36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 224
CONTENTS
Friday, May 7, 1999
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-66. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1010
1015
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1045
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEDIC ALERT MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1100
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MICHAEL MARINI
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NISGA'A TREATY
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS INTERNATIONAL OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL COMPOSTING AWARENESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1105
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNITED WAY
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SURREY POLICE OFFICER AWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TVA TELEVISION NETWORK
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WESTRAY MINE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTION IN SCOTLAND
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1110
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH VIOLENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1115
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1120
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL PROGRAMS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1125
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1130
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUMMER CAREER PLACEMENT PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1135
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1140
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS WASTE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1145
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HOMELESSNESS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1150
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHILDREN
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FORESTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1155
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REVENUE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASTRONOMIE QUÉBEC MAGAZINE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
1200
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1205
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Natural Resources and Government Operations
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Cullen |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Industry
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Grandparents
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-66. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1230
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1235
1240
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1255
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMPETITION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-393. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1310
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1325
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1340
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1345
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Vote on Motion Deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 224
![](/web/20061116190650im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 7, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved 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 third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-66,
an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation Act at third reading.
I would like to begin by congratulating members of the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations for
their hard work on this bill. I would also like to congratulate
and thank my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, the
member for Mississauga Centre, for the work she did in leading
this bill through the House and committee.
[Translation]
On March 11, my colleague said that the proposed amendments
support the Government of Canada's efforts to make government
more efficient and provide better service to Canadians.
The benefits of this bill are threefold. 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 Canadians.
[English]
Every one of CMHC's core activities, whether it is
mortgage loan insurance, assistance for housing for low income
Canadians, housing research or export promotion, works in support
of the Government of Canada's objectives for the housing
industry. Over the years CMHC has been involved in every aspect
of housing, from building units, to direct financing, community
planning, mortgage insurance and now trade development.
[Translation]
The achievements of CMHC have brought enormous benefits to
Canada and indeed to many of our own families and communities.
Through partnerships among all levels of governments, community
organizations and the private sector, we work to allow Canadians
to obtain the shelter they need.
1010
One of the most important aspects of these amendments is the
inclusion of the public policy mandate for CMHC's mortgage loan
insurance.
This change will provide access to mortgage financing at the
lowest possible cost for all Canadians, regardless of where they
live in Canada.
[English]
This new legislation will remove unnecessary restrictions to
CMHC's mortgage loan insurance business. This enhanced
flexibility will enable the corporation to respond to the housing
needs of Canadians more effectively. With these changes CMHC
will be a more competitive and a more innovative mortgage
insurer.
The legislation will allow CMHC to operate its mortgage loan
insurance program on a more commercial basis. This will ensure
that CMHC is able to compete fairly and effectively with any
private mortgage insurer, while enabling CMHC to fulfill its
public policy objectives.
[Translation]
By guaranteeing competition in this sector, we can ensure that
Canadians have access to the best possible price, and a greater
number of choices in home financing products. Furthermore, they
will benefit from the availability of low-cost funds and access
to mortgage financing no matter where they live in Canada.
With the introduction of its 5% down payment program, CMHC is
already an industry leader. Originally a program for first-time
homebuyers, repeat purchasers can now also take advantage of
this popular program.
[English]
I would like to give the House an idea of just how many
Canadians depend on this mortgage loan insurance product to
fulfill their dream of owning a home. Since its introduction,
over 600,000 Canadians have used CMHC's 5% program to buy their
first home. Surveys show that 70% of these buyers could not have
purchased their home at that time without the reduced down
payment option.
[Translation]
Overall, in the past year alone, CMHC has helped Canadians gain
access to over 300,000 homes with the use of mortgage loan
insurance.
This was done at no cost to the government. In fact, CMHC
policy requires that it be self-financing, relying solely on the
premiums and fees it charges over the long run.
With the introduction of CMHC's electronic mortgage loan
insurance approval system, known as EMILI, most loans can be
approved in one hour or less and in most cases within minutes.
The EMILI system has now been expanded to include new houses, to
the benefit of builders, lenders, and consumers alike. That
means Canadians can become homeowners much faster and much
easier.
[English]
This automated system is just one example of how CMHC is working
with various members of the housing industry, in this case
financial institutions, brokers and realtors, to contribute to
the health of the sector. In recent years CMHC has been
approached to support many innovative and original home financing
products. Unfortunately, under the current National Housing Act,
CMHC has not been able to bring the benefits of some of these new
types of home financing products to the marketplace.
[Translation]
Once the new NHA legislation is in place, CMHC may consider
products such as reverse equity mortgages. This flexible new
product allows older homeowners to use the equity in their homes
to obtain funds while allowing them to continue to live in their
homes.
We all know that the availability of affordable, accessible
housing is a critical factor in enabling seniors to live
independently, and to remain active members of the community.
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 facilitate similar financing arrangements on
Indian reserves where restrictions exist on providing land as
security for mortgages.
1015
[English]
CMHC mortgage loan insurance has not only helped Canadians
become homeowners, it has also been the key to the health of the
housing industry in Canada. By fully protecting lenders against
default on the part of borrowers, mortgage loan insurance
encourages investment in residential construction which results
in the creation of numerous jobs in this key sector of our
economy.
For every $100 million spent on construction, 1,500 person years
of employment are created both directly and indirectly. Behind
every construction worker are many other workers producing
materials needed to build a home.
[Translation]
With this new legislation, CMHC will also be able to better
respond to opportunities within national and international
markets.
These proposed amendments will further increase the
corporation's success in housing export promotion. Reaching out
to foreign markets will mean opportunities for Canadian
businesses and jobs for Canadians.
For example, by working with the housing industry on projects
such as demonstration homes, CMHC will be able to contribute to
the industry's marketing efforts.
The timing for these business development efforts could not be
better. Around the globe, the total demand for housing is in
the tens of millions of units per year. Looking at this figure,
it is obvious that there is great potential in a number of
untapped markets.
[English]
This is where Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can help.
These amendments will work to further increase its ability to
develop international links through its membership in team
Canada. They will also reinforce CMHC's ongoing commitment to
provide assistance to foreign countries through the establishment
of sound housing systems and building practices.
With the help of CMHC through its export promotion role, the
thousands of firms that make up the Canadian housing industry can
become even bigger players in international trade. Canadian
entrepreneurs will be able to look to CMHC for marketing support
in projects overseas.
[Translation]
As a result of these amendments, export promotion will become an
increasingly important component of CMHC's research and transfer
activities.
It is an area that holds considerable promise for expanding
business opportunities for our housing industry while still
promoting employment opportunities for Canadians.
The proposed amendments will enhance CMHC's ability to play a
role as a promoter, facilitator and adviser in the field of
export, as well as in the field of housing.
For more than 50 years, our corporation has played a vital role
in helping Canadians to become homeowners. It has made an
important contribution to the growth of the entire economy and
the key sector of construction. It has also been a leader in
research.
For all these reasons, I urge members to pass this bill so that
the corporation can grow and develop in this new era of
globalization, while continuing to serve the housing needs of
Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on third and final reading of Bill C-66 with many
concerns.
The government made claim to a bill that was to level the
playing field between CMHC and the private sector and to make the
mortgage insurance industry more competitive. The government
promoted this bill as legislation which would strengthen Canada's
housing agency, CMHC, and thereby strengthen its ability to carry
out its mandate of administering to Canadians' housing needs. I
feel it has done neither and that this exercise has been all the
more regrettable because the government had ample input and
opportunity to make a better piece of legislation.
The Reform Party opposes Bill C-66 for the following reasons.
The bill does not accomplish what it sets out to do, namely,
create a more level playing field with the private sector. Reform
policy states that where the private sector demonstrates an
ability, the government should not compete with the private
sector.
The testimony of private sector witnesses before the standing
committee was not acted upon and thereby rendered the legislative
process ineffective. Further, the private sector's valid
suggestions and proposed amendments on ways to improve the bill
were systematically ignored by the minister and therefore the
government which rendered the democratic process itself
ineffective.
1020
Finally, while the bill partially recognizes that housing policy
would be carried out more effectively by the provinces, it does
not go far enough. As a result of being vague about
responsibility, a clear and concise national housing policy
continues to be lacking and therefore puts Canada's housing
policy, particularly on social housing, in jeopardy.
I will now turn to private sector competition or the lack of it.
The purpose of Bill C-66 as put forward by the government is to
modernize CMHC by enabling it to respond in a more flexible
manner to changes in the workplace. The government also claims
that Bill C-66 will put CMHC and its private sector competitors
on a more equal footing thereby levelling the playing field in
the market of mortgage insurance.
The business of mortgage insurance has been in the hands of
government for so long that it currently is responsible for 88%
of the market share. At this time many consumers rely on the
stability of the CMHC mortgage insurance fund. Without question
Canadians have benefited from this program. Many who would not
otherwise be able to own their own homes now do as a result of
CMHC's mortgage insurance activity.
To say at this time that CMHC should get out of the mortgage
insurance business would be premature. However Reform believes
that we are witnessing a demonstration by the private sector of
its capability in the area of mortgage insurance. This is an
indication to Reform that its policy that governments should not
compete with the private sector where the private sector can do
the job is on track.
However given CMHC's long history in this area of activity and
the necessity to protect the stability of the mortgage insurance
market, Reform would argue in favour of levelling the playing
field so that the private sector can continue to demonstrate its
ability to handle mortgage insurance activities effectively and
competitively. In this way Canada will begin to create a stable
mortgage insurance environment within the private sector.
We believe the private sector must be given an equal opportunity
to capture more of the market share in the mortgage insurance
business. This will create true competition, better prices and
service to consumers and will encourage other private sector
companies or competitors to enter the market. Is that not what
it is about, better prices, better service to the consumer?
Bill C-66 does not accomplish the goal of levelling the playing
field and continues to promote advantages in favour of CMHC over
the private sector. It does so in several ways.
CMHC holds a 100% guarantee by the government on its mortgage
insurance holdings. GE Capital, CMHC's private sector
competitor, has only a 90% guarantee. Bill C-66 does not change
this important inequity. Clearly the banks favour the 100%
guarantee and therefore, despite good service from GE Capital,
they favour mortgage insurance through CMHC. This is not a level
playing field. This does not promote a competitive environment
as the bill stated as a goal.
GE Capital cannot successfully introduce any new products into
the marketplace because it does not have a 90% guarantee on such
products, as is the case with CMHC. This means that the
introduction of innovative products and services is prevented
from entering the marketplace unless they are established by
CMHC. This again does not create a level playing field for the
private sector, nor a competitive environment for consumers.
Under Bill C-66 CMHC will now fund additional policy reserves
and commence payment to the government based on capital and
additional policy reserves. CMHC claims that it will do so
because the private sector must do so under OSFI regulations.
While the intent seems to be correct, the fee will not be
calculated using the same formula that is used for private
insurers and is therefore less than the fee private insurers
must pay. This also does not level the playing field.
CMHC and GE Capital are governed by different legislation. GE
Capital is regulated by OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions, as a private insurance company whereas
CMHC is not.
1025
CMHC's corporate summary states that it wants to level the
playing field where it says “CMHC needs to ensure that the basis
for public private competition is fair, i.e., that CMHC has no
unfair advantages”.
Clearly, Bill C-66 fails to accomplish that level playing field
and therefore continues to promote an inequity to the advantage
of CMHC. The failure of Bill C-66 to level the playing field
between the public and private sector is a clear indication that
a crown corporation cannot compete fairly with the private
sector, a private sector that has clearly demonstrated it can
carry out this kind of activity.
Although the government initially filled a void through CMHC's
mortgage insurance fund, it is clear that there is room now for
the private sector to assume more of this activity. It is both
ready and willing.
What is the value of gradually devolving the government's
involvement in such activity? It is that the private sector can
grow, that the risk to government and the taxpayer is reduced,
that the costs of government are reduced and that the marketplace
is thriving on true competition. This does not mean that
suddenly the marketplace is free to do as it pleases and that
consumers are at risk. There are bodies such as OSFI in place to
regulate such activity and to protect consumers.
The natural progression must be that government gets out of the
business of the private sector where the private sector can show
that it is capable. How can Canadians realize these benefits if
the private sector is never given a truly fair opportunity to
compete on the same level playing field and the government
continues to prevent it from doing so?
I would suggest to the House that clearly the logical path
toward the objective of levelling the playing field is not to
continue to broaden the powers of CMHC and to make it more
commercial. The logical path is to change our tack, to look at
the private sector's abilities and in the long term to make the
market more secure by allowing the private sector to be as strong
as it can be.
In the interim we must ensure the market's stability by looking
at CMHC and the private sector as partners rather than
competitors. In this way through the pursuit of public-private
partnership, governments can benefit from the knowledge of the
private sector and the private sector can benefit from the work
that the government has put in place. Government should not be
competing with its own private sector. The government's ultimate
objective should be to improve the economy by strengthening the
private sector. Canadians can only benefit from this kind of
approach.
I reiterate two reasons why Reform opposes this bill. The
testimony of private sector witnesses before the standing
committee was not acted upon and thereby rendered the legislative
process ineffective. The private sector's valid suggestions and
proposed amendments on ways to improve the bill were
systematically ignored by the minister and therefore the
government, which rendered the democratic process ineffective.
The government is very good at commenting on CMHC's willingness
to work in partnership with the private sector, with non-profit
organizations and non-government organizations but this was not
demonstrated in the passage of this bill through the House.
Partnership relies on a willingness to co-operate. The actions
of this government regarding Bill C-66 do not indicate a
willingness to co-operate. The standing committee and members of
the House outside of committee met with the private sector and
non-governmental agencies that have a vested interest in ensuring
that CMHC's mandate is sound and works to the benefit of all
Canadians.
These groups came forward with many concrete ways in which to
improve this bill and they were systematically ignored by the
government. This was clearly demonstrated in committee when the
suggestions for improvement by GE Capital, the Appraisal
Institute of Canada and the Co-operative Housing Federation of
Canada were ignored. Amendments put forward by opposition members
were also ignored. When opposition members requested more time to
deal with the bill, they too were ignored.
For the record, I wish to summarize some of the important
suggestions and concerns put forward by these organizations.
The Co-operative Housing Federation asked the committee to
consider the following questions: Will Bill C-66 impede the
federal government from acting now or in the future to alleviate
Canada's housing needs?
1030
I would also like to point out that some of the considerations
recently by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern
Development concerned the shortage of housing in Nunavik and in
the territory of Nunavut which are areas we have so far visited
and about which we have heard many representations concerning the
shortage there. I would add my concern to that concern.
Second, is it intended to allow the provincial governments to
alter existing statutory requirements retroactively? If not, why
does the bill empower CMHC to waive existing National Housing Act
provisions for existing programs and to allow provinces in turn
to waive them? These are serious questions which did not receive
serious consideration. Yet, today we find ourselves at third
reading and none of these concerns were acknowledged.
From the GE Capital Mortgage Insurance Company we heard requests
made to provide the same level of guarantee to both public and
private insurance; to extend the guarantee to new private
insurance products, allowing private insurers to introduce
products not offered by CMHC; to require CMHC to calculate
payments to the government using a model comparable to that
employed by other Canadian financial institutions; and to work to
ensure that CMHC is answerable to the same restrictions and
regulations as the private sector. These were legitimate
concerns and workable requests that would have improved the bill
but they were ignored.
From the Appraisal Institute of Canada we heard the following
concern, that CMHC's growing emphasis on speedy approval for its
lender clients to reflect a more commercial orientation has the
potential to undermine public policy responsibilities by putting
the high ratio mortgage insurance at risk. In particular, the
Appraisal Institute had concerns about the lack of appraisals
done by CMHC; their reliance on a computer system that does not
incorporate actual appraisals by appraisers; and the fact that
CMHC will now have the ability to vary the price of premiums
according to the risk, thereby abandoning the policy that all
Canadians should pay the same price and should not be
discriminated against depending on where they choose to live.
Again, these were valid concerns affecting us all that were not
addressed.
These groups, every single one of them, had constructive ideas
as to how we might improve the bill, but none of them were acted
upon. What it shows us is that while the government is willing
to promote partnership, it does not always act accordingly. If
it did, it would have worked with these groups to make Bill C-66
a better bill. Instead, it has been intent only on the bill's
passage so as to broaden the powers of an already powerful
agency.
I would also like to state what our final main objection is to
this bill. While the bill partially recognizes that housing
policy would be carried out more effectively by the provinces, it
does not go far enough. As a result of being vague about
responsibility, a clear and concise national housing policy
continues to be lacking and therefore puts Canada's housing
policy, particularly social housing, in jeopardy.
First, let us be clear that CMHC plays a dual role and has dual
functions. As well as its commercial activities, such as
mortgage insurance, CMHC has the responsibility of carrying out
the government's national housing policy by ensuring that all
Canadians have access to affordable housing. Due to the latter,
CMHC is heavily involved in aspects of social public housing, low
income housing, residential rehabilitation, aboriginal housing,
co-op housing and non-profit housing vehicles.
Here, too, the workings of CMHC would find a balance in a
public-private partnership arrangement as there are many
worthwhile organizations in Canada who work within and understand
the social housing needs of Canadians. In order to facilitate
this, however, in the most optimal, effective and cost-efficient
manner, we must first be clear about which level of government is
best suited to be responsible for housing in Canada. Where
social housing is concerned we have seen the Liberal government
pulling away from supporting social housing.
Since 1993, no new funding has been put aside for social housing
needs and, as we have seen, the decline in Canada's housing stock
through aging and other factors is causing a social housing
shortage and challenging CMHC's mandate to provide not only
affordable but quality housing to Canadians.
Despite evidence to the contrary, the government will not
relinquish control of social housing to the levels of government
that are most directly involved and active in meeting Canadians'
housing needs. By way of example of the capability of the
provinces and their municipal partners, I point to the recent
reports that have been produced to address the growing housing
concerns across the country, particularly the issue of
homelessness.
1035
I bring members' attention to Toronto's task force on the
homeless and the British Columbia government's response to
housing needs. In both cases these reports demonstrate an
ability to recognize what is required and the ability to take
action. In British Columbia, for instance, a 1992 amendment to
its municipal act required that all municipalities include
housing policies in their official community plan.
At those levels of government we see action on housing issues,
not more talk. Despite the work that has been done, the federal
government responded in its usual fashion according to the CMHC's
five-year corporate plan:
CMHC 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.
It is a cumbersome and long term approach to a problem that
requires immediate action. Surely Toronto's task force does not
need more time to talk. It has made its recommendations but it
is a fact of life with government at the federal level. The
federal government does not have the flexibility or the agility
to act in a timely fashion and respond as well as levels of
government that are closer to the people.
Canadians recognize this as well. That is why Reform's policy,
supported by the grassroots of this country, states that housing
should be the full responsibility of the provinces. The federal
government is surely making a move in this direction by
transferring the management of its social programs to the
provinces but it is doing so very slowly.
Bill C-66 could have made great strides in this regard. However,
it did not go far enough in moving housing responsibilities to
the provinces and in fact confuses the issue by downloading some
of its social housing responsibilities to the provinces while
keeping others. The effect is a gap in social housing policy
responsibility and a void where a solid national housing strategy
should be.
Ultimately, the issues and requirements of social housing are
not being met and Canada's social housing stock is in decline at
a time when rejuvenation is needed. Reform would argue that it
is time the federal government was clear about its role in
administering a national housing policy and that ultimately one
level of government should be responsible for it to ensure the
needs of Canadians are being met.
The provinces, with support from their municipalities, have
demonstrated a better understanding of the social housing needs
of Canadians and are in the best position to ensure that Canadian
needs are being met. It is time they were given the ability to
move forward in this regard. Clearly they have demonstrated
their ability.
The Reform Party regrets that the bill is not all it could be
and that the government, intent on pushing it through, did so at
the expense of input from many organizations in which support a
better national housing policy for Canadians and a more vibrant
marketplace for homebuyers. Like them, the Reform Party believes
that housing is an extremely important and urgent issue, that
more and more it calls for partnerships and the benefits of
collective thinking between the public and private sectors. Bill
C-66 did not promote this.
Canadians believe strongly in this country's ability to provide
affordable and decent housing to everyone and it is a shame this
government missed an ideal opportunity to create avenues that
would strengthen housing policy in the country. It is time that
a housing strategy, both clear and concise in its intent and its
objectives, existed in Canada, that responsibilities are defined,
accepted and acted upon, and that both public and private sectors
are given the means to work together to ensure we reach our
objectives.
The belief that making CMHC more commercial is the answer to the
housing challenges we face in Canada is shortsighted and
ultimately inadequate. Pinning all our hopes on one agency will
not suffice. We need to recognize the abilities of Canada's
private sector. We need to recognize there is a private sector
out there willing to participate in the housing market. Its very
involvement strengthens the economy. However, by competing with
a crown corporation its chances of growing stronger are impeded,
and so too then is the economy. Is it this government's
intention to impede the growth of the economy?
We also need to recognize the value of partnership. We need to
recognize that our national housing policy under the federal
government has not been effective for some time. We need to
recognize that there are other levels of government and
organizations within the private sector willing to strengthen our
national housing policy. We need to see that a national housing
policy will thrive under the benefits of partnership and clear
the roadblocks preventing those partnerships from working
effectively.
1040
Surely, if we have learned any one thing from debt and deficit
woes it is that the federal government can no longer resolve our
most important issues simply by opening the federal purse. The
housing challenges that face us need much more than money.
Solutions will require the participation of organizations and
other levels of government which have the knowledge and
capabilities of addressing Canadian housing needs. Yes, the
needs of Canadians will be better served if those closest to the
problems are in the driver's seat.
If we are to ensure that the housing needs of Canadians,
particularly our social housing needs, are met then it is time to
let Canadians build a better national housing policy. To do so
will require much more courageous vision and much greater action
than Bill C-66 provides.
The government made the claim that Bill C-66 would level the
playing field between CMHC and the private sector and make the
mortgage insurance industry more competitive, that it would
strengthen Canada's housing agency CMHC and thereby strengthen
its ability to carry out its mandate of administering to
Canadians' housing needs. It has done neither.
Most regrettable of all, by failing to work with the
organizations that came to the committee during the review of the
bill and failing to recognize their knowledge, capabilities and
expertise, the federal government has missed an ideal opportunity
to improve housing policy in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-66.
With all due respect, I want to tell the minister right off the
bat that we will be unable to support the bill. I do not want
him to take it personally, but, as I will explain later, there
is in this bill a potential for intrusion into areas of
provincial jurisdiction. This concerns us.
We are not against the fact that the Canadian Mortgage and
Housing Corporation will now be allowed to operate abroad.
The minister wants to give CMHC a really commercial mandate. I
believe we have already seem it a work in Chile, if I am not
mistaken. A delegation headed by the minister travelled to that
country. My colleague from Quebec was a member.
We understand CMHC, and builders, have a role to play in better
promoting Quebec and Canadian housing know-how.
I will now sum up the proposed legislation for the benefit of
those listeners who might have just joined us. Close to one
million Canadians listen to the House of Commons debates.
The bill contains eight major elements.
First, CMHC, the main representative of the federal government
in housing, would be authorized to make housing loans to
individuals, groups, organizations, municipalities, departments,
federal or provincial agencies, a bit like a bank.
Some even compared CMHC to a bank.
CMHC will have new authority to set fees and charges for the
products and services it provides.
There is also a third objective that we support: to allow CMHC
to participate in research and development of housing
internationally and to promote the export of Canadian expertise
and products relating to housing.
This is, I believe, one truly important objective of this bill.
Allow me to repeat that enabling CMHC to have a greater impact
on international export markets is one of the positive aspects
of the bill.
Another aspect is more problematic. I would ask the minister to
take what I am about to say into consideration. CMHC will have
the authority to make contributions relating to housing
payments.
Powers will also be given to CMHC, not to the minister. The
Bloc Quebecois sees this as a legal problem. These powers will
concern the provision of funds to individuals, organizations and
municipalities. This is another point of concern for us.
1045
The minister ought to have said in his speech that, when
transfers to individuals are concerned, those amounts will not
be subjected to the constraints of the social union the federal
government has negotiated with all provinces except Quebec.
When reference is made to transfers covered by the social union,
if these are transfers to individuals, they are not covered by
the agreement signed with the federal government.
Our main concern is the possibility that the federal government
could transact directly with NGOs, and with municipalities, in
matters relating to housing, without provincial agreement.
I respectfully submit to the minister responsible for the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the bill is hard to follow
because, in the throne speech, the federal government promised
to decentralize a number of sectors of intervention. They are
what we called the eight sisters. There is tourism, mines,
recreation and housing, as well. Surely the minister
responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
remembers.
As an opposition party, we assumed the government would transfer
the entire housing sector to the provinces.
How does the minister explain to the House the claim the
government made in the speech from the throne that it would
transfer the entire housing sector to the provinces, and the
increased powers this bill provides for the government?
If all of the prerogatives provided in this bill were
implemented, the government could establish a housing allowance.
Does the minister agree, or does he think we are not reading
the bill properly?
From our reading of the powers accorded under Bill C-66 to the
minister responsible for housing and more particularly to the
CHMC, everything hints at the establishment of a national
housing allowance. That is a source of some concern.
We have opened the door for the minister.
We would have liked to support the government, because we are a
constructive opposition. Whenever we are given the opportunity
to do so, we are always pleased to support the government,
provided Quebec's interests are respected. I moved an amendment
asking that no loan, contribution or money be given to
municipalities, non-profit organizations or individuals without
the agreement of the Quebec government.
It is with regret that I inform this House that the government
took advantage of its majority to reject the amendment. The
minister will remember that he rose and, without blinking an
eye, very comfortable in his role as minister, had the Bloc
Quebecois' amendment rejected.
Except for this amendment, we were rather in agreement with the
bill.
If the minister wanted to reconsider his earlier decision and
support—assuming there is unanimous consent—an amendment to the
effect that no contribution can be made to individuals and
intermediate bodies such as municipalities in the province of
Quebec, we would be prepared to support this bill.
Unfortunately, it is not the case and this is why we will oppose
this legislation.
I am taking this opportunity to talk about the housing sector as
a whole. As we know, and the minister made reference to this in
his speech, there is a very tenuous but direct link between the
whole issue of access to housing and the fight against poverty.
In a riding like Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the primary cause of
poverty is that our fellow citizens must often spend 30%, 40% or
50% of their income on rent.
1050
For this reason it is important for there to be state
intervention, in the form of a housing allowance, access to
ownership and low-cost housing construction, in order to give the
least advantaged access to housing. However, we believe that
the government that should be doing this is not the federal
government but the Quebec government and the provincial
governments.
The federal government has committed to transferring $1.9
billion to the provinces. If my information is up to date, there
are now five provinces and two territories that have signed, for
a grand total of seven.
I ask the minister to get negotiations moving with Quebec. I am
familiar with his talents as a negotiator, and I know he is a
man motivated by a great sense of fairness. I would, however,
like to remind him of certain historical facts.
I would also like to take advantage of the distinguished
presence of my colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa, to
remind him that the share paid to Quebec by the federal
government does not take into account either its demographic
weight or the number of households in urgent need of
accommodation.
I would remind the minister—whose roots in the Liberal family are
deep and long-lasting, indeed I believe they are ever-lasting in
his mind—that all of the governments in Quebec, one after
another, have called for fair compensation from the federal
government.
I might give the example of Claude Ryan, whom we all know is no
sovereignist.
Moreover, the Minister of Human Resources Development has worked
for him. When he was responsible for the housing portfolio in
the National Assembly, Claude Ryan called upon CMHC to hand over
29% of the available funds, but this did not happen.
I will provide some figures, which I believe you will find
interesting. First of all, total federal expenditures for
social housing are $362 million. That is not a trifle, but it
is not sufficient either. This amount of $362 million
represents 18.7% of the total. In other words, the federal
government spends 18.7% of its social housing expenditures in
Quebec.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If you manage to spill your water, that too
will be the fault of the federal government?
Mr. Réal Ménard: I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Canadian Heritage to not encourage me to knock over
my water, because unlike his government, I never thought the
dollar should be allowed to float.
So, 18.7% of federal spending on housing is in Quebec, which
means that 81.3% is outside Quebec. In Quebec, 29.3% of
households are living in poverty.
I would ask the minister whether he is prepared today—I would
even give him some of my time if he would—to instruct the
federal government's chief negotiator for housing to inform the
Government of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard and Louise Harel, who is
responsible for housing in the National Assembly, that he is
transferring 29.3% of the funds to the Government of Quebec. It
is the only one entitled to have a national policy on housing.
I think the government will agree that it is perfectly logical
for the Government of Quebec to intervene in the housing sector.
This sector is connected with the Civil Code, municipalities
and land management. There is no reason why the federal
government should intervene in this area.
In actual fact, the CMHC directly subsidizes and oversees 44,597
housing units in Quebec. The federal government's offer—and
I am sure the minister responsible for the CMHC was not really
himself when he made the offer—is $218 million.
1055
However, the federal government is proposing less than what the
Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation spends in Quebec. Indeed,
the total amount spent by the CMHC in Quebec is $289 million.
I am convinced that the Quebec government would be prepared to
come to an agreement with the federal government. The minister
will agree that the current Quebec government is among the best
and most reasonable ones we ever had. If the federal government
offered $480 million, I am convinced the Quebec government would
accept that amount.
I will repeat that for my colleague: $480 million, because this
is the amount that Quebec is entitled to in the housing sector.
I am counting on the hon. member for Bourassa to get involved in
this issue. This will be in Canadian dollars. I appreciate the
member's optimism regarding a possible free trade zone using
U.S. dollars. The hon. member is more or less acknowledging that
a sovereign Quebec will be able to hold its own at the
international level.
I will conclude, since oral question period is about to begin,
by repeating that we cannot support this bill.
We endorse the mandate of the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation to be more active on export markets. However, we
think there is a possibility the federal government will get
directly involved by negotiating with intermediate bodies, and
this is not in Quebec's best interests with regard to the
housing sector.
I am asking the minister to begin negotiations to ensure that
Quebec gets its fair share. This will be an opportunity for the
minister to properly serve Quebec society.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADA ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION ACT
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
all members of the House should applaud the vision and foresight
of the hon. member for Davenport.
Last night he introduced the endangered species protection act
which calls for the protection of all endangered species and
their habitat in Canada. The bill calls for science based
identification of species at risk and would make listing
automatic. Recovery plans would be required and it would be an
offence to harm, disturb or kill endangered species or their
habitat.
Overwhelmingly Canadians want strong endangered species
legislation. In the words of the hon. member for Davenport,
“this is benchmark legislation for the government to emulate”.
* * *
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is an old saying that when you are thirsty it is too late
to think about digging a well. When it comes to emergency
preparedness this principle is no less true.
That is why in support of Emergency Preparedness Week some
remarkable leadership students from Mount Slesse Middle School of
Chilliwack, B.C., will hold a safety fair tomorrow to educate the
community on how to prepare for an emergency, whether a flood,
earthquake, fire or chemical spill. Such information is timely
and incredibly valuable even as the Fraser River threatens to
overflow its banks in Chilliwack later this month.
Therefore on behalf of the honourable House I thank the
emergency professionals who are giving their time and energy to
support this event and to help the community prepare for such an
emergency.
Most of all, I thank and congratulate the students of Mount
Slesse Middle School for their leadership, their motivation, and
for helping to teach our community that today's preparation
determines tomorrow's success and safety.
* * *
MEDIC ALERT MONTH
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform the House that May has been designated Medic
Alert Month by the Canadian Medic Alert Foundation.
For more than 38 years the Canadian Medic Alert Foundation has
been protecting and saving lives through the use of engraved
bracelets, necklets, wallet cards and a free 24 hour hotline
number, as well as lifetime updates of members' records.
Over 900,000 Canadians benefit from the protection of this
universally recognized emergency medical identification and
information service.
1100
During Medic Alert Month the foundation will launch a campaign
to heighten awareness of its services. I encourage all Canadians
with allergies, certain medical conditions or medications, or
special needs to take advantage of these services.
[Translation]
Let us all wish the Canadian Medic Alert Foundation the best of
success in its public awareness campaign.
* * *
[English]
UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate three students of the
University of Waterloo who last month won the prestigious ACM
International Collegiate Programming Contest in the Netherlands.
These world champions of computer programming, David Kennedy,
Ondrej Lhotak and Viet-Trung Luu, beat out 61 teams from around
the world.
This is the second time in 10 years that the University of
Waterloo has won. Their record, consistently scoring in the top
10 with 2 wins, is the best record of any university in North
America.
I join with my colleagues in congratulating these three young
Canadians and wish them well in what I am certain will be their
very successful futures.
* * *
MICHAEL MARINI
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a resident of Hamilton Mountain and a student of McMaster
University, Michael Marini, was recently in Washington, D.C.
making many new friends and collecting his second place award in
an essay competition which was sponsored by the Centre for the
Study of the Presidency in Washington.
In Michael's essay, “Leadership in the New Millennium”, he
discussed how technology is affecting the electoral process. He
believes that the Internet is an excellent way for voters to stay
in touch with all levels of government and that democracy, via
the Internet, can be brought directly into people's homes.
Michael Marini is yet another excellent example of the
leadership and intelligence of Canadian youth. Michael loves the
cut and thrust of public life and his ambition is to work as a
political consultant. With people such as this young man from
Hamilton Mountain, Canada's future will continue to be a bright
one.
* * *
NISGA'A TREATY
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, did you know that the Nisga'a treaty will allow
unlimited tax and rent increases to non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a
land? Do you think that is not a problem? Ask the non-native
residents of the Musqueam reserve who just got hit with increases
of over 7,000%.
Mr. Speaker, did you know there is a clause in the Nisga'a
treaty that states that if at any time the government signs a
treaty with any other aboriginal group that is more generous than
the Nisga'a treaty, it automatically reopens negotiations?
Mr. Speaker, did you know the Nisga'a treaty allows the banning
of union certification? Do you think it will not happen? The
Kamloops and Westbank bands both recently did this, claiming that
it would interfere with Indian self-determination, despite the
fact that aboriginal workers on the reserves voted in favour of
certification.
Some claim the Nisga'a treaty is necessary to end the
uncertainty over land claims, but the Gitanyow band is now suing
the government and the Nisga'a, claiming that Nisga'a treaty
lands are their traditional lands, and B.C. taxpayers will be
paying the bill for both sides.
Canadians want treaty settlements and so do we, but the treaties
have to make sense. A bad treaty is not better than no treaty at
all.
* * *
MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS INTERNATIONAL OF CANADA
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Medical Assistance
Programs International of Canada, commonly known as MAP, a very
special medical aid agency.
I first became aware of MAP through my work as a member of the
Canada-Cuba Friendship Association. Since the fall of 1995 MAP
has shipped $7.5 million worth of medicine to Cuba to help treat
more than one million people. As well, MAP has shipped more than
$48 million worth of medicine, vaccines and hospital supplies to
more than 60 countries, including Kosovo, since 1990.
MAP's work, which is not for profit, is carried out in
partnership with various departments and agencies of the
Government of Canada.
The products which MAP provides are donated by member companies
of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, the
Non-prescription Drug Manufacturers of Canada and by providers of
vaccines and hospital supplies.
Together Medical Assistance Programs International of Canada and
Canadians are doing their part to improve the health of millions
of people.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL COMPOSTING AWARENESS WEEK
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, May 2 to 8 is
International Composting Awareness Week. The theme is “It's
your turn...Compost”, with the emphasis on the value of compost
in a number of sectors of our society.
According to the last study of the Composting Council of Canada,
over 1,650,000 tonnes of organic matter have been composted,
representing a 23.5% increase in the last two years.
The importance of compost in improving soil quality and the need
for composting are becoming increasingly evident.
The end product is used for gardening, landscaping and various
agricultural and horticultural applications.
1105
Composting is a social commitment to our environment, offering a
means to reduce the production of waste while putting organic
matter to productive use.
It's your turn...Compost.
* * *
[English]
UNITED WAY
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today in the House to pay tribute to the United Way. While most
Canadians know about the United Way's annual fundraising campaign
in October, few are aware of all the preparation necessary to its
success. Right now local branches are putting in place the human
infrastructure of volunteers who will do the required work.
Community leaders from business, labour and government are coming
together as a team to steer the campaign through a series of
special events designed to raise public awareness.
In my riding of Oakville all of this activity begins with a
community leaders' breakfast next Friday. From that starting
point the helping network will spread through the town to involve
as many volunteers as possible. The result will be financial
support to the social and health agencies that are the base of
any resilient community.
Today I want to salute the hardworking staff and the generous
volunteers of the United Way family and to wish them well as they
march together to a successful campaign '99.
* * *
SURREY POLICE OFFICER AWARDS
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
Wednesday evening I had the pleasure of attending Surrey's third
annual police officer of the year awards. The evening, sponsored
by the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, allows the community to
express its gratitude to the men and women of our RCMP
detachment, including regular members and civilian workers, both
municipal employees and volunteers.
I congratulate the following winners: Rusty Ashworth of
Associated Labels for the Police and Business Partnership Award;
Duane Foley for Policing Volunteer of the Year; Simmie Grewal for
Municipal Employee of the Year; and a tie for Police Officer of
the Year, chosen by their peers, Constable Kevin Bracewell and
Corporal Robin Stutt; and Police Officer of the Year, chosen by
the community, Sergeant Gordon Friesen.
The winners were chosen from long lists of nominees who we also
congratulate. Just as important, I wish to extend on behalf of
the constituents of Surrey North our gratitude to all members of
the Surrey RCMP and support personnel for their continuing
dedication and professionalism during what we know are very
difficult fiscal times.
* * *
[Translation]
TVA TELEVISION NETWORK
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Saturday, TVA took up a new challenge and went national, to the
delight of all francophones across Canada.
I wish to congratulate the members of the advisory committee
from each of the provinces for their excellent work, and in
particular TVA and its president, Daniel Lamarre, for his vision
and determination. This is a great step forward for
francophones in Canada.
We know how pervasive a communication tool television is in the
daily lives of Canadians.
Now they will have a much greater selection in the language of
their choice. I wish TVA a long life from coast to coast.
* * *
[English]
WESTRAY MINE
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
Sunday, May 9, will mark the seventh year since the Westray Mine
disaster. The 26 victims of this tragedy, their families and
co-workers have yet to see justice served.
These 26 men were the victims of a corporation that put profit
before workers' lives. Workplace safety and health must be the
first priority. The government and the law have failed the
Westray victims and their families. We must ensure that those
responsible for workplace injuries and deaths are held
accountable.
The New Democratic Party has put legislation before this House
that will hold companies and their managers accountable for
crimes like those at Westray. Unless there are laws to protect
workers there will always be companies that put profits before
safety. Crimes like this must never go unpunished again.
This Sunday, as we spend time with our families and enjoy
Mother's Day, let us mark a moment of silence and prayer for the
Westray miners and their families.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTION IN SCOTLAND
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
people of Scotland took a decisive step toward their future.
Today, after 300 years, the Scottish parliament is alive again
through democratic process and the resolute political will of an
entire people.
We congratulate all parties involved in this exercise, including
the Labour Party, which was victorious, and the secessionist
Scottish National Party, which will be the official opposition
and will defend and promote its option. This historic event is
the expression of a will to debate calmly and democratically the
future of a people and all the legitimate choices available to
it.
The day will come when Scotland, like Quebec, will find its
place among nations, thus sharing with other sovereign states
its common values and proffering its differences to the world as
a whole as an equal partner.
1110
Maîtres chez nous is the expression that defined the Quebec
situation 30 years ago. It transcends the borders of Quebec.
Still relevant today, it underlies the rise of peoples in the
coming millennium.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the latest
separatist strategy is to provoke refusal on the part of the
federal government. Their new trick is playing on the
international stage.
The Parti Quebecois government is spending millions and millions
of our tax dollars to strut about on the international stage
trying to wage flag wars, obviously because of their obsessive
drive to come up with the so-called winning conditions. We are
still wading through a pre-referendum campaign.
In their paranoia, it is the fault of the federal government
that Lucien Bouchard will not be meeting with Mexican President
Zedillo.
The leader of the Bloc forgot to say yesterday that President
Zedillo would simply not be available during Mr. Bouchard's
visit there. The worst part is that the separatists already
knew and nevertheless raised questions regarding the trip of
their venerable leader.
There is a limit to considering people fools. Lucien's lackey
must be really desperate. The polls reveal again this morning
that, in Quebec, the Liberals lead the Parizeau faithful 49% to
36%.
If this trend continues, he will lose the limousine he took from
his leader not long ago.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, tonight the Prime Minister will thumb his nose at
the Canadian voters again when he accepts an honorary degree from
Michigan State University.
The university is using this occasion to celebrate the success
of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In 1988, members will recall, in bitter debates across the
country, the Liberals demonized the Conservative free trade
initiative. Canadians will recall that the Liberals promised to
tear up the agreement when elected.
In 1993 the Liberals insisted in their red book that they would
renegotiate the NAFTA and scrap it if unsuccessful, something
they conveniently forgot when elected, much like their shifty
stance on GST, helicopters and the Pearson airport.
The Prime Minister himself repeatedly said “It is not a good
deal”.
Tonight, when the Prime Minister delivers his commencement
address to the assembled university graduates, it will be
interesting to know if he tells the truth about his disregard for
the Canadian electorate. Will he remind them that he, along with
the Ministers of Finance, Industry, Canadian Heritage,
International Trade and other serving Liberal cabinet ministers
used the NAFTA issue to cynically exploit the concerns of
Canadians? Will he tell the graduates that winning is
everything? Will he tell them that it is not necessary to keep
promises? Or, will he suddenly see the light and tell the
graduates the truth?
* * *
YOUTH VIOLENCE
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the recent shootings in Taber, Alberta and Littleton,
Colorado have once more awakened us to the issue of violence
among children.
What can we do as a nation?
I am reminded of a speech by Hetty Adams, Canada's leading
educator in teaching children the skills of peace, which she gave
a little over two years ago.
Children are not born with violence in their blood, but their
exposure to behaviours of violence have made some desensitized to
it.
When we plant the seeds of self-esteem, tolerance, anger
management, mediation and conflict resolution in the hearts and
minds of our young, we will harvest a citizenry skilled in
peacekeeping and peacemaking.
May the federal government, in collaboration with the provincial
governments, seek to establish nationwide a curriculum in peace
studies at all school levels.
May this be one legacy we leave as a nation as we head into the
new millennium: a citizenry of children and youth who live and
champion the ethics of peace, not tragedies of school violence.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, two years ago my parents had the great misfortune of
experiencing the Canadian health care system in Saskatchewan.
That is when I discovered that even prestigious teaching
hospitals are so understaffed that unless patients have relatives
or friends to help them wash, eat or go to the toilet, they have
a very miserable time.
How can the minister continue to deny that lack of federal
funding has wrecked a system that used to be the envy of the
world, and that recent budgetary measures will not begin to
repair the Liberal damage?
The Liberal's pay more, get less philosophy of government has
resulted in a mass exodus of Canadian doctors and nurses and the
closure of thousands of hospital beds in the last five years.
In terms of service availability, we are on the road to becoming
a third world country.
I wonder which countries we can expect to send medical
missionaries to Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last Wednesday evening, the Liberal members voted against the
Progressive Conservative motion calling upon the government to
develop a new national strategy to support the revitalization of
the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
There is nothing surprising about that, hon. members will agree.
The Liberals have a habit of voting against the opposition.
1115
What is disconcerting is the inconsistency being shown by the
government. The Progressive Conservative motion was an almost
word-for-word copy of one passed by the Liberal Party faithful at
their March 1998 convention. Most of the Liberal MPs supported
it at that time.
Not only is this behaviour inconsistent, but worse than that, it
indicates an unequivocal lack of respect for the Liberal Party
faithful.
No one would ever have believed that the Liberal MPs would treat
their party faithful to the same medicine they dish up for us
regularly in this House: lack of respect plus inconsistency.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all my
NDP colleagues past and present to say thanks to Mr. Bob White,
retiring leader of the Canadian Labour Congress, for over 40
years of service to working people and their families in
communities from coast to coast to coast.
As well, we offer our best wishes to Mr. Dick Martin, retiring
secretary treasurer. Both these men displayed an undying loyalty
to the labour movement and to our party, and for this we will
always be grateful.
Our party also wishes to welcome Mr. Ken Georgetti to the
position of president of the CLC. Mr. Georgetti will continue
the fight to improve the lives of working people, their families
and their communities across the country.
For this we continue our pledge to the CLC and to working with
it.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
jobless rate is up almost a full half per cent. Nearly one and a
half million Canadians are looking for work. Young people are
particularly hard hit.
The government's answer is to look the other way, to turn the
other cheek and to whistle past the graveyard. What hollow words
would the government offer to these people, especially to young
Canadians who are out again today pounding the pavement looking
for work?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think it is enough to look at one month or
another month. One has to look at the underlying trend. The
underlying trend since 1993 has been unmistakably in the
direction of much lower unemployment and strong job creation.
We will continue the efforts that have produced a million and a
half jobs since we took office. This will continue.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
unemployment rate is up, the taxes are up and the brain drain is
up. Meanwhile the standard of living is down and confidence is
down. In fact everything is going down.
Why will the government not make what is up down and what is
down up, cut the taxes and get some Canadians back to work now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one thing for sure is going down and that is the
credibility of the Reform Party.
When it tries to ignore the reality of strong job creation since
1993 its credibility is totally shot. We certainly want to
continue creating more jobs, but we have to recognize that one of
the factors involved is that more people are entering the labour
force because of their optimism about future job prospects.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
they are not in the job force because they were just laid off.
That is the fact. No matter which way the Prime Minister looks
at it, unemployment is up.
Canada's jobless rate is now twice as high as that of our
American counterparts. If high taxes do not drive our talent
south of the border, the unemployment rate will probably
encourage it.
Canadians do not want to hear hollow talk. They want to know
where they can get a job, and they want to get it here in Canada.
One of the ways the government could help fix this is to reduce
taxation levels to the rate of our American counterparts.
Why will it not do something to help unemployed Canadians?
Reduce our taxes now. Let us get some Canadians back to work.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no wonder the credibility of the Reform Party is down.
It refuses to recognize that we are bringing taxes down for all
Canadians with $16.5 billion in tax reductions over the next
three years. This will add to the successful efforts the
government has been making in co-operation with the private
sector to create more jobs for all Canadians.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, even after all the flowery rhetoric the reality is that
when taxes are up unemployment rises, when taxes are up health
care waiting lists get longer, and when taxes are up secondary
education is an unattainable dream for most people today.
These are the realities. Is this what the government is
bragging about: pay more, get less?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the labour rate
there is no question the hon. member across the way has to
recognize that the 15,300 new jobs created this last month is
good news.
Only the Reform Party would believe that job creation is bad
news. When we look at the impact of the unemployment rate, the
participation rate has come up.
Why do people come back into the marketplace? It is because
they have confidence that they can find a job. That is why
Canadians are re-entering the labour force.
I hope the hon. member across the way would recognize that fact
and use that information in his next question.
1120
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the reality is those jobs were created in Ontario and
Alberta, two provinces which have recognized that a lower tax
rate increases jobs. It has proved itself.
It seems that whenever the government identifies a problem it
gets worse. It collects extra taxes for a child poverty
strategy, and more kids and their parents are living in poverty.
It creates a youth employment strategy, and unemployment youth
numbers increase.
Does the government not realize if it takes less in taxes
ordinary Canadians will do a better job looking after themselves?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am so very thankful the hon.
member pointed to Alberta as an example. I would like to quote
from a CP wire story:
I've questioned really the wisdom of the dramatic and drastic tax
cuts in light of deficit financing. It's not how we would have
gone about it. In fact, it's not the way we did go about it...We
were able to eliminate the deficit first, take it one step at a
time, start a debt repayment program and then look at taxation.
It is the Alberta guru. It is what the Reform Party stands for.
It is what it aspires to be. It is Alberta Premier Ralph Klein.
He said take a step at a time.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Human Resources Development is about to announce
consultations regarding the creation of a new program for
children.
Quebec immediately expressed reservations about what appears to
be a new intrusion into its areas of jurisdiction.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister pledge to either transfer the tax
points or, in light of the provisions included in the social
union framework agreement, give Quebec the right to opt out,
with full financial compensation, of any new program that might
be created following the government's consultations?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is a
great day for all Canadian children. The minister and his
provincial counterparts are announcing the first two papers on
the national children's agenda. One is a vision document and one
is a discussion paper.
This shows the beginning of the social union where the provinces
and the federal government have come together. The discussion
paper will now begin to engage all Canadians in fleshing out the
plan and developing which programs will happen in which
provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
aside from the nice rhetoric of the parliamentary secretary, we
know that the social union framework agreement allows the
establishment of Canada-wide programs with the agreement of six
provinces accounting for as little as 15% of the population of
Canada.
Since Quebec already has its own infrastructure for daycare and
child care, will the Deputy Prime Minister immediately promise
that no new program will be imposed on Quebec, and that no
duplication will be created by the policy that the federal
government wants to implement?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no new
program will be imposed on any province. That is the strength of
the social union and the national children's agenda as part of
that social union.
The whole thing about this new arrangement is the flexibility
with which each province will design what it is they want to do
for their own children. Quebec has participated in the past in
these kinds of things.
For example, the national children's benefit, which was the
first step, gave Quebec the money to invest in its family policy
including its $5 a day, day care policy.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a human
resources sub-committee established to investigate children's
needs and to evaluate what is being done in other provinces is
now working on a policy paper for the government.
How is it that the Minister of Human Resources Development today
announced a series of initiatives for poor children, including
support for day care centres and early childhood development,
when the committee has not yet completed its consultations and
has issued no guidelines?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised at my counterpart asking this question. Is she
suggesting that she is against the development of new programming
for children in Canada? That is very surprising to me.
The ongoing discussions in the subcommittee to which she refers
are again part of the fleshing out of a menu of programs that
will be chosen by various provinces according to their own needs,
just the way members of the Bloc Quebecois want to see in most
programming Quebec participates in.
1125
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after
wreaking havoc in social programs by cutting $33 billion in
provincial transfer payments for health care, education and
income security, how dare the Minister of Human Resources
Development, who has no expertise, stick his nose into areas of
provincial jurisdiction, unless it is for political visibility?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I disagree
with the premise of the hon. member's question. It is entirely
the opposite.
The federal government will not be interfering in Quebec's
choices about what it does in the way of family and children's
programming. The purpose of the national children's agenda is to
allow that flexibility so that Quebec can design its own programs
and deliver them to its own people.
* * *
KOSOVO
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, even
as the G-8 agreement gets us closer to a peace settlement in
Kosovo and as the list of people calling for a peaceful
resolution continues to grow, NATO shows no sign of letting up on
its strategy of expanded air strikes and escalating aggression.
My question is for the foreign affairs minister. Why will the
Canadian government not seize on this opportunity to lead the way
for a suspension of the bombing in the Balkans to give peace a
chance?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in the meeting we held yesterday I think we gave
peace a very good chance.
Frankly I would say to the hon. member that the regrettable
decision taken by her party to change its position does not
contribute to that initiative. In fact it weakens the initiative
by taking away the necessary pressure which needs to be
maintained on the Belgrade regime to ensure that it will come to
the table.
We have put down an offer that I think represents Canadian
principles, which is to go to the United Nations and get a
settlement that we can all be satisfied with.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
New Democratic Party has consistently pressured the government to
find a peaceful resolution. Even the Prime Minister has said
that the timing of the stopping of the bombing is something that
can be negotiated.
That time is now. Every day that the government hesitates is a
day marked by more bombs, more destruction and more deaths. Will
the Canadian government call on NATO to suspend the bombing
immediately?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have not been hesitating whatsoever. I have just
spent the last nine days in a round of negotiations with a number
of countries.
We were able to culminate an agreement yesterday at a G-8
meeting. A series of initiatives will go forward to the security
council of the United Nations which includes a series of
conditions that will end the repression and the violence that are
taking place in Kosovo and that will provide the basis for a just
and fair agreement.
I would say to hon. members of the New Democratic Party that I
very much regret that they broke the Canadian consensus and
decided to turn away from a very successful formula which was
necessary.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture has said time and time again that the
AIDA program is open and accessible to all farmers.
An AIDA office was just opened in Winnipeg and I would like to
visit it. Farmers would like to visit the office, but
unfortunately they will not give us their address. They say that
it is not open to the public. I wonder if this is the user
friendly attitude which this minister talks about in the AIDA
program.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the user friendly attitude is that there
have been over 21,000 calls to the 800 number. There is a bank
of people to give information to those who call in. Certainly
that is a more efficient way to have it happen rather than
somebody walking into an office with a handful of papers and
books and saying “will you help me fill out your forms?”
The information is available. We have had dozens of information
meetings, not only with primary producers but with accountants
and accounting firms, and will continue to do so.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
suspect with 21,000 calls the minister would like to make the
access face to face as opposed to just over the impersonal
telephone call.
I have a guest in the gallery who is the general manager of a
very large credit union in small town Manitoba. I ask the guest
if in fact this program—
The Deputy Speaker: We will move on to the next question.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs. I
would like the minister to listen closely to the following quote:
We are the true owners of British Columbia. The Indians across
the province own everything—the rivers, the trees, the bugs, the
animals, you name it. Subsurface rights, the air, the rain, the
whole shot. That's what we mean when we say we have aboriginal
title to the land.
1130
Does the minister agree with the interpretation by the Nisga'a
tribal council chairman, Joe Gosnell, of aboriginal title?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to read the member a quote from this morning's front
page of a British Columbia newspaper. It states:
Reform's enthusiastic hostility to the deal is well known. This
week we caught a glimpse of just how low they'll stoop when the
Liberals bring the treaty to the House of Commons this fall.
One after the other, Reformers disgraced themselves with a range
of questions that displayed everything from wilful distortion to
extreme paranoia.
The article goes on to state:
And this is a party whose leader has designs on broadening it
into the mainstream alternative for government?
As Charlie Brown would say, good grief, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we are proud that we stand up for British Columbians
and we are proud that we stand up for all Canadians. We believe
in equality.
I want to read the quote to the parliamentary secretary again:
We are the true owners of British Columbia. The Indians across
the province own everything—the rivers, the trees, the bugs, the
animals, you name it. Subsurface rights, the air, the rain, the
whole shot. That's what we mean when we say we have aboriginal
title to the land.
My party and Canadians want to know if that is the government's
belief. Is that what aboriginal title is in Canada? Is that
what we mean by equality for all Canadians?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will refer again to the article in this morning's paper. One
of Vancouver's leading newspapers has castigated quite thoroughly
the members of the Reform Party for misrepresenting the good
people and the good views of the people of British Columbia.
This is not true. We have signed a treaty under section 35
within the constitutional framework of this country. It is
legitimate, it is valid and we stand behind it.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMER CAREER PLACEMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, we were informed by an official from the Human
Resources Development Department that almost $400,000 would be
diverted from the summer career placement program in order to
fund an exchange program with other provinces.
Will the minister confirm this diversion of funds from the
summer career placement program?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
diversion of funds for this program.
When two ridings exchange students in the summer, a portion of
the receiving riding's summer career placement funds are
allocated to the students who arrive and take jobs in that
riding. At the same, the students who left a riding, went to
another one and got jobs, assume the funds in that riding. There
is an exchange of money that is fair.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
the very great number of students from Quebec that wish to take
part in this placement program, does the minister not think it
would be a better idea to put in new money, rather than divert
part of this program's budget?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the
questioner must be the only person who is against the mobility of
students learning about their country and other places.
The exchange program is only part of the summer career placement
program. I am glad to tell the House that the amount allocated
across the country for that program remains the same as last
year, $90 million.
If there is a change in the allocation for a particular riding,
it is because the basis of the formula may have changed due, for
example, to the number of local students and the local youth
unemployment rate.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, conditional sentences make a mockery of our already
severely tainted legal system.
Dennis Peters of P.E.I. was recently convicted of impaired
driving for the fourth time. A previous conviction in 1997
landed him in jail for 35 days. This time he got a 60 day
conditional sentence to be served at home. The reason he was
sent home instead of to jail is because he is claustrophobic.
My question is for the justice minister. What deterrence is
there when a repeat offender like Peters is allowed to go home
because he is afraid of his cell?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is now preparing
a report on ways of improving the justice system's handling of
impaired driving.
1135
Rather than grandstanding in the House, I would urge the hon.
member to come and make a more positive contribution to the
preparation of this report.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians want this law changed now. They have spoken
very clearly on this. It is not however long it takes the
committee to make up its mind.
In order for our justice system to work it must be based on
deterrents. Repeat offenders must receive tougher sentences, not
more lenient. When Peters repeated his crime for the fourth time
he was told, “you'd better not do that again”, and he was sent
home.
Chronic drunk driving is a serious crime and it should warrant
serious time. Does this guy have to kill before he is sent to
jail?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as my hon. colleague said, the committee is in the process right
now of preparing its report. In fact we have finished preparing
our report.
I also want to address the issue of conditional sentencing which
has been brought up by the hon. member a number of times in the
House. At the request of the minister, the committee will be
studying conditional sentencing. There are a number of decisions
in which we have to review the intention of parliament in terms
of conditional sentencing. I ask the hon. member to assist us in
the process. I ask his colleagues who sit on the committee not
to bring forth other frivolous motions so we can get on with
conditional sentencing.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs adopted general
principles which ought to lead to a political solution to the
Kosovo crisis.
Since these general principles must become a UN security council
resolution, what approach does Canada plan to use in order to
get China not to use its veto against implementation of these
principles?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as hon. members are aware, the Prime Minister spoke
recently with the Premier of China about a progressive
initiative in the security council. Yesterday, we decided to
approach the Chinese concerning the proposals contained in our
agreement with the Russians.
I believe that there is now a commitment for real consultation
with the Chinese in order to ensure that there is agreement in
the security council, once we have details on the proposal.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it would be most
desirable for this agreement between the G-8 countries to be
accepted not only by the Security Council of the United Nations,
but also by the government in Belgrade. Does Canada consider
the principles of this agreement to be negotiable or is it
prepared to impose them without the agreement of President
Milosevic?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as we announced yesterday in the agreement, we will
be pursuing an article 7 resolution at the security council. An
article 7 resolution is an authoritative mandatory requirement
that applies to all UN members. Through that, we believe we will
be in a position to have an effective engagement with the
Belgrade regime.
In the meantime, there will be ongoing discussions. The
Russians will clearly continue to carry out their own dialogue
and communications. The secretary general will establish an
envoy system. I think there will be full opportunity for
Belgrade to respond we hope in a positive way so we can bring
this conflict to a resolution.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of agriculture promised farmers bankable
assistance in December. It is now May and, while application
forms have gone out, not one cheque has been cashed.
In our minority report we identified $500 million in farm input
taxes, costs and user fees which could be eliminated today
without waiting for any application form.
The premier of Ontario has heeded that advice. He has cut sales
tax to farmers because he knows lower input costs help farmers
now not later. When will the federal government follow suit?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable the lack of knowledge
the hon. member has and his inability to look at information when
it is available to him.
He just stated that not one cheque has been cashed. Over 5,000
applications have come in from across Canada and nearly 2,500
cheques have been sent out. My guess is that they have been
cashed because we know the farmers need the money.
If the member would take his energy in opposing the AIDA program
and use it to encourage producers to send in their applications
maybe more of the 25,000 applications would be sent in so that we
could deal with them. We are sending out cheques.
1140
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the farmers, the bankers and the credit unions are
telling us that this program is virtually useless for a lot of
farmers.
The minister of agriculture's officials have indicated that even
farmers who qualify for this emergency package will only receive
40% of their entitlement now. It will be fall before those few
who do qualify for assistance will receive their full
entitlement.
Are his officials, who said this, wrong? Will farmers really
have to wait until the fall to get help from the government?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the very final clean-up cheque, if I can
refer to it in that way, will be later in the summer, I agree.
The provincial portion and the very large federal portion of the
contribution will go out to farmers as the forms come in and as
the calculations are dealt with. Those cheques have been flowing
and will continue to flow. There will also be interim flows as
they are dealt with throughout the summer.
* * *
[Translation]
TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS WASTE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, in response to a question I put to him, the Minister of
Transport said, and I quote “Canada has perhaps one of the
safest regimes for the transportation of dangerous goods of any
country in the world”.
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
said recently that the federal government was neglecting border
transport of dangerous waste.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment.
How does she plan to respond to the environment commissioner's
allegations, in the light of the complacent remarks by the
Minister of Transport?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department works very closely with
provinces and other jurisdictions internationally to make sure
that all of the articles of the Basel convention are upheld
within this country and around the world.
My department has a protocol that is rigorously carried out,
making sure that we are notified of all transports of hazardous
waste and all manifests are inspected before those wastes are
allowed to travel within this country.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
anyone who looks at the issue will know that community groups can
achieve impressive positive environmental results when provided
with leadership and encouragement from the Government of Canada.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell us what she is doing to
encourage the participation of environmental work at the critical
community level?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Minister of the Environment with very
skilled staff in my department, we take action every day to
improve the environment for Canadians. We work to improve air,
water and all nature issues.
I am very pleased today to announce our first tranche of
projects approved in this country where we will assist people at
the grassroots to improve air, water and climate change, nature
issues. One hundred and sixteen community groups across Canada
will receive—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thanks for that brief commercial message and now back to the
news.
There is more news today showing that the immigration system is
broken. Three Canadian consulates were investigated on charges
of visa fraud and, following the investigation, fourteen of the
minister's employees were charged with criminal offences. How
can Canadians have faith in an immigration system like this?
Will the minister or the government order an investigation of
all the embassies to ensure the safety and security of Canada's
visa system?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us turn
from the comedy channel back to reality.
The integrity of the department lies at the very heart of what
we do as a government. There is no question that any allegation
of illegal activity is taken very seriously both by our
government officials in CIC and the RCMP.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member would not take all his time working on his
first line perhaps he could actually answer the question. I will
try asking it again.
Today there is news that there are three consulates that have
been investigated and fourteen employees have been charged with
criminal offences. This is a challenge to the integrity of the
immigration system. I would surely hope the member could see
that.
I am going to ask a direct question and I expect an answer. Will
the immigration minister or the government order an investigation
of all the embassies to ensure the safety and security of
Canada's visa system, yes or no?
1145
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member stands up and says these people have been charged. They
have been charged because the government is very concerned about
the integrity of the system and that member should be applauding
us for it.
I reiterate that any allegation of wrongdoing is examined by the
government. If we find anything underhanded, any illegal
activity, charges are laid. The member sees the effect of our
investigations.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime
Minister.
I am sure he joined all members of parliament this morning who
were both shocked and disappointed to see the reversal in the
downward trend in the unemployment figures. Was the Deputy Prime
Minister surprised at this reversal this morning? Is it serious
enough for the government to take some steps to bring the
downward pattern back into play again?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are looking at the results of one month. This is not
enough to establish that the very favourable upward trend since
1993 has been reversed. We are obviously watching the situation
very closely.
At the same time, the NDP and all Canadians should be ready to
recognize that the very favourable upward trend has gone on since
1993 with 1.6 million new jobs being created. One month's
results are not enough to say that the trend has stopped. We are
going to be watching the situation very closely.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, just three months ago the Minister of
Human Resources Development said that job prospects for young
Canadians are brighter than they have been in years. This
morning we find that in Ontario more than 50,000 people have been
added to the rolls looking for work. More than half of those are
young people, bringing it up to 15.7%.
Earlier today we heard about the summer career placement program
and the funding it has received. If the government wants to do
something about youth unemployment, would it consider adding
funds to that program so at least people coming out of the
colleges and universities will have a chance for a decent summer
job?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like the Deputy Prime Minister
said, we have to look at the trend and the trend is in fact
improving.
Over 900,000 jobs have been created in this country since
December. Over 15,000 jobs were created in April. What has
happened is that the participation rate has gone up. It has gone
up because the economy is solid. It has gone up because the
fundamentals are right. We have low inflation, low interest
rates, a balanced budget and declining debt to GDP. The economy
is poised to do well. The help wanted index has gone up and that
is always a precursor to better job opportunities. That is what
has happened. I would hope the hon. member would take that into
consideration.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it has been 45 days since the government appointed a minister
responsible for homelessness. We still have seen no plan, no
strategy and no budget to tackle this problem. At the Toronto
summit on homelessness the minister promised to have a plan in
place by the end of April. We are now in the month of May.
When will the minister have a plan and budget in place, or was
this appointment just an empty gesture?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the hon.
Minister of Labour's presence, her work and her past dedication
which has been demonstrated on countless times because of what
she did so successfully in the past, is an empty gesture is
totally unbecoming of the member across the way. He should know
very well that the minister has devoted herself, heart and soul,
to this cause in the past. She continues with that same kind of
enthusiasm in this House, in cabinet and throughout her entire
career.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we do not live in the past. We live in the present. The
minister responsible for homelessness said she is qualified to do
her job because she went to bingos with the homeless. It has
been three years since the government announced it was getting
out of the social housing business.
When if ever will the minister responsible for homelessness have
a strategy to announce on homelessness? Or is she too busy
playing bingo?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rest my case. Those remarks
are even more outrageous than the words we heard previously. It
is not the minister responsible for homelessness. It is nonsense
to suggest in any way that she is responsible for homelessness.
She will be responsible for assisting homeless people in Canada.
That is the exact opposite of what the hon. member just said.
* * *
1150
CHILDREN
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we
listen to the members of the Bloc it is obvious their concerns
are about jurisdiction and money. Our priority is children. Can
the parliamentary secretary to the minister of HRD inform the
House what outcomes we can expect from the Saskatoon meetings?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad my
colleague recognizes the good news nature of the national
children's agenda launch—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult
to hear the answer and the question.
Ms. Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I think it is good news
for all Canadians who are sick of jurisdictional wrangling. They
are happy to see a new level of co-operation that the publication
of the national children's agenda document represents. On the
subject of children, we know that Canadian children do not all
have the same chance to get a good start in life and in fact that
erodes the equality of opportunity we purport to represent.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in response to a question about the lack of
RCMP funding the parliamentary secretary said “bring us the
specifics and we will address them”.
Here are some specifics. Last week the three member federal
drug squad covering the north half of Vancouver Island was
eliminated. In Port McNeill the already short-staffed detachment
lost another constable with no replacement in sight.
When will the minister stop the bleeding, fill the vacant
positions and restore the millions of dollars missing from the
RCMP's core budget?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here are the facts: an additional
$10 million for the B.C. division of the RCMP; an additional $37
million for the RCMP budget; an additional $135 million at the
request of the RCMP to improve the Canadian Police Information
Centre; a memorandum of understanding between Treasury Board,
the RCMP and the Solicitor General so contract positions will be
paid from outside the RCMP's budget.
Let us have fewer myths and more facts.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans has once again been very unfair to
Quebec fishers.
In spite of a 25% increase in the total quota for the northern
shrimp fishery, Quebec fishers will only get 1.6% of it.
The minister had pledged to consult the provinces but did not do
it. Can he explain to Quebec fishers why he is trying so hard to
help Newfoundland fishers? Is it because of his good friend, Mr.
Tobin?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I did consult with the minister of
fisheries of the province of Quebec.
Second, the increase in the value of landings in the province of
Quebec between 1989 and the year for which I have figures, 1997,
was higher in Quebec than in any other province in Atlantic
Canada. The Quebec fishermen are in fact, in terms of increase
in their landings, getting more money than those of any other
province.
My final point is that when it comes to temporary shrimp
licences we allocate on the basis of adjacency and the Quebec
fishers are not adjacent to the Labrador and Newfoundland shrimp.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it has
been announced that there will be severe cuts to the Halifax and
Calgary operations of CBC Newsworld. Not only will this mean
further job losses at the CBC, it runs contrary to the commitment
made by the CBC to the CRTC and Canadians that there would be
significant regional presence. These cuts will guarantee that
the news will be increasingly central Canada based and biased.
Can the minister explain how Newsworld will remain reflective of
all regions after these cuts in Atlantic Canada and the prairies?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more.
* * *
FORESTRY
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the minister responded to questioning at the natural
resources committee that he hoped capital gains changes for
private woodlot owners would be forthcoming. Capital gains
changes and changes to allow for amortization of forestry
maintenance practices are essential for sustainable woodlot
management.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House when such
policies will be forthcoming?
1155
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, there has been considerable
discussion ongoing involving the Department of National Revenue
with respect to interpretive bulletins it issues from time to
time. These discussions have included woodlot owners who have
expressed taxation concerns in the past.
I understand that that work has gone forward very successfully.
We can anticipate in the next short while some adjustments in
those interpretive bulletins that will be favourable to the
woodlot owners.
* * *
REVENUE CANADA
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every summer Revenue Canada uses university and college students
to deliver customs services at airports and border crossings.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of National Revenue. Is Revenue Canada putting Canadians at risk
by using students to do those important jobs?
Ms. Beth Phinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.
Revenue Canada's student hiring policy serves not only to
provide much needed employment to young Canadians but complements
and enhances the department's role to provide both quality
service and protection at the border.
In 1998 Revenue Canada helped almost 800 Canadian university and
college students to acquire life skills and gain work experience
through our successful customs internship program. Student
customs officers perform selected routine duties which allows our
customs inspectors to concentrate on higher risk tasks.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the economic artery to the south Okanagan is about to be cut off.
Talks between Transport Canada and the Penticton Indian band over
the land claim against the Penticton airport site are at an
impasse. We are now just eight days away from the next transfer
date and the Penticton Indian band is still opposed to the
transfer of the airport to the city of Penticton.
When will the government act and appoint a mediator to end this
deadlock for the south Okanagan?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we realize that there have
been problems in the negotiation process in this situation. It
is a very delicate one.
The government as well as the parties concerned, the
municipality, as well as the chief and representatives of the
Indian band, have been working diligently in this area. We hope
that on May 15 they may come to some conclusion and settle this
issue once and for all to the betterment and to the benefit of
all parties concerned.
* * *
[Translation]
ASTRONOMIE QUÉBEC MAGAZINE
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is concerned—and rightly
so—about the dumping of American magazines in Canada, is
certainly not indifferent to the problems caused to Astronomie
Québec by the French edition of the Sky News magazine, which is
funded by a federal museum.
Since the Museum of Science and Technology did not deem
important to comply with the request made the standing committee
on heritage to negotiate an arrangement with Astronomie Québec
before publishing its own astronomy magazine, how does the
minister intend to compensate the Quebec publication, whose
excellence has been recognized for decades in the Francophonie?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, here is a political party looking for problems. I have
here a question put by the hon. member for Québec on June 22,
1995, in which her party was specifically asking that the Museum
of Science and Technology publish the magazine in French.
Now, they are blaming us because the magazine is published in
French, while four years ago they were blaming us because it was
not published in French.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
northern fishers and producers are facing an economic crisis in
their communities. This message was heard 30 years ago in 1969
when the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was created with a
northern transportation program.
Will the government now listen to northern fishers who are
facing an economic crisis in 1999? Will the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans review the FFMC monopoly on processing and
marketing, and will he reinstate a fair transportation program?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct at least in
reference to the importance of the inland fishery.
Freshwater fish are a very important part of our exports and,
indeed, a very important part of the economy of the small
communities of the northern prairie provinces.
1200
Where he is incorrect is to say that we have not followed up and
done everything we can to encourage the maximum return to the
fishermen. Breaking up the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board is
very similar to the arguments which we hear in the House about
breaking up the wheat board. If the New Democratic Party wants
to go on record as being against the wheat board and the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, let it say so clearly. We think
that both serve a useful purpose.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker,
downstream petrochemical producers and consumers are fearful of
an increased carbon tax being charged at the gas pump.
Can the Minister of Finance assure the House that no increase in
federal gasoline tax is about to be levied?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has addressed this question. The
Minister of Finance has addressed this question. The Minister of
the Environment has addressed this question. The former Minister
of Natural Resources has addressed this question. I have
addressed this question. Every answer, every time, has been “no
carbon tax”.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is Mental Health Awareness Week.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health tell
the House what Health Canada is doing in the area of mental
health research?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that very
serious question.
During Mental Health Awareness Week it is important for everyone
to know that, while it is the provinces that deliver front line
services, the federal government plays a very important role in
helping to remove the terrible stigma of mental illness and to do
the research that is necessary. We have invested some $19
million in mental health research. We know that the new Canadian
Institute of Health Research will continue the important work on
mental health.
I thank the member for his question because there are a number—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the
parliamentary secretary can continue at another time.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have
the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the
government's response to the seventh and eighth reports of the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “The
Nunavut Report” and “The Prince Edward Island Report”.
[Translation]
I thank the committee members and chair for the time and effort
they put into preparing these reports, and I am sure that the
response will be well received.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
1205
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report
of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government
Operations.
[English]
In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, April 26,
1999, your committee has considered Bill C-78, the public sector
pension investment board act, and agreed on Thursday, May 6,
1999, to report it with amendments.
[Translation]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
seventh report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development.
This is a provisional report on the pressing problems noted by
the committee when it traveled to northern Quebec and Nunavut in
May 1998 as part of its study of aboriginal economic
development. It recommends that the government act quickly to
meet the basic needs of northern Quebec's Cree and Inuit with
respect to housing and Nav Canada infrastructures.
The committee has asked that the government respond within 30
days.
[English]
INDUSTRY
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of
the Standing Committee on Industry on the main estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.
* * *
PETITIONS
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the pleasure to present a petition signed by many Canadians. The
petitioners are asking parliament to amend the Divorce Act to
include a provision, as supported by Bill C-340, that would allow
the grandparent of a child to have access to the child and to
ensure the well-being of the child without having to go to court.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to present petitions on behalf of those
who seek the amendment of the Divorce Act to allow grandparents
to have access to their grandchildren. It is a very laudable
objective indeed.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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 a consequential amendment to
another act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to
split my time with the hon. member for Churchill.
I rise today to say a few words regarding 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.
The impression we get is that the government is actually doing
something about housing in the country. Perhaps this comes as a
surprise to people. When we think that the government is going
to change the National Housing Act and the CMHC act, it could be
implied that it has decided to take some initiative to improve
the housing situation in Canada.
We know, without any question, that there are tens of thousands
of people in the country who do not have a home, period. They
are living on the streets, in parks, under bridges and so on
around the country. We heard earlier today the government whip
indicating that the government had appointed a cabinet minister,
the Minister of Labour, to co-ordinate some activity to deal with
this issue of homelessness in Canada.
We would assume that when we are dealing with Bill C-66, an act
that deals with housing in Canada, there would be some reference
or some indication that the government is actually going to do
something about the homeless situation, but in fact the answer is
that it is doing absolutely nothing. This is not a good day for
the people who are living under bridges and the homeless in the
country.
1210
Let us agree, among ourselves at least, that to have a housing
problem in Canada is rather unusual. We have more land available
than every single country in the entire world, except one. We
have land from coast to coast to coast. We have billions and
billions of hectares of land.
We have trees in every single province and territory. When we
fly across the country we see that we have trees from coast to
coast. We have millions of hectares of trees, except for Nunavut
which does not have any trees, but we could always ship a few up
to those people if they need some. For most people, we have
trees coming out of our ying yang. We have trees everywhere.
Think about it. Our banks are filled with money. We have an
unbelievable amount of land at our disposal. We have lumber
from coast to coast to coast. To have a housing problem, we have
to work at it. We have to really work at it. There is not a
single reason there should be a housing problem in this country.
We hardly have any people compared with most other countries. We
have housing technology and everything else. There must be a
reason for this problem.
The problem is sitting right over there. That is the problem.
We do not have a government with any inclination to improve the
housing situation in this country. We should take this
legislation, tear it up, throw it away and say enough—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys is an experienced and capable
member of this House and he knows it is quite wrong to use props.
Tearing up bills and other papers in the course of his speech is
surely using the document as a prop. I know that he is excited
about the subject and feels passionately about the issue, but
perhaps he could constrain himself a little and comply with the
rules.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is tough to constrain
myself. I appreciate the fact that I should not have torn up
that bill, but I am fed up. I am fed up with this government. I
am fed up with its lack of attention to housing and I am fed up
when I talk to people who cannot find decent housing for their
families.
We are talking about Bill C-66, which would change the housing
act and the CMHC, but we are not doing anything about housing.
We are making it worse. Imagine that. This bill will make
housing worse in the country. What are we doing here? We should
all run out of here before this bill proceeds any further, but I
know we are not going to do that. We have to hang in here, so I
will say a couple of words.
What is so depressing is that governments are elected to serve
Canadians. We have a very serious housing problem facing our
country. I am looking particularly at a number of groups. I
will identify two that immediately spring to mind. One group is
the young people of this country; the young people who have
worked hard to get decent training and education, who have
hustled to get work, who are working often at two or three part
time jobs, although some have decent jobs. They are trying to
save money. They cannot afford to put a down payment on a house.
They cannot afford housing. One would think that there must be
some program we could introduce to assist them.
That is to say nothing about the aboriginal peoples of the
country. If there is an embarrassment, it is that. We should
hang our heads in shame and say we are disgusted and ashamed that
we have allowed this situation to develop in terms of aboriginal
housing in virtually every part of the country. There is
something wrong. It is a disgrace.
The homeless issue is sad. There are people living under
bridges by the thousands in this country. It is an embarrassment
in one of the richest countries in the world. We should be doing
something about it, but we are not. We are making it worse.
We are not alone in this. Back in 1993 the government said
“we're outta here”. It said that it was out of housing and
that it would not do anything more for housing, that it would not
put another cent into housing, that it would not put a new nickel
or quarter into social housing. In 1993 that was the big
announcement. It was embarrassing that the Liberals cheered this
announcement.
They said, “Hey, great news. We are cutting back on social
housing”. I remember that day. There was applause in here when
they announced that they were not going to spend any more money
helping people get into social housing. Members across the way
applauded. I think most members would find that there is
something very seriously wrong with this picture.
1215
The Liberals then said, “We are out of here. We are not going
to put another new nickel into social housing. As a matter of
fact, we are going to get out of the business completely. We are
going to fob it off to the provinces. We are going to download
it onto the provinces so that they can carry the can on social
housing”. They did download it onto the provinces over the last
number of years and are still doing it.
What are the provinces doing? Are they any better? They are
worse. They are not doing anything either with a couple of
exceptions, to be fair. To our friends here who are representing
the province of Quebec, Quebec has programs in social housing. I
am pleased to say that the province that I represent, British
Columbia, is doing something in social housing. As a matter of
fact it just announced an increase in hundreds of units of social
housing.
The provincial government alone says, “We are out here all on
our own. We get no help from the federal government, not one
whit. We need social housing in British Columbia and if we have
to do it we are going to expand with hundreds and hundreds of new
social housing units”. We should be cheering the province of
British Columbia for at least picking up that initiative.
We have the province of British Columbia, not only maintaining
its social housing but expanding its social housing, we have the
province of Quebec and that is about it. That is all the social
housing we are seeing by and large across the country.
We have a serious problem. That is why we were hoping that when
we looked at Bill C-66 dealing with housing that we would see
some initiatives.
We heard some very eloquent speakers before me comment about a
variety of issues on why they are concerned about this. I want
to identify clause 38 of this legislation. This is a pathetic
clause. Under clause 38, it allows the CMHC, the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, to waive provisions of existing
agreements. What does that mean? It means that under this
clause an agreement between CMHC and a housing co-op or
non-profit corporation could be ripped up and people living in
co-ops or social housing could see their homes sold out from
under them. That is what this little clause means about
provisions regarding existing agreements.
We tried to get a clarification in committee whether this means
that if the government deems it appropriate it can say to
co-operative housing organizations across the country, “Too
bad, we're getting out of it”. We have not received a decent
answer.
That is why we are opposing this legislation so strongly. We
tried it at second reading but it did not work. We tried it in
the committee. We tried to get the Liberals to understand that
we have to do something about housing. They said, “No. We are
not going to do anything about housing. We are out of housing.
We don't even like social housing”. They probably did not say
that, but I guess that is what they were really meaning.
So here we are at third reading, the last gasp. We are just
going down the tube here. This is it. At the end of the day the
government is gone and that will be it for social housing from
coast to coast to coast. It will be a sad day not only for
people who are looking for homes today, not only for people who
are living in shabby, dastardly housing conditions, but more
importantly a bad day for Canada generally.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
rise to speak to the third reading of Bill C-66, an act to amend
the National Housing Act and the CMHC act.
As my hon. colleagues from Kamloops has mentioned, a more
accurate and descriptive title for the bill would be an act to
destroy the National Housing Act or an act to throw Canadians out
on the street.
I have been disgusted with the Liberal government's duplicity.
Homelessness is at a crisis in Canada. We have just come through
one of the worst winters ever with homeless people freezing and
dying on the street. The Liberal government's policies are
responsible for this travesty. It has slashed transfer payments
to the provinces. It has abandoned social housing and left
overburdened provincial and municipal governments to pick up the
pieces. It is a disgrace.
When Canadians walk the streets of their communities they see
this crisis with their own eyes. The evidence is everywhere. All
the Prime Minister has to do is walk down the street here in
Ottawa, just a few metres from Parliament Hill, to see the
evidence. There are homeless people pleading for help. It is
the same in every city and town in Canada from Thompson to
Toronto. The Liberal government is either so out of touch with
what is going on out there and it does not see the problem or it
just does not care.
There has been report after report on this issue: the Golden
report, the report submitted to the Minister of Finance by the
New Democratic Party's social policy critic, the member for
Vancouver East.
1220
The member for Vancouver East travelled from coast to coast,
including to Thompson and South Indian Lake in my riding. She
has met with people on the front lines of the crisis and people
who work with the homeless and, unlike the Liberal government,
actually cares about them as human beings. However, her report,
like the Golden report, is sitting on a shelf somewhere in the
finance minister's office collecting dust.
The Liberal government has done nothing, not a thing. Of
course, the government says it cares, just like it said it cared
about victims of hepatitis C and just like it said it would get
rid of the GST.
The prime minister appointed the Minister of Labour as his
minister responsible for homelessness. This minister would not
even go before the committee studying the bill. According to the
Liberals on the committee, housing and homelessness are not
related. That is the typical Liberal government logic. It is
like saying hospitals and health care do not go together.
This raises an interesting question about the Liberal
government's attitude. Why do we even need a minister
responsible for homelessness when there is already a minister
responsible for housing? One would think that homelessness would
be something that the minister of housing ought to be responsible
for. After all, he is responsible for making sure Canadians have
homes. There must be more Liberal government logic at work here.
The fact that the Liberal government has appointed a minister
responsible for homelessness separate from the minister of
housing should speak volumes. It says that the government sees
homelessness as something that is always going to be there and
therefore needs a minister to look after it. It clearly does not
see homelessness as something the minister of housing can or
should be doing anything about. Heavens, no.
Instead, the minister of housing brought us this bill to gut and
privatize social housing. That is the Liberal government's idea
of what the minister of housing is for. Apparently that
minister's job is to create homelessness so that the minister for
homelessness has some work to do. This bill is the last nail in
the coffin of social housing in Canada.
I know that makes the Reform Party giddy with joy. The Reform
Party even brought in amendments to try and get the bill to go
further. It is just like the years 1993 to 1997 when it pushed
the government to cut more, cut taxes and cut dollars going to
health care and social assistance. What do we have now? We have
a health care crisis. The Reform Party is now pushing to cut
social housing even more just to make the crisis for homelessness
even worse.
I do not know how members of the Liberal government can say they
care about homelessness when they are doing the exact opposite of
what they say. They have abandoned social housing in seven out
of the ten provinces. It may be eight soon.
We all know the Liberal government has more or less finished a
deal with the Conservatives in Ontario. It is just waiting to
see whether or not the Conservatives get re-elected so it can dot
the i's and cross the t's in that agreement. It will
not make much difference if the Liberals or the Conservatives get
elected in Ontario. When it comes to housing, they pretty much
agree.
Howard Hampton of the Ontario NDP is the only party that is
coming out in support of social housing in Ontario. Then there
is Manitoba where the Liberal government has already downloaded
social housing onto the province. The Filmon government has
already begun phasing out all funding for social housing. Every
cent for social housing will be gone if Mr. Filmon and the
Manitoba Conservatives get a chance to finish what this Liberal
government started.
The one shred of good news in all this has been the news that
co-op housing will not be part of the download in Ontario. The
Liberal government has spared the Ontario co-ops. Of course,
this does not exactly warrant a lot of gratitude. That would be
like being grateful to a mugger for leaving our pocket change but
taking the rest of our money.
The Liberal government is still downloading non-profit social
housing corporations and aboriginal housing corporations. In
seven provinces that have already been downloaded, the Liberal
government did not spare the co-ops. If the Liberals truly are a
national party, they should prove it by reversing the downloading
of co-ops in those other seven provinces. Better yet, they
should not download any social housing at all. Housing is a
national responsibility not a provincial one.
Bill C-66 takes the Liberal government's attack on social
housing to new heights. The bill paves the way for the
privatization of social housing. It opens the door wide for
private for-profit corporations to be recognized as social
housing providers by the CMHC. Of course, once we privatize
social housing it is not social any more. As the name indicates,
for-profit companies are in business to make money not provide a
service. Social housing is a service not a business.
It is a service to help put a roof over people's heads. Housing
is not cheap and many low income people need subsidized housing
or they would have no choice but to live on the streets. These
people are not living in mansions. Many social housing units
barely meet minimum standards, but at least they give people
warm, dry places to sleep.
1225
What does the bill do to the National Housing Act and the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act? It guts them. It guts the
acts that govern social housing in this country. It eliminates
the minimum standards that were built into the old legislation
for social housing to be clean, safe and affordable.
Logically, what is the Liberal government saying by eliminating
these minimum standards? It is saying that it does not think the
homes of Canadians should have to meet even the most minimal
standards. It is saying that Canadians do not deserve even a
minimal level of safety, cleanliness and affordability.
The only logical reason for the government to get rid of these
standards is so that it does not have to live up to them. That
is what it has done for years in most first nations communities
throughout Canada. It is shocking and appalling that it is
knowingly and willingly removing minimum standards from homes in
Canada.
The Liberal government cannot say it did not know that was what
it was doing. My New Democratic Party colleague from Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton raised amendments at report stage to put these
standards back into the bill but the Liberal government voted
them down. How does the government try to justify this? The
CMHC bureaucrats who wrote the legislation say they need
flexibility. I am all in favour of flexibility but not
flexibility without standards. Flexibility is good, but we
cannot give bureaucrats and private social housing providers the
flexibility to reduce cleanliness, safety and affordability of
social housing below basic human standards. It is not right.
Speaking of not meeting basic human standards, let us talk about
aboriginal housing. The housing conditions of first nations
people in Canada, whether one is talking about remote first
nations or urban ghettos, are a disgrace.
The minister of Indian affairs has been to a number of remote
first nations. She has seen the conditions in my riding and in
other northern communities. She has seen the pillows stuffed in
the holes in the walls to keep out the winter cold. She has seen
homes wrapped in plastic to keep them warm and homes without
running water or toilets. She has seen all this, but the
minister of Indian affairs has done nothing.
The Liberal government has done nothing about aboriginal housing
but make a few token gestures. Small token gestures are all that
the government has shown to its gathering strength policy.
Conditions on first nations are so bad that even the United
Nations has condemned them. Now we are saying we should keep on
going and do this throughout the rest of Canada instead of
improving where we should be. Watching the decline of social
housing since the Liberal government took power has been like
watching one of the ancient Greek tragedies where everyone dies
in the end. Every Canadian will lose because of what the Liberal
government is doing with this bill.
Housing is part of the foundation of our economy. People cannot
be expected to get training or to look for jobs and add to our
economy if they are busy struggling to survive on the streets. By
giving people a roof over their heads and a chance to make
something of their lives, social housing provides a boost for our
economy. It prevents people from falling through the cracks.
The bill will privatize social housing and it will raise rents,
lower standards and put people on the streets. This bill will do
more harm than good to our economy and our society. It is cruel.
It is short-sighted. I do not know how the Liberal backbenchers
over there can sleep at night. I hope some of them will show a
shred of conscience and help us in the opposition to defeat the
bill when we vote on it one last time.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a
comment and ask a question as a result of the comment.
After listening to the hon. member's speech, it would seem to me
that the hon. member mixes up two very important terms: the
issues of homelessness and housing. They are not synonymous. The
issue of homelessness is a broader issue. If the hon. member has
read the Golden report, which I hope she has and recognizes that
it was sponsored in part by the federal government, the report
shows that the issue of homelessness is a multifaceted issue.
In the city of Vancouver, where there is a great deal of
homelessness and the issues of prostitution, urban natives and
drug addiction, the government has recently put in $5 million to
coordinate a strategy between three levels of government: between
the people who live in the area and between the non-governmental
organizations in the region to be able to work horizontally
within and between governments and communities to come up with a
coordinated, comprehensive, holistic response to these issues.
1230
Not only was money put in to do this issue, but recently money
was put in to the urban aboriginal strategy to help aboriginal
people in cities to work toward a plan of action they can
administer to find solutions to some of these issues. It needs
to be co-ordinated.
Does the hon. member understand the difference between
homelessness and lack of housing?
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, anyone who would
suggest that homelessness does not go in line with housing is
dreaming in Technicolor. Certainly there are situations where
that may not be the key issue, but I can say without any doubt in
my mind the reason that a number of first nations people leave
their first nations to go into cities and elsewhere is the lack
of proper housing in first nation communities.
If the government were truly committed to addressing the problem
of homelessness, why is the minister responsible for homelessness
not being given a budget? What is she supposed to do? Are we
supposed to look out there on the street and say make it go away?
It will not happen. The crisis will get much worse if there is
not a serious effort to address the problem.
By downloading social housing and not supporting social
housing programs we are increasing the crisis that much more.
There will be that many more people on the streets.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to debate Bill
C-66 at third reading. It is an act to amend the National
Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Act. It is also
a sad day for Canadians. We all know that the bill will pass
because the Liberals will use their majority to pass it, I
suspect some time next week.
When the bill was introduced in committee we were allowed to
submit amendments to it. We supplied a few. One of them was
with reference to subclauses 18 (1) and (2) on page 7 of the
bill. We requested the addition of a subsection (3) which would
require the government to spend an amount equal to compensation
paid by CMHC to the Receiver General for Canada in return for the
federal government's backing of its loan insurance and guaranteed
operations on social housing. It was defeated in committee.
Let me explain what the amendment was all about. If I lived in
a rural area of Canada and had a seasonal job, in the wintertime
I would have to rely on EI to feed my family. If I wanted to get
ahead in life, I would try to obtain a loan to put a roof over
the heads of my kids and my wife.
I would go to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and would
be considered a high risk. There is not a bank in the country
that would give me a mortgage; I would be told absolutely no.
However, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation would assume
this high risk so that I could build a house for my family. If
something happened and I could not pay for the house, the
government would guarantee CMHC 100% of the mortgage insurance.
When the bill goes through the government will not guarantee a
penny to CMHC. Yet the governments wants the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation within the next three or four years to give
it $198 million. The government wants to take $198 million out
of the corporation and put it into its general account and waste
it like it has been doing since 1993 when it came to power.
My amendment was defeated in committee. It was a shame, but
that is the way it is. The money is lost to CMHC forever. It
could have been used for social housing, but it will be put into
the general revenues of the government.
1235
It could be spent on something like the million dollar plastic
dinosaur that the government is building in Alberta or the grant
the Department of Canadian Heritage gave to publish a book of
dumb blonde jokes.
We were sent to the House of Commons by Canadians to be their
representatives. We have a mandate to fight for the concerns of
Canadians, to make sure the economy moves well, and to create
programs so that there will be prosperity in the country and the
economy will be booming.
I do not think spending money to publish a book on dumb blonde
jokes and creating a plastic dinosaur in Alberta is good for the
economy. People are living in shacks. Families with young
children are living, eating and sleeping in their cars. This is
Canadian society today.
While the flexibility to offer new products is welcome—and I
welcome that because we need new products—the changes eliminate
the advantages of government underwriting. Forcing the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation to cover any loss will decrease
the willingness to finance high risk borrowers such as low income
people. It may also make it more difficult for borrowers in more
remote locations to qualify for mortgage loan insurance. I am
not the one saying this; it has been reported.
Another of my party's amendments concerned clause 25. We would
have liked it to be amended by deleting lines 19 to 24 on page 19
and line 35 on page 19 and replacing it with subclause 6(7).
Again, for the record, that amendment was defeated.
CMHC has a board of directors with a good balance of five highly
qualified professionals: a chairman, a president, a
vice-president and two public servants. It also has five
political appointees. Clause 25 in Bill C-66 proposes changing
the composition of the board so that there would be a majority of
eight political appointees, with only the chairman and the
president remaining on the board.
I asked on a number of occasions how this change would benefit
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and/or the clients it
serves. The only answer was that all other crown corporations
were doing it. Is that a logical answer? To me it is not.
On three different occasions on the same amendment I asked
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials in briefings
what problems existed that needed solutions. They gave no
answer. I asked them how it would improve service to Canadians
and they had no idea. I believe this change is totally
unnecessary.
At least we have five highly qualified professionals on the
board who know what they are talking about as far as the
corporation is concerned and five political appointees. With the
new bill some of these individuals will be pushed aside and eight
political appointees and two highly qualified professionals will
sit in their place. Does that make sense? To me it does not.
Under the new bill the changes would remove any reference to
fair rents in providing RRAP assistance to private landlords.
Any provisions for urgent repairs have been removed. Transfers
from the governor in council to CMHC authority to determine
amount of RRAP forgiveness, household incomes, household needs
and attributing household incomes have been deleted. Specific
reference to non-profit corporations has been removed.
1240
I will now go to sections 78 to 83, the public housing section.
The changes rationalize the flexibility of the 1996 social
housing transfer agreement by eliminating the need for global
agreements. They remove the restrictions on decent, safe and
sanitary housing. They remove the low income restrictions.
Consistent with the changes under other sections of the act, all
references to low and modest incomes have been removed. Overall
the bill is defining social housing out of existence.
In section 95 dealing with programs, the definition of eligible
contribution recipients has been eliminated. The reference to
section 27, non-profit status, has been removed. The social
housing character of section 95 has been defined out of the
legislation.
What is good in the bill? I do not see too much in it. From
1985 to 1993 under the previous Conservative government funding
for social housing rose by 73%. That is how much money was put
into social housing under this program. I even have the figures
to show how much social housing was built by the previous
government from 1985 to 1993. From 1993 to the end of 1998 when
the government took power, the number of units in Canada declined
by 3%.
We are not in 1993 any more. We are in 1999. There is a crisis
out there. It is not a problem; it is a crisis. People do not
have homes and the government is cutting social housing.
A couple of weeks ago a new minister for homelessness was
appointed and was asked a question. She rose in the House and
said she was not the minister for homelessness. Last week she
gave a speech in the province of New Brunswick in which she told
the audience she was the minister for homelessness.
I would ask the government or the minister responsible for
homelessness what is her mandate in this new portfolio. She does
not know. She does not know if she is the minister or if she is
not.
She had a meeting with the mayor of Toronto not long ago. There
were articles this morning in the National Post and the
Toronto Sun in which she was quoted as saying “I went to
bingos with you homeless people. I know your problems and I am
going to make things happen”. The mayor of Toronto now calls
her bingo mom. That is a shame.
I asked two questions in the House during question period. Some
Liberals screamed that they were not good questions. I do not
want to discredit the minister responsible for homelessness. I
know her past. She is from New Brunswick and I am also from New
Brunswick. For 25 or 30 years she was very good with the program
she started. However I am not a person who lives in the past.
What I did 20 years ago is irrelevant today. Now she has a job
as a member of parliament and has been appointed minister to see
what can be done to help homeless people and if there can be a
better housing policy.
1245
The minister should have come back a long time ago, it was 45
days ago. She was supposed to have something at the end of April.
Now we are in the month of May and there is still nothing.
While the minister was in Toronto, she was to have a meeting
with the mayor of Toronto. She was supposed to have that meeting
within 30 days, on April 29. I am quoting the mayor of Toronto
when he said “but the bingo mom did not show up and now I cannot
get a date for another meeting”. What is the minister's
mandate?
It is not something that needs to be fixed next year or in five
years time. As I said a while ago, it is not a problem, it is a
crisis in this country.
I am on a task force that was organized by the leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party. I travel around Canada to meet
with special groups. I have been to Vancouver. I have been to
Edmonton. I have been to Calgary. I have been to Saskatoon. I
have been to St. John's, Newfoundland. I have been all over.
Next Monday I will be in Charlottetown. The stories told to us
by people who have appeared before our committee are unreal.
I was in the United States about nine years ago. When I came
back to Canada I was a proud Canadian. Many times we hear it
said that Canada is the best little country in the world. Say
that to those people who appeared before our committee and we
will hear firsthand what those people have to say.
As a member of parliament representing Canadians and especially
the constituents in my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac, I cannot
believe that a country as rich in resources and minerals as
Canada with the big population we have cannot afford a social
housing policy.
Instead of helping those people, we are cutting social housing.
This bill is taking everything out of social housing. This bill
will pass. The Liberals will use their majority to pass it, and
when the bill passes there will be no more social housing policy.
It is the end of this country's social housing policy.
When the Liberals were first elected they were on a roller
coaster ride for two years. In 1995 they finally realized there
was a problem with social housing. Instead of tackling that
problem, facing the problem and taking care of it then, they
decided to download it to the provinces. They decided to give
their problems to the provinces.
Now that we are in a crisis the same Liberal government will not
accept the responsibility. It blames the provinces, like it did
with health care and like it did with Mike Harris in Ontario.
The Liberals cut health care. They cut the transfer payments by
40%. Then the provinces had to cut the hospitals. Then the
Liberal government blamed the provinces for the crisis. Is that
logical?
I do not care which party governs, we are here to represent all
Canadians. We should throw partisan politics out the door. We
should work together as one to make sure that all Canadians have
a home. That is a basic need. I do not see that happening on
the other side of the House at all.
This bill will take us into the international market. I am not
against that, because it will create jobs here in Canada within
that market. The problem is wider than that. My dad always told
me that charity begins at home. We have a problem in Canada.
Instead of running abroad, we should try to fix the problems
here.
In closing, we will be opposing this bill because we believe in
Canada and we believe in its people. It is time that members of
this House got together.
Look at our party's record.
I have a copy right here of the record of the last Progressive
Conservative government from 1984 to 1993. It lists the number
of units built and the amount of money that was put into the
social housing of this country. We see a big difference between
where we were and where we are. We are going backward in that
regard but the years are going ahead. So are we backtracking
here?
1250
It has been an honour for me to speak about social housing and
Bill C-66. Again, my party and I cannot support the bill because
it has all the wording about social housing taken out of it. I
cannot support a bill like that.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about housing in
Canada.
We have before us today a bill to make some changes to the CMHC.
I emphasize that home ownership is a cherished value in Canada.
For most of my generation when we graduated from university we
got married and the first thing we did was plan to purchase that
first house. It is incredible when I think about it. At that
time my wife and I chose to live on one salary. We decided that
she would be a full time mom to our children. We were able to
borrow the money and make the payments on my income of the day. I
am sure everyone will be pleased to know and young people will be
especially pleased to know that my salary when I was first
working in my profession was a little under $6,000 a year. With
that I was able to borrow money and start our first home.
A young couple starting today cannot do that. They cannot
afford to have their children. They cannot afford to have a
house unless they are both working. Even then with all of the
taxes and the GST on top of all of that, it is really tough for
young people nowadays to get started.
The bigger issue by far is the affordability of homes in this
country. CMHC at least in theory and in its philosophy is
supposed to support the notion of making housing more affordable.
Through the CMHC the government, the taxpayer, takes on a certain
amount of the risk of providing the money to purchase homes.
That is one of the things government can do but I think the
government should have done it in the past. I am talking about
the governments of the past 30 years. We will go all the way
back to 1970.
The governments since then have racked up so much debt and
increased the payments of interest on that debt. I would hold
the Liberal government, the Conservative government after that
and the present Liberal government accountable for that. Young
people nowadays have such a high tax load that it is very
difficult for them to get their own housing.
I am basically supportive of measures that would provide for the
ownership of homes or that would make it possible for young
people to own their own homes. It is a good model of housing
that we have. It is quite different from some countries where
the thought of owning your own home or your own apartment is
totally elusive. It is part of the dream, part of the
initiative, part of the psyche of our country that can help us in
this ongoing problem of productivity. It motivates us. There is
something special about being able to own your own place, to make
your own decisions on how you decorate it and how you live.
I have some concerns about the bill. I have some concerns about
CMHC extending its industry around the world. I wish we would
concentrate on the problems in this area within our own country.
We certainly support helping other nations to a degree through
our foreign affairs department and through our humanitarian
efforts around the world.
However when it comes to something like this, CMHC should
concentrate on Canadian enterprise, Canadian housing, and not get
involved in other countries to that extent.
1255
The other thing that is somewhat troubling is that CMHC expends
taxpayers' money, or at least it has the potential of doing so.
It is supposed to be designed in such a way that it turns a small
profit or operates evenly, but it does have the potential of
spending public money. It should always be held accountable
through the minister and through parliament to the taxpayers.
This bill falls short in that regard.
There should be some amendments made to it so that the Canadian
taxpayer is protected and we do not give a blank cheque to the
minister to spend as much money as he or she wishes. We like to
think that would not be out of control. Accountability is always
important to make sure that does not happen.
I conclude by saying that a bill like this one deserves some
level of support because there are some good things in it but
amendments should be made. I emphasize over and over again that
our first obligation to young people and young families in our
country in terms of home ownership is to reduce their taxes so
they have enough of their earnings left over and they can pay for
their mortgages and own their own homes.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I am very honoured to speak on the issue of housing.
It certainly is a wake-up call for a lot of Canadians,
especially a lot of people in my constituency, to see the effects
of Bill C-66 on our communities. It will mean wholesale changes
in the structure of housing in my communities.
A lot of the responsibilities have already devolved from federal
to provincial authority. There is also concern about on reserve
housing in aboriginal communities and contributions that the
federal government has made for the development of communities
and their infrastructures.
When one sees social housing coming to an end as a national
program, Bill C-66 seems to punctuate it. In Canada we have such
pristine land that gives us natural resources of timber, rock,
minerals and properties that can provide for meaningful homes,
that can be designed for a new generation of children to come,
that can meet the environmental needs, the non-polluting needs
and sustainable development housing needs of the future. For the
federal government to abdicate and abandon its responsibility now
is very untimely.
As a national vision we should be empowering our youth. When
they leave high school are they trained to understand how to
build a home, the basic need of a shelter? Can they renovate the
property they will eventually own as students, workers or
parents? What about the maintenance of the heating, cooling and
electrical systems or the plumbing? All these are housing needs
and basic skills that people need to take care of their homes and
to make them sustainable.
In a high tech world everything has become a case of calling 911
when people are in trouble. People call the plumber when there
is a leak, the electrician when there is a power outage, the
computer specialist when viruses are coming down from the online
system. We are making people dependent.
The social housing program has been utilized by many generations
of families and individuals. In future they will have to try to
find their way through the provincial and local community
administrations.
1300
As well, this bill will abdicate the corporate for profit social
housing programs. That is a very dangerous venture for this
country to go on.
I believe that our young people, our homeless people, our
disadvantaged people require the state to look at these interests
and to find the means to create opportunities to put before us.
The state should make the challenges. It should make them local
challenges.
My first career, coming out of high school, was as a carpenter.
In 1976 there was a major infrastructure development in northern
Saskatchewan which included housing. I learned to build a house.
Today I am proud to be a carpenter who can still build a house,
but if it was not for the social housing program that was in
place in my community I would have not attained that skill or
that trade.
Today, if for profit corporations build social housing in our
communities, they hire local people at minimum wage for a very
specific, short period and then they leave with the profits they
have made. There is no advantages for trade development or skill
development. I guess the bottom line is one of self-awareness
and self-pride, self-esteem in housing.
If families can provide homes, if communities can provide for
the well-being of their citizens and if the country can provide
for the well-being of its citizens, then we will have self-esteem
in the country. With Bill C-66 we seem to be going to the common
marketplace to look at social housing delivery in the country.
In Canada we have a housing shortage in the middle of the boreal
forest. That is a mindless situation. It is not a housing
problem, it is a social problem. It is a sick society when we
have a wealth of resources in the backwoods of our communities
and we have a housing shortage. Young families are starting up.
Some families have 15 to 20 members living in one dwelling. They
have issues of health, discipline and economic plight.
Housing is also an industry. We have to create industries in
our communities in all necks of the woods, so to speak.
We recently had the birth of Nunavut. We watched the
celebrations take place in the capital of Nunavut, Iqaluit. This
is a growing, young population, the majority of which is under 25
years old. They are going to need housing in the future, but
there are no trees in Nunavut. There is an abundance of trees in
northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and
British Columbia. We have to create an economic cycle within our
own country. We have to trade among ourselves. We have to
prepare ourselves, but we have to take care of our people first,
before we trade worldwide.
Let us take care of Canadians in a responsible way. I call on
the government to reconsider its support of Bill C-66 at this
time. I call on the government to reconsider in the new
millennium renovating and rejuvenating our pride, as well as
renovating this House. Why not? This House has a housing
problem of its own. We should reassess how we populate it, and
redesign the House which came from the British form of
government. Let us redesign something collectively for the new
millennium.
The whole structure and foundation of the government, the
foundation of the country, is compassion for everyone. We must
have compassion for each other.
Those people who have been using the social housing program for
years should be the people sitting on the CMHC board of
directors. They should be the ones administering the
bureaucratic structure of social housing. Why not consider these
people for positions on the board of directors? Instead, the
government, the minister or the prime minister will appoint
whomever they want.
1305
The government should look at the standards of housing in this
country and consider our northern climate. The government
should consider climate change and the effect that will have on
our environment. It should consider the use of energy.
It is a major challenge for us to empower and to teach our
children that in the future we should build our homes in a
respectful and honourable way, but by no means should the federal
government abandon its responsibilities to the citizens of this
country.
I believe that a further review of the CMHC is needed for the
new millennium, but consultations should take place at the
community level, not at the federal level. I call on the Liberal
government not to adopt any past government's ideas of making for
profit corporations' interests a priority. The government should
support the non-profit and co-operative movement that has taken
place in social housing. These organizations should be
financially and politically supported to make it possible for
people in the future to have houses.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, a
recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 10, at the
ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
think you would find consent that the House would be prepared to
consider the time to be 1.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed from March 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative
option marketing), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I call for resumption of
debate, I have received notice from the hon. member for North
Vancouver that he is unable to move his motion during private
members' hour on Monday, May 10. It has not been possible to
arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence.
Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item
of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private
members' hour will, thus, be cancelled and Government Orders will
begin at 11 a.m.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words to this bill
that my hon. friend has been trying to have passed for some time.
We will all remember that this process started when a lot of
Canadians were shocked by the fact that cable television charges
had been increased and Canadians had not approved the increase.
They were shocked to find that the cable stations had every right
to impose a new set of costs and a new range of services. If we
do not like what they do, then we have to notify them.
This seems to be kind of an odd way to go about business. It is
certainly in favour of the cable companies. I remember, and I am
sure other members remember the incredible response that we
received as elected members: the faxes, the e-mails, the letters
and the visits from delegations and all sorts of very disgruntled
people in terms of wondering how it was that we were allowing
this to occur.
1310
The question is: What do we do about it? I am therefore
pleased to speak to today's bill because the hon. member has
brought forward a proposal that would make this kind of back door
increase impossible.
This is the second time this has moved through the House. The
last time it was scuttled in committee. I hope this time it will
have a better chance to pass in the House. Today is the last day
of debate. In a matter of minutes we will have the final round
of discussion and then we will move to a vote on the bill. We in
the New Democratic Party who are here will be supporting it.
I realize this is a private member's initiative and not a party
initiative. It is being brought forward once again by the hon.
member who was quite outraged, as we all were, when he learned
about the initiative taken by the cable companies. I am not
certain if this applies to other organizations or not, but even
if it does, the fact that the cable companies have misused this
initiative would probably justify our speaking and voting against
it because it certainly is not in the best interests of their
subscribers.
This tells us that the cable companies assume that Canadians are
not very smart and that they really cannot think for themselves.
It is either that or they are able to be manipulated quite
easily. I am not sure what the assumption would be. However, I
do not think we can accept that. We want to say that Canadians
have the right to decide for themselves, as individuals, as
families, and so on, as to what combination of programming they
would like to have.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
The bill before this House is not new. We have seen it in
various forms in the past. The government has a number of
concerns it will raise in committee, if the House decides to
refer this bill to committee. We hope to propose some amendments
to the bill at committee stage, and the members will be able to
consider them at their leisure.
That said, today the bill is at second reading. So, for the
moment, we intend to support the bill.
For our colleagues opposite who have expressed certain concerns,
which we share, I reiterate that these concerns should be
covered by amendments in committee before the bill returns to
the House at report stage or third reading.
One of these concerns is the effect the bill may have, in its
present form, on the Broadcasting Act. This concern is shared,
and we intend to remedy it in committee.
I encourage my colleagues opposite, who expressed the same
concerns, to raise them in committee, as the government intends.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, I am pleased
to speak in this debate. Bill C-393 is intended to amend the
Competition Act, 1998, which concerns industry.
1315
On first examination, the objective of this bill appears to be a
praiseworthy one. But we in the Bloc Quebecois see a number of
problems in it, particularly the issue of jurisdiction. The
bill is intended as an interference in the relationship between
commercial operations and consumers, which is clearly an area of
provincial jurisdiction.
This bill proposed an amendment to the Competition Act, and is
aimed at prohibiting negative option marketing, which means
billing consumers for products or services without their express
consent.
In fact, it proposes to prohibit such marketing practices by
banks, trust companies, credit unions as well as
telecommunications and broadcasting companies. When reference
is made to credit unions, of course this refers mainly to the
caisses populaires, of which there are many in Quebec. Almost
all Quebeckers belong to a caisse populaire.
This is the third attempt by the member for Sarnia—Lambton to ban
negative option billing. In 1996, the member for Sarnia—Lambton
introduced Bill C-216, the purpose of which was to amend the
Broadcasting Act.
I would remind members that the Bloc Quebecois was opposed to
the bill for three reasons. First, it represented interference
in commercial relations between businesses and consumers, a
field of provincial jurisdiction. Second, the bill would have
required the explicit consent of all subscribers for a new
channel to be broadcast. Third, the bill had a particularly
unfortunate effect, not only in Quebec, but in our opinion also
in other regions with a sizeable francophone population.
The other place was concerned about this, and amended the bill
in order to protect francophones. It died on the Order Paper,
however, when the election was called.
On November 25, 1997, the hon. member for Sarnia«Lambton
introduced Bill C-288. Its goal was similar to that of Bill
C-216, and its contents almost identical. But the House did not
get to vote on this bill.
He is now coming back with this legislation. We can attest to
the tenacity and perseverance of the hon. member for
Sarnia—Lambton, who insists on presenting a bill, which he feels
targets broadcasting companies. But this time, the hon. member
does not seek to amend the Broadcasting Act but, rather, the
Competition Act. However, the fundamental purpose of the
Competition Act is not to regulate relations between consumers
and businesses, but to monitor deceptive practices used by
competing companies.
As regards deceptive practices, the Bureau of Competition must
of course receive complaints. When it is established that a
company or a business is resorting to deceptive practices, it
can be subject to stiff penalties.
But, in this case, this clearly does not come under the
Competition Act.
The objective is different, that is to deal with relations
between consumers and companies. This, in our opinion, comes
under the CRTC, which is accountable to the Minister of
Industry, and the issue should be dealt with at that level.
There is a major flaw in that the proposed change is not aimed
at the proper act, but at another one, whose objective does not
have to do with this type of relations.
1320
In spite of the laudable goal pursued by the hon. member, the
Bloc Quebecois will nevertheless oppose this bill, primarily
because trade and consumer protection come under the
jurisdiction of the provinces.
We believe that this issue should be dealt with by the CRTC,
which already has the powers to prohibit negative option
marketing if it deems that it is appropriate and in the public
interest to do so.
This bill would reduce the powers of the CRTC and give the
Bureau of Competition powers that could adversely affect the
Canadian broadcasting policy, limit consumers' options, increase
their bills and kill the development of French language
broadcasting in Quebec and Canada, in regions where francophones
are present.
I will stop here and conclude by saying that we will oppose this
bill.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today to second reading of Bill C-393, an act to
amend the Competition Act which deals specifically with negative
option billing. My caucus colleague, the member for Markham, has
already spoken as PC Party industry critic on the bill at second
reading.
As most members have noted, Bill C-393 had a previous life in
the 35th parliament. In that parliament the member for
Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216, which would have amended
the Broadcasting Act. The legislation was sparked by public
outrage at the cable companies imposing negative option billing
through the addition of specialty channels at the beginning of
1995. As such, Bill C-216 dealt solely with cable television and
passed the House despite opposition from many powerful interests.
Unfortunately for the member's efforts Bill C-216 was still
under review by the Senate when the Prime Minister called the
1997 federal election. The bill was effectively killed by the
member's own government, which was not under any pressure to go
to the polls only 3.5 years into its first mandate. There may be
some, perhaps even the member himself, who would blame the Senate
for the death of Bill C-216. This is a misguided view because
the Senate was playing its constitutionally mandated role to
review legislation from the House.
There may have been many occasions in the past several years
where the Senate has undeniably improved legislation. Correcting
errors not addressed on the House side in the Liberal
government's so-called Pearson airport legislation and more
recent amendments to the Judges Act are but two examples. Until
the Senate is either reformed or abolished we should stop
attacking its members for trying to perform their mandate.
Bill C-216 is history. We are now debating Bill C-393. As
previously mentioned, the bill would amend the Competition Act to
ban negative option billing in a whole host of sectors, including
certain financial institutions, broadcasting undertakings,
telecommunications firms and insurance companies. In particular,
Bill C-393 protects the basic consumer right to express consent
before purchasing a new product or service. In plain language
this means consumers cannot be billed for a product or service
without their clear consent.
The member for Sarnia—Lambton and organizations such as the
Consumers' Association of Canada make a compelling case against
negative option marketing practices. Indeed I think many of us
will agree that this type of marketing reverses the traditional
buyer-seller relationship. With negative option billing
customers are offered new products or services and are required
to opt out or expressly decline these new offerings to avoid
being charged for them.
From a legal standpoint negative option billing relies upon the
concept of implied consent. By not responding to a solicitation
the consumer is deemed to have given his or her consent. Indeed
it is fair to say that negative option schemes rely on market
inertia to sell new products or services to an existing client
base. It is therefore a justifiable claim that negative option
billing further concentrates market share with the dominant
industry players instead of fostering competition in an open
marketplace.
Bill C-393 applies to federally regulated businesses such as
banks and cable and telephone companies. Under the law selected
financial, insurance, cable and broadcasting companies would not
be allowed to use a lack of consumer response to negative option
billing inquiries as consent to buy.
The bill wisely allows provincial governments to prohibit
negative option marketing within their jurisdictions. Provinces
such as Quebec have already taken steps in this direction.
1325
While provincial governments have progressed somewhat in
addressing these dubious marketing efforts, there is a noticeable
lack of such consumer protection at the federal level. Cable
providers are still using negative option billing in regional
markets despite previous assurances to the contrary.
In August 1996 Industry Canada's office of consumer affairs
warned that negative option marketing had the potential to be an
important tool in the financial services sector. Examples cited
in the report included the sending of unsolicited credit cards
and changes in account structure made without the consent of
consumers.
In 1997 the Toronto-Dominion Bank employed a negative option
technique to deprive bank customers of their privacy. The
National Bank reportedly used a similar scheme to sell travellers
health insurance to existing customers by debiting their accounts
$9.95 per month.
I am pleased that Bill C-393 recognizes that there are
situations in which a consumer benefits from a negative option
billing arrangement. However, for this to be the case, consumers
must be able to make informed decisions and give express consent.
The bill proposes certain steps to be taken for a negative option
scheme to be legal and fines for those who contravene the act.
The bill has received the support of the Consumers' Association
of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Insurance
Brokers Association of Canada. Although Bill C-393 is strong on
consumer protection, the PC caucus would like to know the views
of such organizations as the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Canadian
Petroleum Products Institute among others.
We must always be prudent as parliamentarians not to impose an
excessive amount of laws and regulations on the private sector.
Our caucus has already brought forward the concerns of the
private sector regarding punitive measures in the federal cost
recovery program, which was expanded greatly by the Liberal
government in 1994.
Although the move to more user fees for the private sector was
initially welcomed by businesses of all shapes and sizes, the
government's chosen structure has proven to be ineffective,
incompatible and costly. As a result this program cost the
Canadian economy over $1.3 billion from our GDP and 23,000 jobs,
according to the 1990 report by the Blair Consulting Group. Let
us always be careful in bringing in government intervention no
matter how well intentioned it may seem to be at the time.
Our caucus would also like to verify that Bill C-393 would not
hinder French language broadcasting in Canada. This was raised
in 1997 by the chairwoman of the CRTC. I am sure all members of
the House, especially bilingualism's newest friends in the Reform
Party, would want to ensure that Bill C-393 does not pose a
threat to French language broadcasting.
I reiterate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of
Canada the qualified support of Bill C-393 at second reading. The
overall intent is extremely positive. The legislation would
significantly increase the level of consumer protection in the
country.
I urge all members of the House to put aside partisan interests
and support moving the bill along to the industry committee where
it can be given closer scrutiny on issues of concern.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-393, an act to amend the
Competition Act which relates specifically to negative option
marketing. I commend the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for
introducing the legislation once again. It seeks to protect
consumers and offer consumers greater choice in the marketplace.
Bill C-393 deals with the business practice known as negative
option sales and marketing. The practice is also known as
unsolicited marketing and marketing by inertia. Related concepts
include the following: bundling, tied selling, automatic renewal
contracts and misleading advertising and/or deceptive marketing.
Regardless of the term or concept, this practice is a perversion
of the normally accepted rules of contract or sales. The law of
contracts insists that a form of offer and acceptance is required
to make an agreement binding. It could be argued that negative
option marketing, in the absence of independent consent,
undermines the fundamental principles necessary for a valid
commercial contract.
1330
Negative option marketing involves a consumer receiving a
product and a payment request because the consumer failed to say
no to the offer. Normally in the context of the rules of
contract or sales, an offer is made, acceptance is given, the
service is delivered and payment is required.
The framework employed under negative option sales is inverted.
An offer is sometimes made, sometimes hidden and sometimes there
is no choice at all. The consumer accepts the offer not because
the individual necessarily wants the product but because they do
not specifically say “No, I do not want this service”.
Why is this practice employed? It is obvious. The assumption
that the consumer desires the product is made in the absence of
refusal in order to increase revenue. Practitioners of this type
of marketing or sales do not seek to meet the demands of the
marketplace but create what can be termed as a false demand.
This sleight of hand technique violates consumers' right to
choice. Moreover approving sales where there is no market is
synonymous with forcing sales where there is no demand. It is
unreasonable to allow the creation of both market and demand
where neither exist.
Bill C-393 would amend the Competition Act to force federally
regulated companies to obtain the permission of customers for any
new service. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that a consumer
has the right to say “I know what is offered. I know the cost.
I want what is offered”. It is not unreasonable to expect
federally regulated companies to obtain a definite and positive
response before supplying and charging for services.
This bill protects a basic consumer right, the right to express
consent before purchasing a new product. Negative option
marketing or billing relies on implied consent. In other words,
by not responding to solicitation the consumer is deemed to have
given his or her consent. Rather than foster competition,
negative option marketing concentrates market share with the
dominant players in a particular sector. Any anti-competitive
practice limits choice for consumers and acts contrary to the
foundation of the Canadian marketplace.
In today's marketplace consumers are inundated with
communication through various mediums. It is unreasonable to
sanction the onerous task of requiring consumers to examine the
endless amount of communications from customer dealings in search
of negative option marketing. Consumer arrangements resulting in
new products or services being offered that obligate additional
consumer expenditure should require expressed consent.
Several points should be made clear. Bill C-393 applies to
federally regulated businesses such as banks, cable and telephone
companies. The provinces are free to prohibit negative option
marketing within their jurisdictions. Several have already taken
steps in this direction. The time has arrived to enact measures
at the federal level in order to protect consumers. Bill C-393
provides the appropriate measures.
Bill C-393 also proposes that steps be taken in order for
specific negative option programs to be legal. Why? Because the
bill recognizes that situations may exist where a consumer would
benefit from a negative option billing arrangement. This is
supported by a document produced by Industry Canada entitled
“Negative Option Marketing: A Discussion Paper” wherein it is
stated “Negative option marketing takes many forms and in some
circumstances may benefit consumers as well as industry”.
This bill does not seek to impede successful industry in Canada.
It does however ensure that consumers are able to make informed
decisions and express consent before entering into an agreement
with additional charges. Moreover, Bill C-393 recognizes or
provides for exemptions in order that specific enterprises remain
competitive in their sector of activity while maintaining
consumer protection.
The bill in section 128(1.1) states:
The Governor in Council may, by regulation, exempt from the
definition of “service” in section 53 any service that, in the
opinion of the Governor in Council, should be exempted in order
to allow enterprises to which this section applies to remain
competitive in their sector of activity, provided that the
exemption does not deprive consumers of their right to
competitive prices and product choices.
This provision would allow any minister or department to express
concern for services under their purview that might be effected.
For example, Heritage Canada could propose justification for
exemption based on concerns relating to heritage.
Bill C-393 provides for warranted protection of certain services
against unfair competition which in turn protects consumers and,
as in the example given, possible cultural or heritage issues as
well.
This provision however does not exclude consumer protection. In
fact, it specifies clearly that the exemption must not deprive
consumers of their right to competitive prices and product
choices.
1335
Recently the Consumers Association of Canada issued a statement
with respect to Bill C-393: “It is timely that private member's
Bill C-393 is being debated in parliament this week prior to
world consumers rights day. World consumers rights day
celebrates eight fundamental consumer rights of which the right
of choice is paramount. A piece of legislation that bans abusive
negative option marketing is a positive step in the promotion of
consumers' right to choice”.
In this era of deregulation and government downsizing, it is
important that we establish a regulatory framework which is
consumer oriented. It is my contention that Bill C-393 addresses
the inconsistency between negative option marketing and accepted
contract norms. In doing so, this bill protects consumers by
offering them a choice of which products they desire while
increasing the competitiveness of the marketplace.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the
Competition Act with respect to the prohibition of negative
option billing.
I would like to recognize the work of my colleague from
Sarnia—Lambton on this issue. I know that he has worked
tirelessly in the interests of consumers. I respect any member
of the House who is prepared to champion an issue despite
pressure coming from within his own caucus to be a quiet and
dutiful backbencher.
This bill is designed to prohibit the practice of implied
consent billing by federally regulated businesses such as banks,
cable and telephone companies. It would restore the traditional
buyer-seller relationship that relies on the consumer's explicit
consent before they can be billed for a product or service that
will prohibit default billing of consumers who do not expressly
decline a product or service. In other words, it would put an end
to what has been called negative option billing.
Before making a decision about supporting this legislation, I
considered the views of many Canadians about this billing
practice. It is clear that this bill has broad support among
consumers who are frustrated by negative option billing.
In particular, there is frustration with cable providers that
bill for new programs automatically unless the consumer expressly
rejects the service. Consumer groups have cited senior citizens
as an example of a group who are often unaware that they have the
choice of opting out of the new service and are consequently
billed for a program they do not want and cannot afford. This is
a source of frustration not simply because of the financial
costs, but because it is deemed to be a violation of an age old
relationship between buyers and sellers.
It is clear that consumers are looking for protection from
negative option billing. The question is simply how do we
provide that protection? Should it come in the form of Bill
C-393 or can this be achieved through market based reforms? I
think a balance must be struck.
Bill C-393 had its origins as Bill C-288 which would have
amended the Broadcasting Act to restrict negative option billing
by cable companies. These companies can currently act with
relative impunity as they are federally regulated regional
monopolies which are free from the normal constraints of the
competitive market. This new version of the bill is broader and
instead amends competition laws that apply to all federally
regulated industries.
The decision by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton to use the
Competition Act as a means by which to prohibit negative option
billing instead of making changes to the legislation which deals
directly with the perpetrators of this practice is troubling.
Competition laws can profoundly restrict economic freedom and
market efficiency and a general move toward strengthening these
laws should be approached with caution.
This bill should not be seen as a mechanism by which to restrict
attempts by companies wishing to expand their market share. We
must not allow our competition laws to grow steadily more
intrusive. We must act vigilantly to create competition through
deregulation of our industries in the interest of every Canadian
consumer.
The original purpose of this draft legislation in the form of
Bill C-288 was to amend the Broadcasting Act. This dealt much
more directly with the source of the problem and would be the
preferable course by which to protect consumers against negative
option billing.
1340
Negative option billing is a practice common to federally
regulated industries because they enjoy market protection such
that they restrict or limit the consumer's ability to seek out
alternate providers of a product or a service. Therefore the
deregulation of federally legislated industries should be the
first step to eliminating negative option billing and other
practices that do not properly serve consumers.
I would have been much more supportive of an initiative that
worked to limit government and increase consumer choice rather
than an initiative which extends the scope of government further
into the private sector.
The Reform Party supports limited government and free enterprise
but recognizes the important role of government in creating an
economic environment with fair and transparent rules which
protect both consumers and businesses. However we differ from
the governing party in that we believe that markets serve
consumers well as long as competition is permitted.
Bill C-393 is a band-aid solution made necessary by the
Liberals' resolve to maintain protectionist policies and regional
monopolies in federally regulated industries such as cable,
telecommunications and banking despite the fact that these
policies hurt consumers. But sometimes a band-aid is needed until
a disinfectant can be found.
Before I conclude I want to provide an example that illustrates
the power of competition to end negative option billing in case
my colleagues across the way have their doubts. I am sure we are
all familiar with Columbia House Records. This is a company that
makes its money through negative option billing. After signing
up with the bulk music distributor, consumers are sent cassettes
and CDs on a monthly basis. If they do not send the selections
back to the company, they are billed for the merchandise.
This is not a pure example of negative option billing because
the consumer agreed to these billing terms by signing up with the
company. However the point that is relevant is that consumers
were so hostile to this form of billing that Columbia House sales
began to decline. Soon a competitor entered the market and
advertised that it would not engage in negative option billing at
all. When faced with this competition, Columbia House very
quickly reversed its negative option billing practices.
In other words, the drive for profits in a competitive and
deregulated industry will give more power to consumers to seek
favourable terms. It is the invisible hand of capitalism at
work.
To conclude, it is clear that the Liberal mismanagement of
federally regulated industries has created an economic
environment in which consumers suffer the ill effects of limited
competition. While this bill regrettably increases the power and
scope of the Competition Act and restricts private sector
decision making, it should receive the qualified support of the
Reform caucus until such time as these industries can be
deregulated. After this deregulation, competition itself will
ferret out those businesses that conduct their affairs in a
manner inconsistent with consumer interests.
The Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to call the hon. member
for Sarnia—Lambton and I advise the House that if he speaks now,
he will close the debate.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to take this brief period to reply.
This marks the end of the third hour of debate at second reading
of Bill C-393. We have had a number of speakers on the topic. It
is clear that this is a business practice that is used not just
by cable companies. I want to emphasize that. It is also used
by telephone companies and it is used by banks.
Members have recognized that this is a perverse way of doing
business. This is a twisting of the normal rules. The time has
arrived that we recognize it is a widespread problem in federally
regulated industries, it is a widespread problem in that it takes
advantage of consumers in the country, and it is a widespread
problem in that it reverses the normal rules of business
practice.
For those reasons the bill should pass second reading and go to
a committee so the committee can pass judgment upon the propriety
of the bill. Then the bill should return to the House so that we
may legislate in this place for the first time a degree of
protection, a degree of fairness for consumers in the country,
something that we have failed to do in this place, particularly
in the realm of those industries that are federally regulated.
1345
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
[Translation]
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded
division stands deferred until Monday, May 10, 1999, at the
ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
[English]
It being after 1.45 p.m., the House stands adjourned until
Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.46 p.m.)