. This
bill will pave the way for the further privatization of social
housing in Canada.
From that point of view this is a very sad day for Canada
because historically Canada has played a very positive and
innovative role in the provision of social housing right across
the country. We have tremendous expertise and skill at a
community level in the not for profit housing sector in
developing resources and in the construction and development of
social housing.
However, all of that has pretty well come to a standstill
because of policies implemented by the Liberal government since
1993 to basically trash social housing in Canada. Regrettably the
debate today is simply nothing more than one more nail in the
coffin of social housing and affordable housing in Canada.
Today in question period I asked the Prime Minister why in a
meeting with the mayor of Toronto yesterday about what is a
disaster in that city and across the country on homelessness, the
Prime Minister had nothing more to offer the mayor of Toronto
than a cold beer.
There was no offer of funding for social housing. There was no
offer of a national action plan for social housing. There was no
offer of new social housing units or help for people who are
living on the street, and yes, dying on the street as well.
1515
What we heard today from the government was that it is thinking
about it, it is studying it and in fact it has already done a
lot. The reality is that we have a crisis in this country, not
only in the city of Toronto, but in just about every major urban
community and in smaller communities as well because the federal
government abandoned the provision and the construction of social
housing in 1993.
Let us make no mistake about that. There is a direct
relationship between increasing homelessness, what we now see,
even here in the city of Ottawa, what I see in my own riding of
Vancouver East, what I saw in the city of Halifax and in other
communities across Canada, and the policy decisions that were
made by the finance minister in 1993 to axe social housing.
I want to say that I think it is an absolute disgrace. I think
that Canadians understand intuitively that housing is a basic
human need. It is a human right that is laid out in the
universal declaration of human rights, and yet here in Canada we
have no provision to ensure that this basic human need is being
met.
I might add that the Toronto disaster relief committee has
repeatedly called on the Prime Minister to visit this disaster
area to see for himself what is taking place on the streets of
Toronto. When I visited the city of Toronto, I visited the
emergency shelters and saw the appalling conditions that people
are living in. When I talked to people on the street it was
really very shocking to learn what people are facing in this
country.
The people who form what is called the Toronto disaster relief
committee have put together a very urgent call that has actually
been endorsed by the 10 big city mayors across Canada, including
the mayor of my own city, the city of Vancouver, and the city
council. What the Toronto disaster relief committee is calling
for is simply this, that there needs to be a 1% commitment to the
provision of social housing in Canada by all levels of
government.
One would hope and one would have expected that there would be a
response from the federal government, that there would be some
kind of indication that there is an acknowledgement and a
recognition of the disaster that is before us.
One would hope that there would be an acknowledgement of the
work that was done on the Golden report in the city of Toronto,
which was actually funded by the federal government, and that
indeed there would even be some kind of response to that report.
There was even a Liberal member on the task force. However,
there has been deafening silence on this issue.
We have not seen one cent come forward for the provision of
social housing. We had one small announcement saying that there
would be additional funds for residential rehabilitation.
However, I have to say that the Minister of Public Works, in
making that announcement, really was just making a drop in the
bucket in terms of the very critical situation that is facing us.
The federal government keeps on telling us that it is no longer
in this business. In fact the bill that is before us today to
amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation Act is really going further down this path of
the federal government offloading and abandoning its
responsibility to Canadians in this area. In fact what we have
seen is the federal government trying to download and devolve its
housing responsibility to the provinces.
I am glad to say that in the province that I come from, British
Columbia, we have been resisting this devolution and we have been
saying consistently that the federal government has to have a
national responsibility for the provision of housing. Yes, there
needs to be a partnership with the provinces. Yes, we need to
have the involvement of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities. In fact the federation is begging the federal
government to come back to the table and to get involved.
In my province alone, because of the loss of federal dollars,
because of the abandonment of social housing by this Liberal
government, we have lost something like 10,000 units that would
otherwise have been built if the program, as it existed in 1993,
was still in place.
1520
When we add the numbers and multiply them across Canada, on a
very conservative estimate we have lost 75,000 social housing
units in Canada that would have been built if those programs were
still in place.
Today is a very bad day. Instead of facing that reality,
instead of taking on the responsibility and saying that we will
meet this human need, we will make sure there is adequate, safe,
secure, affordable housing for Canadians, what is the federal
government doing? It brings in this bill. It claims that this
will improve housing for Canadians.
I read the press release from the Minister of Public Works who
said that these amendments will better respond to the housing
needs of Canadians. Where is the evidence? There is not a shred
of evidence to show that will take place if this piece of
legislation and these amendments pass.
This legislation is about privatizing the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation, privatizing certain provisions of its
policies and practices and further commercializing the way CMHC
operates.
We had the situation where CMHC insurance and mortgages were
guaranteed by the federal government. As a result of very large
corporations in the U.S. challenging us under the NAFTA and other
international trade provisions, the Liberal government is now
capitulating and saying that those types of assurances will no
longer be provided. Therefore, people who unfortunately are
considered to be high risk by the marketplace and our financial
institutions will now be in greater difficulty, even through
CMHC, because they will not have the same access they had before.
This is an important debate. We are talking about a very basic
issue that does not often arise for debate in this House. I am
glad we are debating it. However, I also want to say that we in
the New Democratic Party are appalled and outraged that the
Liberal government has gone so far from its own platform and
commitments.
I can hear the words in my head of a Liberal member of
parliament, now the finance minister, who in 1990, as the chair
of a Liberal task force on housing, said that it was
reprehensible in a society as rich as Canada that we would have
an erosion of social housing and a growing gap between the rich
and the poor. That is what the finance minister, then an
opposition member of parliament, said in 1990.
I say to government members that this bill is not what we need.
This piece of legislation is not what Canadians need. We need to
be responding to the very dire circumstances of the people who
are living and dying on the streets today in Toronto, in my
community of Vancouver east and in the downtown east side where
6,000 people are still living in deplorable conditions. These
people are living in substandard housing, in rooms that are ten
feet by ten feet, with no washroom facilities. They have no
cooking facilities and they have to share a broken washroom down
the hall with 25 other people. That is what people are facing in
this country. It is something that none of us should be
tolerating.
We want a response from this government that will improve and
make clear that there is a commitment for social housing in this
country, that will use the expertise that has been developed at
the grassroots level and in the not for profit housing sector and
that will encourage the development of co-operative housing in
Canada that has been so incredibly successful. Since 1993 no new
co-operative housing units have been built. That is absolutely
shameful.
We are opposed to these amendments today because they are taking
us in the direction of the further privatization of social
housing in Canada. The amendments basically undermine the
programs we have had in the past and further abandon the federal
government's response and responsibility to providing housing for
Canadians.
1525
I urge members of this House, particularly Liberal members, to
rethink the provisions of the amendments that are before us
today. If we are genuine about our care and support for homeless
people, for poor people, for people who live in substandard
housing and for people who are paying more than 50% of their
income for rent, then we should be defeating these amendments.
We should be trying to get back to a national housing strategy.
We should support the call from the Toronto disaster relief
committee for a 1% commitment for social housing in this country.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member referred to the Golden report, the task force on
homelessness in Toronto. I want to share with her a couple of
facts from that report.
Of the total homeless, 28% were youth, 70% of whom had been
physically or sexually abused; 15% were aboriginal persons; 10%
were abused women; and 30% were mentally ill persons. That
totals 83% of total homelessness in Toronto.
When one looks at those items with regard to youth, clearly the
government has invested substantially in youth initiatives, youth
employment strategies, education programs and all kinds of
different programs. Therefore, I believe the member's assertion
that the government has done nothing with regard to homelessness
is incorrect.
With regard to aboriginals, it is the same. The member will
know the substantial investment that the Canadian government
makes to our aboriginal people.
The issue of abused women is primarily under provincial
jurisdiction, as is the issue of the mentally ill. However, the
member well knows that there has been a substantial increase in
the moneys available for health care to address these issues.
This is where the government's participation is, in front-line
health care for the mentally ill and for those in need, et
cetera.
In addition, the member also knows about the RRAP, the
additional funding for rehabilitation.
The member should also know that the government puts forward
about $2,500 per unit for CMHC housing and about $3,500 per unit
for rent geared to income housing. Those are government
contributions to deal with social housing. This shows an ongoing
commitment.
She also talks about the poor. She should know that 40% of the
people who are poor, according to Statistics Canada's low income
cutoff, own their own house, and of those half of them have no
mortgage.
The member should know these facts because it is very important
to understand what is homelessness and its causes, as well as
what is poor and who is poor.
Having been a director for five years of the Peel Regional
Housing Authority, which managed social housing, we found that
half of the units that were available to us were family units,
and of those more than three-quarters were mother-led.
I hope the member agrees that the breakdown of the Canadian
family is one of the most significant contributors, not only to
homelessness and the need for social housing in Canada, but also
to poverty in Canada.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of
questions posed in the member's comments. If what the member
says is correct, that there are youth programs, programs for
aboriginal people and employment programs, I would not agree
because I think those programs are very inadequate. However, let
us assume that they are there and that they are adequate. That
does not escape the reality that even with those programs we need
to have a basic necessity in place, which is housing.
I spoke to young people in emergency shelters in Halifax. They
were involved in youth programs and counselling. However, when
they go through those programs, if they do not have an adequate,
safe, secure and affordable place to live, then all of those
programs become meaningless. I have seen that time and time
again.
I do not necessarily disagree with what the member is saying.
Those other programs are also critical. However, if we are
dealing someone who is facing drug addiction or someone who is
dealing with issues around mental illness, yes they need social
support and the programs, but if they do not have a decent place
to live it is very difficult to go to school. It is impossible
to go to work.
It is really hard to raise kids in an environment without
housing. I hope the member understands that.
1530
In terms of his involvement with the Peel Regional Housing
Authority and the fact that there are a lot of single parent
families in housing, we could have another debate about what
causes family breakup. The fact is that families are living in
poverty and high unemployment places a lot of stress on families.
We must ensure that there is adequate housing and that people do
not spend more than 30% of their income on housing. That is very
important. Unfortunately, this bill does not address that in any
shape or form.
This bill is taking us down the road of privatization. It is
taking us down the road of abandoning people's needs. I think
the member would agree. I ask the member to defend how this bill
is improving the housing needs of Canadians. Having looked at
it, I cannot see one sentence that will do that.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am saddened when members of parliament
particularly from that party see no good in what the government
has done. They are prone to exaggeration of nothingness. I
remember having attended a few events in Winnipeg where I
delivered federal government funding for social housing.
That being said, would the member agree that the meeting on
homelessness between Mayor Lastman and the Prime Minister was
important? Would she agree that the pledge of the Prime Minister
to attend the summit on homelessness in Toronto on March 25 is
significant? Would she agree that it is significant that
health-related homelessness could be addressed by the $11.5
billion transferred through the CHST? I hope that she would.
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
comments.
On the situation in Winnipeg, I visited Winnipeg. I saw
communities that were completely devastated because housing was
abandoned and there were no funds to rehabilitate the houses in
the north end of Winnipeg. A consequence of the public policy
decision that was made by the member's government is affecting
the member's constituents and the people of Winnipeg like other
cities across Canada.
Yes, I agree that the meeting with the mayor of Toronto was very
important. But why was the meeting required in the first place?
Why did the mayor of Toronto have to come here hand in glove and
beg for funds to meet the disaster that is happening in Toronto
and elsewhere? Why has the Prime Minister not gone to the city of
Toronto to view the disaster? That is the question I would like
to ask the member.
The situation in Toronto is really bad. People are dying on the
streets. And it is not just in Toronto, it is across Canada.
The Golden report clearly pointed that out. To this date, we
have not had a response from any Liberal member or from the Prime
Minister as to what is going to be done to enact the Golden
report, or more than that, to deal with the situation across
Canada.
Yes, there will be an emergency conference in Toronto at the end
of the month. I am glad that it will take place.
This entire disaster could have been prevented had the federal
government continued its provision of funding social housing
since 1993; 75,000 units have been lost. That is why we are
seeing more people on the streets.
Regarding the money that was announced in the budget, it is
Liberal members who are saying that it is going to health care.
I would argue that housing is a health care issue. They should
be looking at housing as a health care issue. Good housing is a
basic determinant of health. I encourage the member to do that.
By the government's own admission, that $11.5 billion is going to
health care which is also in a crisis.
Again, where is the money for housing? Where is the commitment
to meet this very important social need?
1535
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Bill C-66, amendments dealing with the
National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act.
I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Kelowna who this
morning so aptly described the history, the background and many
of the concerns surrounding this bill and CMHC.
The nature of housing covers a broad range of topics. It would
be impossible for any of us to fully cover them in such a short
period of time.
It is fair to say that every Canadian needs to have adequate
housing. Many people suffer today from a lack of adequate
housing. Tragically, many are faced with the prospect of no
housing.
Thankfully, there are many private and non-profit organizations.
One I have had limited involvement with is the Habitat for
Humanity organization which takes resources in local communities
through private donations and mobilizes community resources to
provide housing for people who probably could not get it
otherwise. Although these kinds of organizations do not solve all
the problems, they solve many problems. With the right
legislation, they probably could solve the majority of housing
problems in Canada.
Housing means many different things to many different people.
For those who can afford adequate housing, it may mean home
improvements, care and pride and working to make their living
space better for them. For those who cannot afford adequate
housing, the thought of owning a house is just a dream. It puts
a whole new meaning to the term dream house, does it not.
Why is it that people are not able to have adequate housing? Is
it that we lack the physical resources of building materials? It
does take a lot of cement, brick or wood, gyproc and nails, et
cetera to build a house. However, we know this is not the major
source of the problem.
My riding has a large resource base of timber. There are parts
of my riding where we can stand on a mountaintop, look in every
direction and see nothing but tree covered mountains. I know that
sounds beautiful and perhaps those who are from the east have no
idea what that is like. I do miss that kind of view when I am on
Parliament Hill.
We know we have the available timber to build houses. There are
many loggers and mill workers in my riding who wished everyone
was building a lot more houses. They would love to get back to
work. Many of them are having difficulties paying for their own
houses as they have been idle for far too long. We also know we
have sufficient quantities of all the other materials to build as
many houses as we need in this country. Neither do we lack
expertise or labour force to build them.
What holds people back from finding suitable housing? It most
often comes down to one factor: affordability, money, making
ends meet.
One of the simplest ways to alleviate this problem is for the
government to leave more money in the hands of the taxpayers to
begin with. Let us end things like bracket creep. Let us index
the tax rates. Let us end the discrimination between single and
dual income families in this country.
Those are all things that this government has had a chance to do
but has chosen to ignore. Somehow the Liberals think it is
easier to ignore the plight of those who have taxes hung around
their necks like a millstone than to make fundamental changes in
the way government operates to ensure that taxpayers truly
benefit.
Canadians want more than just tinkering by this government, yet
this government just does not seem to get it. It sends a task
force out west to find out why voters do not vote for the
Liberals. I want to make a prediction. I predict that when the
task force returns, they still will not understand. Canadians
are intelligent people. What they simply want is good
government.
The public is not looking for interference and intervention by
government in their day to day lives. There are models and
examples which show that when government gets out of the way of
business, business can grow and expand at a rate far faster than
the government could have thought possible.
When government gets in the way, the public loses.
1540
As an example of government interference, I just have to think
back to my home province. The Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia has had a government controlled monopoly on vehicle
insurance for many years. What is the result of that? When I
moved from Alberta to B.C., what it meant to me was a doubling of
my insurance rate. So much for government interference in the
workplace.
As a counterbalance, the past several years in Alberta have seen
dramatic changes in the ways that the provincial government has
extricated itself from many day to day transactions. The net
result is that private enterprise now operates many of the
services previously under government jurisdiction. My knowledge
of this is that the revised system is working, and it is working
well. What a concept. How novel. Government that lets the
people move ahead with the business operations day by day.
We can break the category of money shortfalls into a couple of
different sections.
There are those who although working and bringing in an income
are simply not able to finance the type of housing they need.
These are the people, perhaps single, perhaps a couple, who work
hard but at the end of the month, the extra dollars just are not
there.
Another category of people are those who face financial
shortfalls. It may be a single parent who is trying to raise
children, work a full time job and still cope with life. It may
be a family that has faced unemployment for a prolonged period of
time and cannot get the needed break. It may be the homeless
person we see on the streets of most of our urban centres. These
are the people who need some form of assistance that often seems
unavailable to them.
While I do not adhere to all of the theories and beliefs of
Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs, he made a very strong
argument for people and their psychological needs. He theorized
that people could not move on to other things in their lives
until their physical needs were met. Personally I believe there
needs to be a strong spiritual component in order to make life
here on earth fulfilling and many people forget that today.
I think I understand what Mr. Maslow was trying to say in this
regard. He is saying it is difficult for mankind to grow, mature
and contribute back to society if every day is such a struggle
that people feel they have to fight their way through daily life.
I understand how that can work.
One example I can think of is when we have a loved one who is
sick. I do not know about others but I find I am thinking about
that person continuously, so much so that some of the other
things in life just do not seem to matter as much.
So it is with those who struggle to get adequate housing, always
trying to put enough aside to get the down payment and they just
cannot seem to make it. The need to find a safe place to sleep
and rest will occupy much of their waking moments. Only when
that need is met will they be able to move on to fulfilling other
parts of their lives.
We ought to be careful here. There is a difference between
needs and desires in human life. I believe that those who are
living on the street need housing. There are others who would
desire better housing but continue to live in their present
accommodation.
What can be done for those who are not able to find housing that
meets their physical needs yet remain affordable for them and
their families? One would hope that a bill such as Bill C-66
might be of some help to them. Let us take a look at some of the
attributes of the bill and determine if it meets the needs of
this stakeholder group.
As we know, the purpose of Bill C-66 is to redefine the roles
and responsibilities of the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation, particularly in relation to mortgage loan insurance
and export and international support. There are a number of
things within the bill that should be looked at in this regard.
One of the questions I have with any legislation is whether or
not it will be good for the free marketplace. In other words,
how will the small business owner in my riding of
Nanaimo—Cowichan benefit by the bill? Or will the bill simply
add one more layer of bureaucracy, of administrative nightmare
which we will all be faced with as we attempt to find, grow and
build our niche in the business world?
1545
The least amount of government in the face of business is always
the best. My read of the bill shows that CMHC will enter into
competition with the private sector. Is the role of government
to compete with the private sector? I sincerely hope not.
There are a couple of clauses that cause me concern in the bill.
The first is clause 16 which states:
The Corporation may provide protection against the effects of
changes in interest rates for housing loans.
On the face of it, the protection of homeowners against sharp
rises in interest rates is admirable. There appears to be a
certain amount of ambiguity, however, in this clause with regard
to the protection of banks from losses.
I am concerned that the current wording leaves the clause open
to potential abuse by financial institutions. There is no
indication in the guidelines under which proposed clause 16 would
be used. The hows and the whys are always important and they are
not outlined in the bill.
My second concern is clause 6 which deals with the ability of
CMHC to determine whether or not an approved lender is
financially sound. Guidelines need to be in place to prevent
CMHC from conducting business with a financial institution that
is not financially stable.
In my own life I would not make an investment in a business that
I do not think will make it. I would not put my money in a bank
that I think will fail. The details of how and when CMHC would
be made aware that the lender is no longer financial sound are
lacking in the bill.
These concerns are examples of details that are currently
lacking. We cannot allow the passage of the bill without these
kinds of details being sorted out. Canadians do not want the
government to simply sign any more blank cheques.
The question of the federal government dealing in housing is a
matter that causes me concern. This is an area of exclusive
jurisdiction for provincial authorities. The provinces are in a
better position to determine the type and volume of housing
necessary for their locales. To add bureaucracy only increases
costs with government interference. It does nothing to ensure
housing for those who really require it.
Government should not be in the business of competing in the
private sector. I have said it before, I say it now, and I would
say it again. The housing market is enormous. There are
non-public mechanisms in place which could best serve the
interest of a broad range of the public. I agree and support the
principle that Canadians should have access to affordable
financing to acquire housing. I support competition in the
private sector for the provision of mortgage insurance.
Yet housing is a severe problem for a portion of Canadian
society. For many, the problem would be better solved through
less government interference. The biggest form of government
interference is the tax grab into so many Canadian wallets. Every
Canadian would be better served by having government reduce the
tax burden. Surely even members of the government would agree
with that.
Let us eliminate bracket creep that has taken billions of
dollars out of the hands of Canadians. Let us eliminate the
disparity of unfair taxation between single and dual income
families. The numbers bear this out. Leaving money in the hands
of Canadians is a far better solution to major portions of the
housing problem in Canada today.
My hon. colleagues and I have raised a number of very pertinent
questions. I would leave the House with one final suggestion. Do
the changes introduced through Bill C-66 resolve the questions
and issues raised throughout this debate? Unfortunately my
answer is that I do not think so. We can do better than what
Bill C-66 is attempting to do. Hopefully amendments at committee
stage will make it easier to support.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am not sure whether the member heard my earlier comments in
reference to the Toronto situation when I gave some statistics.
Very briefly the make-up of the homeless in Toronto as a result
of the Anne Golden report was 28% youth who have been alienated
from their families, 15% aboriginals, 10% abused women and 30%
who are mentally ill.
None of them were as a result of economic deprivation. Some 83%
of them are a result of what would normally be termed health and
social problems.
1550
The member asked an rhetorical question in his speech about what
the bill would do for the people of Nanaimo—Cowichan. I want to
share with the member another statistic from the Golden report,
that 47% of the homeless in Toronto do not come from Toronto.
They come from all across Canada.
It reminds me of the line from the movie Field of Dreams:
“If you build it they will come”. In fact Toronto built it. It
built up a social housing bank. It provided all kinds of support
services for the homeless which attracted people from across
Canada. The same has been experienced in other centres like
Winnipeg, Calgary, Montreal, et cetera. Major centres are
attracting people who need help.
The member's question is very relevant, the rhetorical question
about how the bill helps Nanaimo—Cowichan. It would appear
there are no necessary services or no supports for those who have
these problems.
Does the member really believe that the provinces would be
better able to do it? If the provinces were trying to save some
dollars they would not provide the supports at all. They would
let them all go to Toronto.
The problem is that communities have to start investing in their
people and in their families. When people have these kinds of
health and social problems, it is up to all of us to identify
them and to provide those needs so they do not become homeless as
a consequence.
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for that observation and question. He is certainly right in
terms of getting to the root cause of poverty and displacement in
society which makes inadequate housing a symptom of the problem
rather than the problem.
I am a strong believer in community action, in local communities
taking hold of local problems. Government has a role to play in
this but it is not the major player. I do not see, in answer to
the member's question, that the bill has any effect upon the
particular concern he has raised.
We need to be doing things in our communities, fostering the
kind of community spirit that will help people get off welfare
and find jobs and take a fresh look at their lives so they do not
end up on the streets and move from community to community
following free housing.
I appreciate the hon. member's comments and take them under
great advisement.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also
thank my hon. colleague across the way for his question to my
colleague.
I would like to go one step further. We need to recognize the
differences between social housing and public housing and
homelessness. The characteristics of the homelessness are rather
different from other kinds of housing that need to be provided
for people suffering from mental health, drug addiction or
convergent addictions. Maybe there comes a point where we need
to separate homelessness which has all kinds of causes that are
quite different from low income, for example.
Would my colleague like to say something about what has happened
in society that puts all of them into one category: the poor
fellow or gal who has a convergent addiction problem with drugs,
alcohol or whatever the case might be, and the person on
employment insurance or with an inadequate income? Those are not
the same kinds of problems. If we simply took one size fits all,
one solution fits all, would that really help the situation? I
wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on that point.
1555
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
from Kelowna for that observation and question. I suspect that
one reason this has happened in society is the preponderance in
government at every level to look upon itself as big brother
knows best. This is the philosophy that exists among governments
today. When that kind of philosophy gets going through
government and starts to permeate society, certain segments of
society will naturally become dependent upon government for every
aspect of their lives.
Government takes an approach to people which lumps them together
in this regard. It is unfortunate because it does not foster the
entrepreneurial spirit we need to get us truly working again in
every aspect of our lives. We can do this if we start to work at
it ourselves. There are agencies and people who will help, but
in the final analysis we are the ones who have to do the job,
take care of our lives and are responsible for that.
ROYAL ASSENT
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to
inform the House that a communication has been received as
follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa
March 11, 1999
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Michel
Bastarache, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his
capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate
Chamber today, the 11th day of March, 1999, at 16:30, for the
purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. Larocque
Secretary to the Governor General
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-66, an
act to an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential
amendment to another act, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very happy to be involved in the debate on Bill C-66 which deals
with the very critical issue of housing, something that we
believe has been left behind in national debates and has not had
the attention it truly deserves.
Canada is probably the only developed nation in the world that
does not have a national housing strategy. This is shameful. We
are feeling the impact of it now in our cities, in our rural
communities and in our northern communities. We are seeing the
predictable consequences of not having any strong national
standards or strong national plan in terms of providing clean,
affordable housing for Canadians who cannot take part in the
mainstream of the real estate market.
We have just heard the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan advocating
strongly that this matter should be left to the free market, that
if we let industry take care of it without government
interference the market will take care of itself and provide an
adequate number of units to meet the needs of people all over the
country. If we take a serious look around, I would argue that is
clearly not the case. We have failed the people waiting for
clean, affordable housing by leaving it up to the market.
I am not blaming the private sector. I am merely pointing out
that in some marketplaces, like my own riding of Winnipeg Centre,
it is simply not economically viable to get involved in low
income housing as a private landlord.
Landlords have been making representation to provincial
governments and the federal government saying that this is so,
that they simply cannot make a buck on it because of aging
housing stock and the amount of rents they can charge. It just
does not add up. Frankly they have been letting it go.
1600
What we have is a ghettoization in the inner city of Winnipeg. I
am not proud of this but the riding I represent has terrible
aging, crumbling housing stock with landlords who no longer want
it. One of our biggest problems is that these landlords cannot
turn a buck on it. They cannot afford to pay for the necessary
renovations so the houses are catching fire. There have been 85
fires in the last 3 months in a 12 square block area, 85 arsons
in the last 3 months. This is an urgent situation. It is
not a safe situation.
One reason we know it is arson and not some coincidence is when
the firemen come to put the fire out, they find big holes cut in
the first and second floors to allow the convection of the smoke
and the flames in order to more seriously level the house rather
than just damage it. It is a real hazard for the firemen who
walk in and cannot see their hands in front of their faces for
the smoke and who are then faced with four square foot holes cut
in the floors. It is my feeling landlords are giving kids $50 and
an address on a piece of paper and saying torch this house
because it is a burden and a liability to them.
That is the desperation the private sector has found itself in
in terms of trying to provide affordable housing in that market.
As a result we have thousands of families that would happily move
into some kind of social housing project within the city of
Winnipeg. We have literally thousands on the registry looking
for housing. It is not being built. It is not going up anymore.
This is another issue on which I think we are missing the boat.
As a carpenter by trade I have built a lot of houses. I have
built a lot of houses in the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, the
riding of the last speaker. We all know what an engine for
economic growth it is to have a healthy construction industry.
There is a pent up demand for thousands and thousands of units. I
do not have to go through the details of how many jobs that would
entail, not just the actual trades people but all the building
materials that go into it.
During the 1980s under Mulroney the Tory government pulled the
rug out from underneath what we used to think of as the co-op
housing program and other social housing initiatives. Had we not
allowed that to happen and had the Liberals not allowed it to
carry on, we would have built 75,000 more units in the country.
That is the prediction. That is the pent up deficit. We got
shortchanged by the 75,000 units of clean affordable housing that
would have been built in our inner cities.
I will talk more about the need in my riding of Winnipeg Centre.
A group of neighbours formed a housing co-op to try to take care
of my own street. This was not because we needed housing since
we all owned our own homes. We wanted to buy up some of the slum
properties on my street and either tear them down or renovate
them and put them back into the hands of families that needed
them. We called ourselves the Ruby Housing Co-Op since we were
on Ruby Street.
We did the research on one of the units we were trying to tear
down and found out who the people really were and what kind of
business it really was. The guy who owned this property owned
250 other units all through numbered companies and all through
rings of other slum landlords to the point where one landlord
might subcontract 10 units from the parent slum landlord. The
landlord might owe the parent landlord $1,000 per month per unit
and be able to keep the rest. The onus is on the landlord to
stuff that slum unit full of so many welfare people that the
landlord will get more than $1,000 and the profit is the
difference.
We had a house on our street zoned R2T. You are allowed to have
a duplex or transition, but a duplex at best. There were 17
units stuffed into a house rated R2T. To get to one person's
bedroom you would have to walk through another person's bedroom.
City welfare is paying for all these rooms. At $237 a month for
each room times 17 rooms, he would be giving the slum landlord
$1,000 and keeping the rest. His main interest is just stuffing
that place full of the most disreputable people you would ever
want to meet, people who were our neighbours.
That is what motivated us to start doing some research and
finding out who these people were. I will not use the
individual's name here but he is one of the wealthiest, well
known businessman in the city and I have every reason to believe
that when he is at a cocktail party and someone asks him what he
does for a living he says he is in real estate. He does not say
he is a slum landlord which is what he should say because we know
how he makes his living.
1605
I was not pointing at anybody in particular on the other bench.
There are some bright lights. People are reacting to and
dealing with the pent up shortage of housing in the inner city of
Winnipeg. The Lion's Club, to its credit, is buying up gang
houses and crack houses in the inner city and putting training
programs on for inner city welfare kids who then renovate these
homes and put them back on the market at low interest loans. It
has been a good project. We are dealing with one or two units at
a time.
That is also my criticism of Habitat for Humanity. Frankly, as
much as I appreciate the volunteerism and all the goodwill, it is
dealing with five or ten units at a time in a city that needs
thousands of units. If we put the same amount of energy and
volunteerism into lobbying for a social housing program through
the federal government maybe we would be putting 500 units a year
into the city, or 2,000 units a year, somewhere at least
reasonably close to the actual need.
The issue is not just limited to the inner city of Winnipeg,
although, as I say this, donut shaped city phenomenon is
certainly happening to us as it is happening to other major
cities. They are building good quality homes in the suburbs and
going through all the cost of delivering services to those high
end homes while letting the inner city rot.
The inner city is burning, frankly. It looks like the late
1960s in American cities. It is like burn baby, burn. These
people are torching their homes out of desperation. It is Watts,
Detroit or something. That is what it looks like. Every night
these people are voicing their discontent by torching houses.
It is interesting to hear the Reform Party member say that
government has no role to play here. In this example one would
have to be ideologically driven with blinders on to even intimate
that government has no role to play in at least setting the stage
to provide for clean affordable housing for people who live in
this country. It is a basic right. We have just heard the
member for Vancouver East speak very passionately about the
United Nations declarations while recognizing the plight of
homeless people as a national disaster.
I am very proud that our housing critic, the member for
Vancouver East, toured the country recently and went to just
about every major city and wrote a very good report on her
findings on homelessness and substandard housing. That was the
theme and it was not just people with no homes whatsoever, it was
clearly about people living in inadequate housing.
From the front page of the report I will read a brief quote. I
think she made reference to it in her remarks. It was written by
the finance minister when he was in opposition. It was the way
he felt when he was lambasting the Tory government for its woeful
inadequacy in addressing this problem: “The government sits
there and does nothing. It refuses to apply the urgent measures
that are required to reverse this situation. The lack of
affordable housing contributes to and accelerates the cycle of
poverty, which is reprehensible in a society as rich as ours”.
It is an excellent quote. I could not have said it better
myself because a lack of adequate housing is both a cause and a
consequence of poverty. It is one of those things that comes at
us from both ends. We do not have to go through all the social
aspects of adequate housing but we can imagine a young family
trying to get on its feet or trying to keep kids on a straight
and narrow direction if they grow up in absolute desperation in
terms of their housing situation.
I have raised this in the past. There is a group in Winnipeg
called Rossbrooke House. It is a safe house for inner city
street kids. They can drop in and have some place to hang out
where they are not at risk or getting into trouble. It is run by
two catholic nuns, Sister Leslie and Sister Bernadette. They do
a wonderful job. The member for Vancouver East and I visited the
safe house as part of the study.
1610
One of the things pointed out to us was that the people who live
in that area in often terribly substandard housing will not sleep
in the outer rooms of their house. They will sleep only in the
inner rooms of their house like the den or the living room
because of the gunfire every night. They will not sleep next to
an outside wall. These two sisters pointed this out to us as
being the reality people in that neighbourhood live with.
The reason I raise this is the biggest challenge they have in
trying to deal with the problem youth who come through their
doors is making them feel safe somewhere. One cannot work with a
kid if that kid does not feel safe and trusting.
These kids all exhibit physical characteristics that are common
among people who never feel safe wherever they are. If they are
at home with a substance abuse parent they never know if they
will get hugged or swatted on the head. They are insecure about
that. When they are on the street they are not safe so they are
always spinning around looking to see if someone is going to jump
them.
These kids have nervous ticks. It is hyper acuteness and they
are fearful of their environment. I say this is largely due to
the fact that even when they are at home, if it is not a secure
setting, they can never relax. It could be a 10 year old kid on
pins and needles all the time. These women work with these
street kids who have these nervous characteristics that we see so
often. Their argument again is that housing is the second
biggest problem in terms of rehabilitation of these kids.
I have been involved in this issue for quite some time, first as
a carpenter building houses. I know the value of the industry.
I know a great deal about the technical side of housing, whether
it is multifamily or single family units. As the president of a
housing co-op I have been actively engaged in trying to get the
resources together to build clean, affordable housing.
What we should point out is nobody is asking for any handouts in
this regard. When social housing used to be built the numbers
still had to crunch. A business plan had to be put together to
prove that the revenue coming in would meet the debt service to
the loan. The only favour the government would do was provide 0%
down or 100% financing and it would be amortized over a longer
period of time, maybe 35 years rather than 25 years. That is not
some kind of handout.
That is not to say here is $2 million, build 40 units of social
housing. The applicant group, usually an ethnic group or a group
of like minded people who come together and put together a
proposal to build social housing, has to sit down and crunch the
numbers. It has to figure out the bridge financing, the hard
costs of the construction, the soft costs and the debt servicing
on the loan, add all those things together in a total package and
find a rent people can afford and be able to meet the debt
service.
It all gets paid back. This was the beauty of CMHC's many
housing programs that have been gutted and cut and offloaded to
the provinces. There was no kind of handout. It was an
empowering kind of thing where citizens were taking their housing
needs into their own hands and learning about running a business
plan and executing the actual building of this project and then
managing it for many years afterwards with some kind of tenant
association.
It is a very positive thing. It is a very community building
thing. It is not any type of government handout. When I listen
to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan trying to make it sound that
any kind of social housing is some kind of government handout, he
clearly does not know a great deal about the programs that have
been cut.
We are very concerned that Bill C-66 will put the final nail in
the coffin of any hope to have a national housing strategy. We
are very concerned that this pushes it just that much further to
privatization of social housing. Who knows what kind of free
marketers will swoop in and take this over.
We have seen what happens when things turn bad, when profit
motive is the only reason for doing something. As soon as it is
a little less than profitable, they turn their backs on it. These
units are torched or they erode to the point where nobody should
be living in these units. It is a time honoured expression where
I come from that capital has no conscience.
1615
Let us face it. It is the government's job to inject some
conscience into the whole picture of providing social housing.
Other countries such as Chile are leaps and bounds ahead of
Canada.
I do not usually blow Chile's horn. It is not my favourite
place because of its checkered history, although it seems to have
cleared that up. It is building 200,000 units of social housing.
It is nice that a Canadian company is signing contracts to build
the first ones now. It will move a whole plant down to Chile and
use Canadian building materials such as drywall and shingles, the
whole shooting match, as well as Canadian expertise and
technology.
The reason for that market for Canadian housing technology is
that Chile has the vision to upgrade building stock. It realizes
that over the years it has let it slide. Free marketers were not
providing the necessary units. There will be a couple of
thousand now and many more thousands next year, for a total of
200,000 units of social housing for Chile. In Canada it is zero.
Since 1993 there has been nothing.
In an earlier intervention I mentioned the member of parliament
I defeated in the riding of Winnipeg Centre. He joined my
housing co-op just to demonstrate that he was sensitive to the
issue. He was elected in 1988 and fought the Tories in their
gutting and dismantling of the social housing system. In 1993
when it became a campaign promise he was a little taken aback, to
be fair, that his government would not reintroduce any social
housing. That became abundantly clear as 1993-94 went by and
nothing was being done. From 1995-96 to this date all we have
seen is a downward slide in this regard. He was probably as
disappointed as we were.
My biggest insight into the condition of social housing in my
riding was while knocking on doors for other candidates during
the 1988, 1990 and 1993 federal elections and then in 1997 for my
own campaign. I could walk down the same streets and knock on
the same doors and see the dramatic slide in the condition of the
building stock. There was no hope for property in that area. One
could buy a pretty good little house for $10,000 to $15,000. It
had no real value.
When a community is in decline like that it is very hard to pull
it back up. That is why no private sector housing initiative
will be viable without social housing being introduced and
managed by the federal government.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to my hon. colleague's presentation, in which he quoted the very
famous phrase “Capital has no conscience, capital has no
morals”. Members opposite should take this phrase down, so that
everyone may reflect on it.
If capital has neither conscience nor morals, then people must
think about people and respect one another. The homeless are
people too. Perhaps they have more problems in their lives,
sometimes since birth.
We treat them a bit like a herd, very often we put them together
in places that cost as little as possible, but we do not respect
the human being.
At the World Summit for Social Development held in Copenhagen in
1995, 117 heads of state and the 185 governments represented
renewed their commitment not only to reduce poverty around the
world, but also to eradicate it from the face of the planet.
They undertook to pursue the elimination of poverty in the world
through determined national action and international
co-operation, “as an ethical, social, political and economic
imperative”.
Participating countries pledged to take national action to
eliminate poverty within their boundaries.
1620
Here in Canada, what are we doing for those who suffer the most?
I am under the impression that members opposite do not
understand and do not listen.
In my riding of Matapédia—Matane, which is a rural riding, there
are many people waiting for housing units. This is the situation
in 1999, not in 1979. In 1999, there are still people waiting
for housing units. I find this completely inhuman.
I wonder if the hon. member could tell us how we could get our
friends opposite to understand that capital is not everything,
that human beings are also important, particularly those who are
in dire straits.
The budget states that those who earn $250,000 will save between
$8,000 and $9,000 in taxes. Why is there nothing in the budget
for the homeless?
How could we, once and for all, make everyone in this House
realize that there is a major problem as the year 2000 nears?
Why not give ourselves one year to solve this problem to some
extent?
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for those
very thoughtful remarks. I can be quite brief in answer to the
member's comments. The whole issue seems to be about the
redistribution of wealth. That is as simple as I can state it.
When we live in the richest and most powerful civilization in the
history of the world, it is very difficult to excuse the huge
division and the huge inconsistencies in the distribution of
wealth.
The simplest and the best way I can put it is when I was
visiting Washington, D.C., Reverend Jesse Jackson once spoke to a
group of carpenters. He had a way of trying to articulate this
difference. He said, I think it went this way: “If you have
five children and only three pork chops, the solution is not to
kill two of the children”. Right-wingers and people like the
members opposite would probably tell us that the solution is to
cut those three pork chops into five equal pieces. Then all the
kids go to bed hungry because nobody has enough to eat.
The way that a socialist would review the problem would be to
challenge the whole lie that there are only three pork chops and
challenge the absolute baloney that there is not enough wealth to
go around so that we can all enjoy a reasonable standard of
living. It is not about the amount of wealth in the country; it
is about the distribution of wealth. I thought Reverend Jackson
had a very good way of pointing that out. He has a real gift for
communication.
When it comes to housing it is not so much the distribution of
wealth. We have other ways of dealing with that in terms of fair
wages and the opportunity of workers to get a reasonable reward.
Social housing should not be stripped down strictly to monetary
terms. As I pointed out, most of the social housing programs,
which were gutted by the Tories and then further gutted by the
Liberals, did not require a huge cash outlay. Nor did they
necessarily require grants.
They needed some enabling measures so the people involved could
finance their own projects, friendly financing. Zero per cent
down was the big thing. If one had a $2 million project to build
a 40 unit social housing project, one had to come up with 25%
down or a half million dollars. Those people do not have half a
million dollars to put down.
The government would underwrite them, giving 100% financing and
a longer period of amortization, another thing we strongly
recommend. Seeing that the lifespan of a brand new project with
modern technology is 50 to 70 years, it is not a risky business
move to let these people have a 35 year mortgage rather than a 25
year conventional mortgage.
Those two things alone made the numbers crunch in both
situations. Having that ability is what made a deal viable. That
is how most of the ethnic based seniors' homes such as the
Filipino seniors home in my riding, groups of otherwise powerless
individuals, people with no money and no resources, manage to
build good quality housing, a really fine place that they can be
proud of and in which to raise their kids.
1625
It does not take a huge redistribution of wealth to embrace the
idea of a national housing program. We are not talking about
anything radical or innovative. We are just talking about
catching up to where the rest of the world is already in terms of
embracing the idea of clean, affordable housing as one of the
rights of citizenship. No one is talking about giving it free
but about making it accessible.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-66, an act to amend the National
Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.
The official opposition will oppose the bill unless we have
clarification on certain elements and see certain amendments to
the bill, some of which I want to speak about today.
Earlier my colleague, the hon. member for Kelowna, the official
opposition critic for public works and government services, spoke
very eloquently about the bill and stated the position of the
official opposition. I hope my remarks add to his comments.
I would like to emphasize that there has been a steady erosion
of federal funding support for new social housing, culminating in
its virtual termination from 1994 onward. Effectively by
disavowing the spirit and substance, if not the letter of its
social housing agreements with provincial governments, the
federal government was deliberately offloading its social and
financial responsibilities on to the provinces and territories at
a time when they could least afford it.
In the process, despite its commitment cited in the CMHC mandate
to maintain the flow of affordable housing as part of the
nation's social safety net obligations, the federal government
has virtually gutted its new social housing programs, thus adding
to the plight and suffering of homeless persons and inadequately
sheltered households in Canada.
Let us look at the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill
is to redefine the roles and responsibilities of Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, CMHC, in relation to mortgage loan
insurance and to export and international support.
Let us deal with housing financing. The bill will enable CMHC
to adjust its insurance and guarantee operations under the
National Housing Act to help ensure the continuing availability
of low cost financing to home buyers in all region of Canada,
promote market competitiveness and efficiency, and contribute to
the well-being of the housing sector.
These amendments will give CMHC the necessary tools to compete
effectively and fairly in the loan insurance marketplace. They
will simplify our National Housing Act by removing unnecessary
restrictions and enable CMHC to respond quickly to shifts in
consumer demand and market conditions.
This is important because, as we know, since 1993 the Liberals
have stopped funding new social housing projects. They have
caused Canada to be the only western nation that does not have a
national housing policy.
British Columbia and Quebec are the only provinces pursuing a
social housing policy. We have a housing problem in the country.
We have as many as 200,000 homeless people in Canada. Thousands
and thousands of people do not have a place to live. This is a
tragedy in our nation that has so much prosperity everywhere.
1630
Many thousands of people are living in substandard housing.
These Canadians are very uncomfortable. They lack running taps
with hot water. They lack enough room for their children. These
are the people whose homes lack the appliances and furniture that
would greatly improve their day to day lives and serve the needs
of their young children. Many Canadian mothers have no place for
their families to live. They miss the conveniences of, for
example, a microwave oven. Their children are hungry.
The government is having us debate a bill that addresses
mortgage loan insurance and facilities to export housing
technology and to provide support for our housing industry as it
takes on an international capacity. Today we are debating
housing, but it is amazing that we are not talking about the
homelessness crisis in this country.
I wonder how the Liberals can ignore homeless people and pass
legislation dealing with mortgages and providing housing for
people in foreign countries. This would be a funny joke if it
were not true. There are about 200,000 Canadians who are
considered homeless. They are not worried about mortgage
insurance, they are worried about homes and shelters in which
they can live.
We want to support the bill, but only with clarification and
amendments. However, it is very difficult to deal with the
concerns of this bill given our country's housing crisis and
homelessness crisis which we can even see a few blocks away from
Parliament Hill. We see it every day on our way to work and on
our way home. We feel that we are fortunate to have homes or, at
least, hotel rooms or apartments.
One wonders if the Liberals can relate to the housing crisis.
They are out of touch with the rest of Canadians. They do not
know about drug problems, refugee problems, immigration problems
or the problems Canadians have paying taxes. Even if they know,
they do not deal with these problems properly because they do not
know how.
I will turn to the second part of Bill C-66, which concerns
export promotion. These elements of the bill will expand export
opportunities for Canada's housing industry by giving the CMHC
broad authority to help Canadians sell their housing expertise to
foreign countries, to participate in housing development and
financial infrastructure projects and to better promote Canadian
housing products and services abroad. This is said to result in
job opportunities for Canadians at home. I doubt that, but let
us take it at face value. This is a good thing because Canadians
are so heavily taxed that they cannot find jobs and we cannot
create jobs.
Liberal government policies have been killing jobs since 1993.
Payroll taxes kill jobs. Even if you have a job, the taxes you
pay are unbelievable. Paycheques are cut in less than half in
this country.
I have copies of recent press releases from the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation which I can table if members want. We
can see the dire straits of our housing industry through the
press releases. It is no wonder the Liberals want to construct
housing offshore. Clearly they are not doing it inside our
borders. For example, as of February 11, 1999 residential
construction was expected to stay at the same level as 1998.
This is disappointing, particularly to me.
The CMHC is being given no direction from the minister to help
his officials increase residential construction for Canadians.
Before becoming a member of parliament I was a real estate
agent. I can relate to how this is affecting homelessness. I
can relate to how first time homebuyers are facing problems.
Construction of new housing units is actually dropping under this
government, while the homelessness crisis is growing.
The housing crisis is getting worse, but the Liberals only want
to help the CMHC build houses outside Canada. Maybe the Liberals
think they can do a good job helping the homeless in other
countries. They certainly have done a poor job in Canada.
1635
I have a press release from the Infrastructure Works department,
dated March 5, 1999. I can table it if members want. Backbench
members of the government do not normally read Government of
Canada press releases because they are told everything they are
supposed to say by the Liberal Party whip, so those press
releases become irrelevant.
The press release I am talking about is entitled
“Infrastructure Program funds Seniors' Housing Project in
Brandon, Manitoba”.
Why are infrastructure funds needed to build homes for seniors?
Why can the private sector not provide those services? The
private sector can build homes. Why does the government have to
get into that business? What lessons we learn when we read these
kinds of press releases.
The Liberals are using our tax dollars to build seniors' homes,
yet they are now trying to send our housing industry offshore.
There is enough work for the housing industry right here in our
country where 200,000 people are homeless. They do not know
where to live.
I would like to emphasize what Canadians want to see with
respect to Bill C-66.
They want to see that the bill is effective and efficient and
that there are real cost controls on what is being proposed.
Regarding efficiency, the bill is silent on administration. I do
not see anything in the bill that talks about how it is to be
administered. The bill is silent on the relations the government
intends to have with the provinces.
Regarding effectiveness, does the bill really help the banks and
other financial institutions? I cannot say that with confidence
because I do not see anything in the bill which would do that.
We need to know the details of this bill.
We already know that Bill C-66 is not helping Canada's
homelessness and housing crisis. Therefore, we would like to be
sure that it is really effective in terms of doing what it is
supposed to be doing.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the
member for Surrey Central. There is no question that all members
of this House should be deeply concerned about the housing crisis
in Canada.
Recently we heard from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
about the national disaster of homelessness, not just in Toronto,
but in my own community in the lower mainland of British
Columbia, in the greater Vancouver area and in many other parts
of Canada.
We know as well that this Liberal government has completely
abdicated any leadership in the area of national housing
strategy. This is one of the only industrial countries in the
world that has no national housing strategy.
It used to be that Liberals believed in co-op housing. There is
not a penny in funding for new co-op housing in this country.
It used to be that Liberals believed there was a federal role
for housing for seniors, for students and others. There is
nothing at all.
We know as well that the great market simply is not delivering
affordable rental housing. The federal Liberal government is
silent on that as well.
My question is for the Reform member. He said that he agrees
that the Liberals are not doing what they should be in the area
of housing. He said that the Liberals should be doing more to
support social housing and to tackle the plight of the homeless
in our country. Yet I read with great care the budget document
that was prepared by the Reform Party before the government
budget was tabled. I looked everywhere. I looked on the cover.
I looked inside. I looked on every page. I looked on the back
cover. There was not a single word, not one word, in the Reform
Party's proposals to the Government of Canada about housing or
about homelessness.
What planet is the hon. member on when he stands and rightly
attacks the Liberal government for its failure to show leadership
on housing when his own party is totally silent on the
fundamentally important issue of federal support for housing?
Why the double standard?
1640
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, the member has been in
the House for a much longer time than I, so I do appreciate the
concern raised by him. He knows very well that we have not
formed the government yet, but when we do sit on the other side
he will see a much more effective and efficient budget. We want
to have that opportunity.
I would ask the member to look at our policies. I am happy that
he has at least shown interest in our policies. I hope that he
will look at the policies of the united alternative movement.
He did not fully read our document. If he had done that he
would have seen what we are talking about. We are talking about
poverty in this country. We are talking about high taxes in this
country. We are talking about creating jobs in this country.
The unemployment rate in this country has been quite high
compared to our neighbours. The unemployment rate, particularly
among youth, is very disappointing. What is the motivation for
youth to get jobs? It is a vicious cycle in which we are living.
When children are young, they worry and struggle. When they go
to school to get a better education they must be safe on the
streets. When children grow up they worry about getting a job.
When they do get a job they worry about paying taxes. When they
get older they have to worry about their own families. After
that they have to worry about their pensions.
We have to tackle this vicious cycle at a broader level. I can
assure the hon. member that when we form the government he will
see effective and efficient results.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will try again
with the hon. member because it is important for Canadians to
understand clearly that the Reform Party made a written proposal
to the Government of Canada with respect to what it said were its
priorities and what it wanted the federal government to do. In
that list of Reform Party priorities there was not a word about
housing or homelessness.
When the hon. member stands and cries great crocodile tears
about the fact that Liberals did not do anything about
housing—and he is right in that criticism—how does he explain
that his own party, the Reform Party, did not have any proposals
whatsoever on housing?
Let me give him one last opportunity to fess up and acknowledge
the error of Reform Party ways. Will the hon. member tell this
House now just how much money the Reform Party is suggesting the
federal government put into a national housing plan?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member is
wiping his crocodile tears, let me point out that Reform Party
policies are policies with vision. We are for lowering the taxes
in this country which are the root cause of all our problems.
The social safety net that we are getting from this government is
damaging our health care system, elevating poverty, creating
unemployment, homelessness and so on in this country.
THE ROYAL ASSENT
1645
[Translation]
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as
follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General
desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the
chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate
chamber.
1650
And being returned:
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy
Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the
Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-59, an act to amend the Insurance Companies Act—Chapter No. 1.
Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make
consequential and related amendments to other acts—Chapter No. 2.
Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the
Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts in
consequence—Chapter No. 3.
Bill C-41, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the
Currency Act—Chapter No. 4.
Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act—Chapter No. 5.
Bill C-465, an act to change the name of the electoral district
of Argenteuil—Papineau—Chapter No. 6.
Bill C-445, an act to change the name of the electoral district
of Stormont—Dundas—Chapter No. 7.
Bill C-464, an act to change the name of the electoral district
of Sackville—Eastern Shore—Chapter No. 8.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-66, an
act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Before resuming debate, it is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Jonquière, the Program for Older
Workers Adjustment.
* * *
1655
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among
representatives of all parties in the House and I believe you
would find unanimous consent for the following. I move:
That no later than 5.30 p.m. this day, all questions necessary to
dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-66 shall be deemed
put and divisions thereon deemed requested and deferred until the
conclusion of Government Orders on March 15, 1999, and that
immediately thereafter the House shall proceed with business
pursuant to Standing Order 38.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-66, an
act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to
another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Before royal assent the hon. member
for Surrey Central had the floor in response to a question.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure by now the crocodile tears will be dry and I will give
the answer to the hon. member.
Homelessness, poverty, unemployment, these are the byproducts of
high taxes. These are the side effects of high taxes. We do not
offer any band-aid solution. We want to offer a permanent
solution. That is why we are asking for the taxes to be lowered.
Taxes are killing jobs, creating poverty, unemployment,
homelessness and all those things. We are offering a permanent
solution.
I strongly believe people are not able to own a home unless jobs
are created and unless the ability is created to earn the money
to buy and live in a home. I think the hon. member will see that
the solution to the problem is creating the ability to own a
home, creating jobs and lowering taxes.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have children who are married and have families. In all cases
both parents are working, trying to struggle to make a living.
They find it very difficult to buy their own homes. They are all
buying their own homes but it is very difficult because of the
amount of money they are paying out in taxes.
Would it not be a better solution to the problem to cut taxes
and leave more money in people's pockets so they can have the
money at their discretion to do what they want with it, whether
they want to rent or build or whatever?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is bang
on. That is the solution.
All of us are homeless at one time when we leave our parents'
home. For us to get a home we have to have jobs. Jobs can only
be created when taxes are low. We can create more jobs. When
taxes are high small businesses, the engine of the economy, feel
the engine is smoking. The engine is being derailed with high
taxes.
The hon. member is right on. The solution to the problem is
lowering taxes. Government members do not get it. I plead with
government members to lower taxes. That is what we do in our
policy.
1700
[Translation]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first, I must
tell you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Yukon.
[English]
I am very pleased to speak to this bill, an act to amend the
National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act. This bill does a number of things. It is very
important that we understand exactly what this bill does.
This bill in amending the National Housing Act and the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, gives more options to CMHC
in carrying out its mandate, such as increased ability to enter
joint ventures and the ability to offer more financing options to
borrowers.
The bill gives CMHC broad powers to set eligibility and other
conditions for social housing grants. This broad discretionary
power replaces the very detailed definitions and restrictions
that have been laid out in the old act which causes us some
concern.
The bill increases the ceiling of capital CMHC can control and
gives the privy council the power to modify this ceiling through
orders in council.
Finally, this bill commercializes, and take note of the word
commercializes, CMHC's mortgage insurance function. Any losses
CMHC incurs from underwriting mortgages will come out of CMHC
rather than the general government revenues. CMHC would use a
mortgage insurance fund to cover these losses.
Giving CMHC the ability to enter into joint ventures is the
first step toward privatization of social housing. This causes
us great concern. We see today this great trend toward
privatization and we know that the bottom line in privatized
ventures is usually profit. Usually privatization is aimed at
profit, quite often to the sacrifice of the very important human
values of compassion, affordability, accessibility and so forth.
We have some concern about this.
We note that definitions such as those for “public housing
project” and “eligible contribution recipient” are being taken
from the act. This opens the door for private for-profit
corporations to be recognized as social housing providers. The
statutory requirements that social housing be safe, sanitary and
affordable are also being eliminated.
We see along with the trend toward privatization the removal of
standards which should apply to housing for Canadian citizens.
This caused me great concern as well. In the city of Halifax,
and I am sure in many other cities across the country, there are
many what we refer to as slum landlords. People have properties
that are really not fit for human habitation, yet they are
renting out these properties to people who are in unfortunate
circumstances, who are drawing social assistance. Quite often
people are living in wretched conditions. They are unable to
advance themselves beyond that state of housing. The move to
privatization facilitates this. We are very much concerned about
that. We would certainly be opposed to this bill because it
enables that to take place.
There is also the commercialization of mortgage insurance. This
is something that might have eventually been forced on CMHC by a
NAFTA challenge from a foreign insurance provider. We know that
the GE corporation, which has large interests in the insurance
industry, has been lobbying the Liberal government for these
changes to remove what it calls CMHC's “unfair competitive
advantage”.
It is true that CMHC had a big advantage in providing financing
to high risk borrowers such as low income people. This was very
necessary to enable people in less fortunate circumstances to
have housing. Removing this advantage will hamstring CMHC's
ability to fulfil its mandate to provide mortgage insurance to
people who need it, such as high risk customers that the banks
will not touch, and people living in remote areas without the
full range of financial services available to them.
These changes really concern us because we know that today there
is a great problem with homelessness. We also know that housing
itself is a very basic human right. It is right up there at the
very top along with the right to food, clothing and medical care.
Every woman, every child and every man in Canada has a right to
live in decent, affordable, secure and safe housing. This is a
very important human right.
The declaration of human rights in article 25(1) bears this out:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being of himself and of his family, including
food, clothing, housing and medical care—
1705
Yet we can look around today and see that homelessness, a very
unnatural disaster, is present with us. All I have to do is
leave this place and walk down Rideau Street. On my way home I
pass by many homeless people, many people who through very
unfortunate circumstances have no shelter, no place to rest at
night, except on the cold streets in which they find themselves
living.
This is true right across our country. It is becoming more and
more serious every day. We see people dying on the streets.
People without homes and without proper shelter are dying. This
is a very disturbing thing in our society.
More than 100,000 Canadians are homeless. Some find temporary
beds in shelters. Thousands of others sleep on park benches or
huddle in doorways for warmth. Still thousands more live in
ramshackle substandard housing in the urban core or on remote
reserves. Homelessness is a national emergency.
The homeless are men, women and children. The streets and the
cold do not discriminate against these people. The government
does. The government has cut all funding for social housing.
I recall in 1993 when I became the deputy minister for housing
in the province of Nova Scotia, it was right around the time when
the federal government had withdrawn its financial support for
the social housing program. Over the years it continued to get
worse. Eventually the federal government withdrew from social
housing to the point of devolving all the responsibility to the
provinces. In 1996 the government started downloading to various
provinces. It has concluded downloading agreements with seven out
of ten provinces, with B.C., Alberta and Ontario being the only
holdouts.
It is a disturbing situation when our federal government does
not accept any responsibility in the area of housing. We hear
from time to time the minister speaking about the various things
that the government is “doing” in providing more money for
grants, RRAP and programs of that nature, but this does not get
to the core of the problem.
Last month members of our party took to the streets to find out
what was actually happening. We found that many people are
homeless. The trip resulted in a very important report by one of
our members who deals with these issues. We gathered opinions of
people on the streets who are making a difference, activists,
local politicians, volunteers, people seeking refuge from the
streets, people living in shelters, rooming houses or substandard
housing on reserves.
Our intent was to raise awareness, strengthen coalitions,
present recommendations and to force the Minister of Finance to
make housing a priority in the last federal budget, but this was
not done. There was no real commitment to the homeless. There
was no real commitment to those people who are living on the
streets without adequate shelter.
Until 1993 the federal housing program helped contribute to the
stabilization of low income neighbourhoods through the
development of social housing. Regrettably, the Liberal
government's retreat has meant that the vulnerable communities
are increasingly defenceless with more and more people becoming
homeless.
I want to emphasize that homelessness is not something that
happens in isolation. Homelessness is very much connected with
the unemployment situation and with the lack of benefits through
EI. Today a bill concerning young offenders was tabled. Young
offenders are sure to appear in our society if there are people
who do not have adequate housing and adequate protection. Health
problems are connected as well.
What has actually happened over the years is the Liberal
government has sacrificed our social safety net for the sake of
balancing the budget. This has been done on the backs of the
most vulnerable.
We urge today that we not be fooled by this legislation and that
we do not support something that will antagonize the problem.
Rather, let us look for real solutions to the problem of
homelessness and housing.
1710
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there has been a lot said about homelessness and the
lack of money for housing. But is it not true that over the last
decade various provincial governments, including the provincial
governments in Ontario and British Columbia, have systematically
deinstituionalized all kinds of people who normally would be in
an institution? They have been put into subsidized housing in
the community, which in turn has led to a lot of these people
turning up in the streets, often by choice.
Would the member not agree that part of this problem is actually
a reflection of a change in the attitude of provinces toward
institutionalizing people? Schizophrenics are a classic example
of people who are now in the streets who 20 years ago were in
institutions. Would the member comment on that please.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
The problem is not that simple. There were many cuts to federal
transfer payments which affected the areas of housing, social
services and so forth. The provinces were put in a position where
they were not able to handle a lot of these problems. The cuts
to social housing go back much further. Even before the
deinstitutionalization process began, there were very serious
cuts to the social housing program.
I can recall many years ago when I was in my late twenties there was
a co-operative housing program under the federal government. It
seemed to find a fair degree of support in a lot of small rural
communities. People would band together and build housing under
this program. That program no longer exists. That program could
meet a lot of the needs today if the federal government were
serious about capping the housing problem.
It is a bit of a folly to blame the provinces and their programs
of trying to bring about the deinstitutionalization of people.
We know that concept would not work unless proper supports were
there for the people who are deinstituionalized. Again, that
support needs funding, much of which has been cut by the federal
government.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the hon. member mentioned the critical problem
of psychiatric patients who are now on the streets and are
homeless. It is a serious problem in our country today.
The fact that the mindset of certain provinces was to
deinstitutionalize psychiatric patients was good for some of
them. However, for a large number of them it was a profound
tragedy which cost them not only hardship but also sometimes
death.
The hon. member is very experienced in this matter. How does he
feel about individuals who make a good salary taking advantage of
and participating in subsidized housing? Those people are taking
positions away from the people who truly need them. What would
the member do about that?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I am not as familiar as my
hon. colleague may be with people who make good salaries and live
in subsidized housing. In most instances where subsidized housing
is involved, there is a means test and an income test in terms of
whether people qualify. If programs are being abused, then I
would be the first to say that there has to be a better way of
checking up on those programs to make sure they serve the needs
of the people who need the services most.
Again we come back to whether or not the departments and the
people administering the programs are adequately resourced to
make sure these programs are carried out properly. That comes
back to the huge amounts of cuts that have taken place. In many
departments and agencies people are carrying caseloads well
beyond the norm. They cannot devote the time and effort required
to make sure the programs run smoothly. It comes back to the
federal government's withdrawal of payments that were formerly
transferred for these kinds of programs.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this bill
unfortunately is about what we are losing as a country and as
individuals. We would not suddenly just by lowering taxes have
more houses available to those people who may or may not have
jobs, because just having a job now does not guarantee one will
get a mortgage to get into a home.
1715
I know of women with decent jobs who are single parents and are
not eligible for a loan. Neither were they eligible for any help
from CMHC so that they could buy a home, even though they had the
money to make the monthly payments.
The saddest point about this issue is what we are losing. The
bill would eliminate statutory requirements for social housing to
be safe, sanitary and affordable. Those are minimum requirements
that we would expect for any housing, let alone social housing.
I quote from a letter dated September 22, 1993, from the current
Minister of Finance to the National Housing Coalition in which he
stated:
We believe the federal government has a positive, proactive role
in a national housing policy and the responsibility of
accessibility and affordability to over one million Canadian
households living in need of adequate shelter.
I could almost cry knowing that this has not happened and that
in fact the reverse has happened. The government is not even
willing to shelter those who are most vulnerable in society such
as those who have psychiatric problems and have ended up on the
street. We are also talking about the elderly and the very
young.
I have a young friend who left Yukon to return to Ontario and
lived on the street for two to three months. She struggled
really hard, lived in shelters and managed to get herself into
high school. In fact she will graduate this year. She spends
her spare time volunteering to help other kids get off the
street.
Every day when I walk to work I make sure that I have money for
the people who are on the street at 8 o'clock in the morning
because they have no place to live. One man has lived under a
bridge for the last 17 months. Why on earth would we tolerate
that? We do not need people living without anything but a
sleeping bag, a hat and a pair of sunglasses. We can afford to
do better.
The bill shows an unwillingness to build houses, to take money
from people who pay their taxes and turn it into four walls and a
roof so that nobody will freeze to death in the night.
Another part of our population that suffers disproportionately
when it comes to housing are our first nations people. Recently
I saw a video put together by an Ontario group of first nations.
In three towns the first nations people were at dumpsites using
scraps to build shelters. They were living in burnt-out old
vehicles. They had 10 to 20 people in their little shacks so
that they could stay warm at night. This is all they had.
Those little places are regularly either burned down by the
townships or bulldozed because they do not want them there. They
do not want those little shanty towns outside their rather nice
cities. That is all these people have to call home. Whatever
piece of two by four, plastic or plywood they can put together is
their home. Then as a country we say it is all right to burn
them down. In those three communities alone there were nine
deaths. They were called natural causes but dying of TB and
exposure are not natural causes. Not having a place to live is
not natural.
Another tragedy for these people is that they are the ultimate
victims of the residential school system. Ninety-eight per cent
of them have come out of that system. They do not fit in their
own community. They do not fit in a white community. They live
in our garbage dumps.
The people of one of the towns had enough compassion to have the
RCMP arrest them and put them in a cell so that at least they
would have a warm place overnight. Some 2,300 arrests were
logged in one year just to give these people a warm place to
sleep.
It has been said over and over that first nations people are
living in third world conditions. They do not have equality.
Our minister of aboriginal affairs has issued a Gathering
Strength document dealing with building new partnerships. The
problem is that they need to be equal to be partners. In no way
can we say the first nations people of the world are financially
equal to the rest of us. All we have to do is look at the houses
they are forced to live in to know that they do not have
equality. How can they be considered partners that can go out
and get financing to build homes?
1720
The CMHC bill has indicated an intention to seek joint ventures
with first nations as a way of facilitating housing developments
on reserves. However, it would be a radical change to make first
nations borrow from financial institutions to pay for their own
housing. This would be a back door abandonment of the
government's responsibilities for housing on first nations. Over
half of the first nations population live off reserve and in the
ghettos of our cities.
Canada has signed a lot of covenants and conventions recognizing
that aboriginal people have the right to an adequate standard of
living for themselves and their families including adequate food,
clothing and housing. This is not being met by any stretch of
the imagination.
As I travelled around Yukon I met a couple. They were elders
and were forced to live in a burnt-out cabin. That is all they
had. The older gentleman had arthritis in his hand so he could
not build a new cabin. That is the kind of housing we are
expecting them to live in.
When it comes to living in the north, the CMHC underwriting of
mortgage insurance has been absolutely essential for anyone to
get a house there. We would lose the capacity of the CMHC to
absorb losses. If it underwrites these mortgages itself, it
might decide that it cannot afford to insure houses in the north,
that it is far too expensive and it will not do it. The state of
Alaska has had to deal with the issue because it only has
commercial mortgage insurance. No one would go into Alaska to
insure homes so it had to depend on government intervention to
insure mortgages to allow people to get homes.
It is a very different situation to try to get a mortgage for a
home in the north. It is not something that happens even if one
has the money to buy a home and pay the mortgage on a monthly
basis.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her eloquent testimony of
the problems faced by aboriginal people both on and off reserve.
The member mentioned giving things to people. No one would argue
giving people the essentials so they have the ability, where they
are physically able to do so, to take care of themselves and to
provide essentials for themselves.
I would submit that in many cases we have created
institutionalized welfare states in many aboriginal communities.
Rather than giving people the basic essentials and then providing
them with the tools to take care of themselves, we have given
people the basic essentials and cut the soul out of them by not
giving them the tools to provide for themselves, by not giving
them the obligation to participate in opportunities to take care
of themselves. Would the hon. member care to comment on that?
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, in Yukon we have an
umbrella final agreement with most of the first nations having
signed on and finished their land claims to have the obligation
to look after themselves, to make their laws, to produce the
goods they need to support themselves whether off the land or
through commercial ventures where they would join in the greater
part of Canada. Land claim agreements are exactly about what the
member of the Reform Party is saying.
By supporting first nations agreements, claims and treaties for
their own self-determination and self-government, we would be
giving them the freedom to improve their living conditions and
their way of life in a manner that suits their cultural
background.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I say to the member opposite that I feel very keenly
that the government has not yet done enough in terms of the
housing needs of the people living in remote communities.
1725
I hear where she is coming from. She has my sympathy. I hope
the government will continue to look in this direction to find
ways of bringing adequate housing to Canada's remote communities
regardless of whether they are on reserve or off reserve
aboriginals.
I come from a riding very close to the city of Hamilton.
Hamilton must be the capital of social housing in Canada. Huge
tracts of social housing were built in the 1980s and early 1990s
on Hamilton Mountain. This basically emptied the 19th century
housing in the downtown core and transferred the population from
downtown Hamilton to uptown Hamilton.
Essentially in the lower city there is block upon block of empty
apartment buildings, empty storefronts basically because the
people have been moved to brand new social housing on the
mountain.
I suggest to the member opposite that perhaps what is wrong
here, where the government should be going and where I think this
actual legislation has a beginning is that it is not really a
question of spending more money. It is spending money wisely.
There is no reason in my mind that the existing housing stock in
Hamilton could not have received some government assistance,
either directly or indirectly, so that people could be housed in
the city's core rather than transferring them to the suburbs.
Surely what we are really talking about here is a reallocation
of resources and not necessarily more money.
Ms. Louise Hardy: Mr. Speaker, if it were just a
reallocation of resources there would not be such a big problem.
It is the taking away of resources and making it far more
difficult for people to have homes. It is really homes for
profit and not homes for health.
We are dealing with the privatization of homes and people who
otherwise would never have a chance to own a home or to even be
part of a home. It is about turning social policy into profit
rather than just reallocating resources, better town planning,
better input. Where should this housing go? How will it benefit
us as a community? If that was all it is about, it would be a
really good step. It is not.
It is about taking away the prospect of a home. We see the
results day after day with more and more people on our streets
and under our bridges, the young and the old. Even those who are
working are not able to afford a home.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief and to the point.
Point number one is subsidized housing. There are two groups of
people, those who need it and those who do not. For those who do
not, I have had them in my office. They are Gucci socialists.
These individuals are making good money and what they are doing
is taking away homes from those people who desperately need them.
This is an absolute outrage.
Point number two is the issue of the people who are homeless and
on the street. There are a number of groups. Group one consists
of those individuals who are psyche patients, as was mentioned
before. This bespeaks of the deinstitutionalization that has
taken place and that has been an abysmal horror for the people
who suffer psychiatric problems.
We must provide areas where these individuals can be taken care
of. Not only does this make sense from a humanitarian point of
view but it is also good medicine and cheaper.
Point number three is the individual on the street suffering
from drug problems. It bespeaks of the abysmal failure we have
had in terms of how to deal with drug problems.
What we can look at as a solution is the Geneva experiment, the
post-needle park experiment, which is probably the best program
in the world right now on how to get hard core drug addicts off
the streets, employed and integrated members of society. I ask
that this issue be dealt with in a multifactoral manner.
On the long term approach of preventing these people from
becoming homeless, what we need to do is address the problem at
time zero. We can have a national head start program using
existing resources based on the motion I had passed in the House
last year. It would go a long way in preventing a lot of the
social problems that are occurring.
I implore the Minister of Human Resources Development to work
with his counterparts, the Ministers of Justice and Health and
their provincial counterparts, to develop an integrated approach
where they can start of with the medical community at time zero,
train volunteers in the middle based on the Hawaii head start
program and use educational services for children starting at age
four to eight.
1730
Essentially it strengthens the parent-child bond to ensure that
children have their basic needs met in those formative years. If
children in their first years of life have their time disrupted
through child abuse, drug abuse, being subjected to alcohol while
in utero, et cetera, it has a dramatic and damaging effect on the
psyche of these children and therefore does not enable them to
become integrated members of Canadian society.
This has been proven time and time again. We have wonderful
programs from the head start program in Moncton that the Minister
of Industry was a leader in to programs in Michigan and Hawaii.
If we incorporate those and use the motion that I had passed we
will have a seamless program that will prevent a lot of these
problems from occurring in the future.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to order
made earlier this day, the question to dispose of the second
reading stage of Bill C-66 is deemed put and a recorded division
is deemed demanded and deferred until Monday, March 15, 1999 at
the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKERS ADJUSTMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
February 5, I put a question to the Minister of Human Resources
Development regarding the Program for Older Workers Adjustment
or POWA.
The answer the minister gave me was not satisfactory. I had
reminded him that on the program Zone Libre, where he had
appeared, he had finally admitted that the active measures he is
now offering older workers who have been laid off, such as those
of the BC mine, are not the answer to the special problems of
this category of worker.
I asked him:
Are we to understand that the minister is going to quickly throw
together a new and improved version of POWA, a program that he
himself cut?
The minister answered in general terms, too general, saying he
was very pleased with the creation of 87,000 new jobs across
Canada, half of them for young people.
I believe my question was very clear. It dealt specifically with
the drastic situation of older workers. Their problem is that it
is not easy for them to have access to the new jobs.
The work place is changing quickly. It is undergoing a mutation
and requires new knowledge and skills. It is not surprising that
young people eventually find a place in the labour market. We
are very happy about it, but it does not solve the problems of
older workers.
The minister keeps on saying that the best way to fight poverty
and alienation is to create jobs, but he must understand that it
is not the only way. It does not extinguish the government's
responsibility to help people in dire straits.
On its own, the labour market cannot remedy inequalities and
injustices. The minister himself admits this in his book. The
state must correct the inequities in the labour market.
We must see reality as it is: older workers have real problems
getting back into the workforce. Employers hesitate to hire
them because of their age. To get any retraining is a lengthy
process. The doors to the workforce are not exactly wide open
to them. The minister is closing his eyes to the reality of
older workers, and taking refuge behind overall market
statistics.
The immediate need of older workers is financial assistance to
help them survive, to meet their obligations, and to negotiate
the long and difficult process of career training. These
workers have paid into the employment insurance system for years
without ever using it, and now they are more than deserving of
our consideration and support.
1735
When I watched Zone libre, I was hoping the minister was finally
aware of the plight of older workers. Was I wrong?
Instead of shedding false tears over those who have been
excluded, when will the minister take action and introduce an
improved version of POWA to do something about the poverty and
exclusion of older workers who have lost their jobs?
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to respond on behalf of the minister. In response to some of the
things the member had to say I would like to provide some
information that may help her understand what the government is
attempting to achieve.
The government is committed to helping unemployed workers,
including older workers. We believe, however, that the best way
to help unemployed workers is to help them return to the world of
work. The program for older workers which ended last year
offered only passive income support and it did little to help
older workers adapt to a changing economy.
What the government has now done is shift its support to active
employment assistance to help workers reintegrate into the
workforce. Therefore our efforts are being directed to helping
those older workers who need our help.
We have developed partnerships with the provinces through a
number of labour market development agreements. These agreements
are helping to deliver active employment measures tailored to the
needs of unemployed workers. The government is showing its
support for these workers by offering the provinces $2 billion a
year in EI funds to help support these active employment
measures.
The member may also be interested to know that the majority of
older workers continue to do relatively well in the labour market
when compared to other age groups. In fact, the unemployment
rate for workers over 55 has decreased from 9% in 1993 to 6.3% in
1998.
Any unemployment is still too much, but certainly within the
target group the member is interested in there has been
considerable progress. The government has also shown its
commitment to this important sector of the labour force through
our commitment to the working group established by the forum of
labour market ministers. The working group will seek to address
the concerns raised by older workers and we are constantly in
discussion with all the provinces to find ways to address the
needs of this group.
I thank the member for her question and for her concern. I hope
she will continue to work with us to see that the needs of older
workers are addressed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.37 p.m.)