CONTENTS
Friday, November 3, 1995
Bill C-108. Motion for second reading 16177
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 16185
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 16185
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 16187
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 16191
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 16191
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16192
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16192
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16192
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16192
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16193
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 16195
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16196
Motion for concurrence in 97th report 16196
(Motion agreed to.) 16196
Bill C-108. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 16197
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 16197
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 16207
Division on amendment deferred 16208
Bill C-343. Motion for second reading 16208
16177
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 3, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services) moved that Bill C-108, an act to amend the
National Housing Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to move that Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing
Act, be read a second time and referred to committee.
This is an administrative bill whose purpose is to increase the
ceiling of mortgage loan insurance under the National Housing
Act. This will enable CMHC to continue underwriting home
mortgage loan insurance within the legislative limit. Bill C-108
will increase the existing limit on outstanding loan insurance from
the current $100 billion to $150 billion. The bill also includes a
provision to increase the ceiling further through appropriation in
the future.
Members of the House should know that CMHC loan insurance
is self-financing and self-sustaining and does not cost the
government anything. The mortgage insurance fund is regularly
evaluated according to rigorous insurance principles and is fully
adequate to cover all insured losses as well as overhead.
[Translation]
While the amendments contained in this bill represent
administrative matters, passage of this bill is essential to the
continued operation of CMHC's Mortgage Loan Insurance. Allow
me to take a minute to explain why this bill is important to
Canadians.
[English]
The desire to own a home remains very strong among Canadians.
Yet many people who can afford the monthly mortgage payments
are still unable to access home ownership because they find it
difficult to save for a down payment for a conventional loan.
With mortgage loan insurance, home buyers can secure up to 95
per cent financing with a lender because CMHC insures the
mortgage.
[Translation]
Because CMHC assumes the risk of borrowers defaulting,
mortgage lenders are able to supply more mortgages to Canadians.
By reducing the down payment required to purchase a home, the
Mortgage Loan Insurance Program makes home ownership more
accessible to moderate income households.
It is a vital component of ensuring that all Canadians, regardless
of where they live, have equal access to mortgage funds needed to
acquire decent, affordable housing.
[English]
Let me give you an idea of the extent to which Canadians depend
on mortgage loan insurance in order to fulfil their dream of owning
a home. Mortgage loan insurance has allowed many people to
become homeowners, some who would not otherwise have been
able to buy, others who would have been able to make their
purchase sooner because of the lower down payment.
In 1994 alone, CMHC mortgage loan insurance helped to house
over 300,000 Canadian families at no cost to the government.
My colleagues will also be interested to learn that this means
that approximately 40 per cent of the residential mortgage stock in
Canada has involved financing by CMHC mortgage insurance last
year. Without mortgage loan insurance, Canadians who do not have
a 25 per cent down payment would generally never have access to
home ownership.
[Translation]
CMHC Mortgage Loan Insurance has demonstrated the
flexibility to facilitate innovation in housing finance. This is a
critical feature, given that the needs of mortgage borrowers, and
the market within which these needs are met, are constantly
evolving. In 1987, the program was improved to allow for the
insuring of second mortgages, an innovation that has been
particularly helpful to people who need additional money for
renovation.
16178
[English]
In the following year, the chattel loan insurance program was
introduced as a five-year experiment to cover loans made on
mobile homes and to help people who choose this kind of
affordable home ownership. This coverage for mobile homes has
now been made a regular part of the mortgage insurance program
as per the announcement made by the the minister responsible for
CMHC at the beginning of this year.
(1010)
In 1992 the mortgage insurance program was expanded to
accommodate the reduced down payment for first time home
buyers making home ownership even more accessible to moderate
income households.
This program, called First Home Loan Insurance, has provided
Canadians with their entry point to home ownership. May I
reiterate to my hon. colleagues that the success of this initiative has
been achieved without any cost to the government.
[Translation]
We want to ensure that CHMC can continue to provide that kind
of market support in the future. That is why this legislation is
before the House today. CHMC is continually reviewing the
Mortgage Loan Insurance Program and regularly introduces
changes to make it more effective and more convenient for both
approved lenders and home buyers.
[English]
By exploring new housing finance options for Canadians we are
looking to promote greater choices, lower the costs, increase the
accessibility of housing finance and assist borrowers to meet their
financing needs within their own resources.
[Translation]
CHMC will continue to encourage innovation and creativity in
housing finance through the Mortgage Insurance Fund to promote
greater access to housing markets for the benefit of all Canadians.
[English]
Besides helping Canadians to become homeowners, CMHC
mortgage insurance has been key to the health of the housing
industry in Canada. By fully protecting approved lenders against
default on the part of the borrower, mortgage insurance encourages
investment in residential construction.
The federal government, through CMHC, has been providing
national mortgage insurance for four decades. CMHC has remained
a significant player throughout this time with a mandate from the
federal government to provide mortgage insurance to support loans
to all Canadian home buyers regardless of where they live in
Canada at the smallest feasible down payment and the lowest
feasible cost.
[Translation]
Today, the private housing market is able to meet the housing
needs of the vast majority of Canadian households. There is no
doubt that CHMC's Mortgage Loan Insurance has played a critical
role in that achievement. CHMC's Mortgage Insurance Program
experienced a record year in 1994 in terms of volume. A number of
unexpected factors led to the significant increases in activity last
year. Mortgage rates dropped to their lowest levels in 30 years,
much lower than anticipated. Low inflation has kept house prices
stable and more affordable.
As well, the rapid and continued success of housing stimulation
policies, including the First Home Loan Insurance Program and the
RRSP Home Buyers' Plan, contributed to record volumes of
insurance activity last year.
[English]
When the Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada stopped
underwriting new mortgage insurance business in April 1993,
CMHC had to assume 100 per cent of residential mortgage
insurance activity. Furthermore, a greater proportion of all
mortgages have been insured by CMHC in recent years.
In 1994, CMHC insured 40 per cent of all residential mortgages
initiated, up from 22 per cent in 1991. Because there is some lag
time between insurance loans and receiving the reports from the
approved lenders, it was only in 1995 that all the figures for 1994
were compiled. At that time it was realized that the $100 billion
maximum aggregate loan insurance currently stipulated in the
National Housing Act had been exceeded. For this reason the
provisions of this bill are effective starting 1994. I hope members
of the House will see fit to give swift passage to Bill C-108 so that
CMHC can continue to promote access to home ownership through
mortgage loan insurance.
(1015)
As I have stated and as my colleagues are aware, the purpose of
the bill is to increase the maximum aggregate mortgage loan
insurance. This will enable CMHC to continue underwriting home
mortgage loan insurance within the legislative limit. Considering
the housing sector's importance to the well-being of the nation,
CMHC is committed to a stable supply of housing that increases
economic and social opportunities for all Canadians.
With CMHC's mortgage loan insurance program qualifying
home buyers anywhere in Canada can secure up to 95 per cent of
home financing with an approved lender. Mortgage insurance
through CMHC also provides a means of introducing guarantees
for innovative mortgage products to benefit consumers, for
example mortgage backed securities which increase the pool of
funds available for mortgages and competitive rates.
16179
The corporation continues to develop new initiatives and adapt
existing ones to meet the challenges of housing Canadians
adequately into the new millennium. Among the new initiatives
being examined are alternative financing mechanisms for homes
such as reverse annuity mortgages and shared equity financing.
CMHC has a role to play in helping Canadians to access decent
affordable housing. CMHC continues to provide social housing
assistance to support more than 661,000 existing units that house
over one million low income Canadians whose housing needs
cannot be met through the housing market. This housing assists
some of the most disadvantaged members of our society including
seniors on fixed incomes, aboriginal people, persons with
disabilities, single parent led families, social assistance recipients
and the working poor.
To solve today's housing problems and define tomorrow's
housing needs CMHC is involved in research and development
both independently and with industry and government partners.
CMHC's research into sustainable development, quality of life,
housing technology and building science promotes good living
environments that are safe, healthy and sustainable. As well
CMHC is helping the Canadian housing industry to promote the
Canadian housing system abroad by helping to develop housing
export strategies to assist the Canadian housing industry to market
Canadian housing technology, products and services in world
markets.
[Translation]
Through its Mortgage Loan Insurance Program, CHMC
continues to make housing more accessible for Canadians. The
Corporation is also working to improve housing affordability.
The federal government through CHMC is committed to a stable
supply of affordable and accessible housing that increases
economic opportunities for all Canadians. CHMC's market
housing programs promote affordable housing and equal access to
financing through financial instruments such as mortgage loan
insurance.
[English]
Moreover, CMHC provides mortgage insurance to all Canadians
regardless of where they live in Canada at the smallest feasible
down payment and at lower cost. To improve access to an
affordable form of housing CMHC also provides mortgage
insurance for manufactured housing, for example mobile homes. In
January 1995 the minister of public works recently announced an
expanded chattel loan interest program that includes resale of
manufactured housing units.
CMHC also helps to ensure Canadians are well housed by
pursuing and encouraging housing innovation and by developing
national housing policies in concert with provincial and territorial
partners, the housing industry and non-profit groups.
[Translation]
One important way CMHC levers the efforts of its partners in
Canada's housing sector is CMHC's Canadian Centre for
Public-Private Partnership in Housing. The Centre acts as a catalyst
and a source of expert advice.
(1020)
It brings together the public and private sectors, non-profit
organizations and private citizens to develop low to moderate
income housing projects without the need for government
subsidies.
[English]
CMHC is also contributing to making housing more affordable
through better housing regulations. The affordability and choice
today program funded by CMHC encourages regulatory innovation
in municipalities across Canada. The ACT program encourages the
housing industry and municipalities to work in partnership to
improve housing affordability and choice. More than 80 ACT
projects are developing a wide range of practical approaches to
streamlining approval processes, developing new forms of
affordable housing, facilitating infill and conversion, and adopting
alternative development and building standards.
As I have said Bill C-108 is an administrative bill. As my
colleagues know, the bill is crucial to ensuring that CMHC can
continue to offer mortgage loan insurance to Canadians. Through
its mortgage insurance activities CMHC has been responsible for
helping many Canadians become homeowners and we want to
ensure that it can continue to do that.
[Translation]
I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a complementary
initiative, First Home Loan Insurance, introduced by CMHC in
February 1992, to make home ownership even more accessible for
first time home buyers. Earlier this year, the Hon. David Dingwall
announced that the maximum eligible house prices for First Home
Loan Insurance were increased in 30 communities across the
country.
This initiative allows more first time homebuyers to purchase a
home with a down payment of as little as five per cent. Anyone
who buys or builds a home in Canada as their principal residence is
eligible for the lower down payment, as long as they have not
owned a home at any time during the last five years.
[English]
First home loan insurance was initially in effect for a two-year
period but was extended for an additional five years until 1999.
The 5 per cent down initiative has been a major success in
helping to increase home ownership in Canada. Thanks to the
reduced down payment home ownership has moved from a dream
to a reality for the many Canadians who can afford monthly
16180
mortgage payments but are having trouble saving for the down
payment.
The statistics speak for themselves. Since November 1993 over
210,000 Canadian households have taken advantage of the lower
down payment to become the proud owners of either a new or
existing home. In April 1994 a survey of Canadians who bought
homes with less than 10 per cent down showed that 72 per cent of
them would not have been able to purchase their homes when they
did without the reduced down payment.
The first home loan insurance initiative is constantly being
monitored to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of
Canadians. CMHC is committed to helping Canadians who desire
to own a home and have the proven financial management
capability to do so.
First home loan insurance is an excellent example of CMHC's
ability to adapt its mortgage loan insurance activity to ensure that
Canadians can enjoy the benefits of home ownership.
Allow me to speak on the importance of Bill C-108 by
describing an initiative of CMHC which has as its foundation the
flexible use of the mortgage insurance fund. I am referring to the
Canadian Centre for Public-Private Partnerships in Housing which
I mentioned earlier. Allow me to take a moment to provide the
House with some details about the important work being
undertaken here.
The partnership centre was established by CMHC in 1991.
[Translation]
Its objective is to bridge the public and private sectors to
facilitate the production of cost-effective and accessible housing
for low to moderate income households, including those with
special needs. The centre ventures into new areas through such
means as innovative financing and tenure arrangements.
(1025)
Much of the centre's activities are accomplished at the grassroot
level with a view to encouraging a wide variety of people active in
their community to become involved in newly created housing
partnerships.
[English]
The partnership centre identifies opportunities and brings
together potential partners to develop and implement
public-private partnerships. It acts as a source of best advice by
offering an advisory service to potential partners to identify the key
legal, financial and regulatory issues that need to be considered in
structuring a deal.
Since its inception the centre has ventured into innovative tenure
arrangements such as occupancy rights, life leases, equity co-ops,
as well as a home ownership equity partnership program. As at the
end of June of this year the centre had facilitated the realization of
79 projects totalling in excess of 4,200 housing units.
Allow me to take a minute to outline a few innovative projects
that have been made possible by CMHC's Canadian Centre for
Public-Private Partnerships in Housing.
Vancouver's Khatsahlano Equity Housing Co-operative offers
affordable housing for families. Equity co-operatives are ongoing
housing co-ops that are financed entirely or partly from the
investment of their members.
Traditionally aimed at seniors, they are now becoming an
affordable housing alternative for a growing number of Canadians.
This project demonstrates that it is possible to provide families
with affordable housing options in a market where starter homes
are very expensive.
[Translation]
Two non-profit groups in the province of Quebec, both dedicated
to helping people with psychiatric and developmental handicaps,
are buying and renovating houses and will run them as group
homes. In Montreal, Centre de crise ``Le Transit'' is purchasing a
house in a mixed residential downtown neighbourhood to
accommodate eight adult residents referred to them by city-run and
charitable social services agencies.
A similar project in Granby will house 12 residents in a triplex
being purchased by L'Autre Versant Inc., a local non-profit group
organized five years ago to provide homes for people with
psychiatric and development handicaps. Both these projects are
being made possible thanks to CMHC-insured mortgage loans
supported by the Partnership Centre.
[English]
Clearly CMHC's partnership centre and its innovative uses of
mortgage insurance are making great strides in increasing the
supply of affordable housing for low to moderate income
Canadians including those with special needs.
As I have stated before, Bill C-108 is an administrative bill to
facilitate the continuation of mortgage loan insurance under the
National Housing Act. As my colleagues well know, CMHC has an
important role to play in helping Canadians gain access to home
ownership.
CMHC's mortgage loan insurance with its mandate to provide
equal access to Canadians throughout the country is important to
achieving that goal.
CMHC has a unique role of ensuring equal access to Canadians
throughout the country. This is one of the major factors that
distinguishes CMHC's operation from mortgage loan insurance
operations. Without CMHC's commitment to provide mortgage
loan insurance in the small communities of the country, places that
16181
private insurers have not traditionally wanted to serve, many
Canadians might not be able to buy homes.
Let me illustrate how important CMHC loan insurance is to
Canadians in small communities. Take for example CMHC loan
insurance activity in the municipality of Brooks, Alberta, with a
population of 10,000. In 1994, 137 households were able to access
home ownership thanks to CMHC's mortgage loan insurance.
This year, as of September 30, 153 households became proud
homeowners, again thanks to CMHC. Make no mistake about it, if
CMHC were not in the mortgage loan insurance business these 290
families in Brooks, Alberta, might not have been able to buy their
homes. I would further like to point out that these 290 households
represent 83 per cent of the total number of 349 households who
bought homes in Brooks, Alberta, during that period.
(1030)
[Translation]
The government knows just how much Canadians value home
ownership. It represents a major portion of wealth accumulated by
households. For some it is a source of retirement income. It is also
an important component of quality of life.
[English]
We believe that every Canadian should have access to home
ownership. CMHC mortgage loan insurance can turn the dream of
owning a home into a reality. It is therefore critical that CMHC be
able to continue to provide mortgage loan insurance to Canadians
now and in the future. This is why I support Bill C-108.
I hope my colleagues will see fit to give swift passage to this
administrative bill so that CMHC can continue to help Canadians
realize their dream of owning a home.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Good
morning, Mr. Speaker. We will, of course, support the bill
introduced by the parliamentary secretary since we agree with what
it proposes to do, which is to increase the aggregate amount of
loans that may be approved by the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation to $150 billion, but the fact remains that it all seems
very unsatisfactory.
We must admit that, at the very least, there is something
embarrassing, disturbing and unsatisfactory about the fact that we
have before us a bill that reminds us that the federal government's
involvement in the housing sector, through this flimsy vehicle, the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, consists exclusively
of loan guarantees.
We must not forget it has been some years-in fact, since 1989
but even more so since 1992-since the federal government
withdrew altogether from the construction of social housing.
Remember this: It completely withdrew from this sector, and I
intend to give chapter and verse later on. There is something here
that arouses a sense of outrage and indignation-and I hope the
parliamentary secretary, who I know is sensitive to these issues,
will share my sense of outrage and indignation-when we see that
the federal government, with all the resources at its disposal, has
nothing to offer except loan guarantees through the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Meanwhile, it has withdrawn
from the construction of social housing, it completely abolished its
co-operative housing policy in 1992, which the Liberals had
promised to reinstate, and plays no role at all in housing
renovation.
We have a definite problem with this. And anyone in this House
who has a social conscience must feel the same. As for amending
the National Housing Act and having a debate on housing, what are
we entitled to expect from the government? We have a Liberal
government that does not believe that poverty is acceptable, that
believes that being a Liberal means embracing the philosophy of
liberalism. Embracing this philosophy means believing that the
state has a role to play in putting an end to the disparities in our
society.
I know the parliamentary secretary agrees with me. As the
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I am disappointed. And if
the hon. member does not agree with the substance of what I am
saying, I am sure that by the end of my speech he will have changed
his mind.
The issue is one that concerns me, as the member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and as a former member of the board of
a technical resources group that examined these issues. I have been
involved in housing issues since I was 20, and I am now 33,
although I may not look it. The fact remains that I have been
involved in the housing sector for nearly 13 years. And I am
shocked that this government has nothing to offer in the way of
social housing.
It is particularly shocking this morning, when we are asked to
discuss the role of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
at a time when poverty, both in Canada and Quebec, is more
widespread than ever before. This is serious.
(1035)
As members of Parliament, we all represent ridings, and when it
comes down to it, we all want to work for the people who elected
us. We all know that housing, the right to have a decent roof over
your head at a decent price, is something that is central to people's
lives.
The debate this morning comes at a time when there is more
poverty than ever before. Mr. Speaker, let me quote a few figures.
When we talk about poverty, we should remember that in Quebec,
to give you a very specific example-or perhaps we should look at
16182
the situation in Canada as a whole, where the poverty rate is now
17.4 per cent. So what does poverty mean? Poverty is when a
household has to spend more than 55 per cent of its income on three
basic items: rent, food and clothing.
We live in a society where poverty is more widespread than ever
before. And since we live in this society, we have every right to
expect the Liberal government to be a little more enterprising, to
come up with a proposal this morning that is more intelligent and
more pro-active than approving loan guarantees, since even the
parliamentary secretary admitted this did not represent any
additional cost to the public purse. The parliamentary secretary was
very frank at the beginning of his speech when he said this was a
program, a loan guarantee that was self-financing and did not cost
the treasury a cent.
Is the parliamentary secretary satisfied? Does he approve of the
fact that his government, considering its responsibilities at a time
when more people are poor than ever before, when, according to
Statistics Canada, we have never been so short of housing? When
the parliamentary secretary goes to bed tonight with his beloved,
will he be pleased that his government has nothing to offer but a
loan guarantee which puts no strain on the public purse?
That does not satisfy me. I do not think that it is politically
defensible. So 17.4 per cent of Canadian households are classified
as poor. This means that 17.4 per cent of the population belongs to
a household which spends 55 per cent or more of its income on the
three basic items.
I know we are just coming out of a referendum campaign, and
that events in the months to come will mean that the issue is not
totally closed, but speaking as a levelheaded, rational man-two
qualities which I think the parliamentary secretary will agree
describe my character-I feel that, when evaluating federalism, it
is our duty to recall that Quebec, as we speak, is the province with
the highest rate of poverty.
As we speak, Quebec has the highest number of poor households
of anywhere in Canada. If the parliamentary secretary is sceptical, I
can provide figures. The most recent figures available are for 1993:
Newfoundland, 17.7 per cent of households; P.E.I., 9.9 per cent;
Nova Scotia, 5.5 per cent; New Brunswick, 14.5 per cent; Quebec,
20.7 per cent.
This means that 20 out of every 100 households belong to people
who are among the poorest in Canada. This is the reality the federal
regime has inflicted upon us. And this is not a mindset, a political
pipedream, but something confirmed by Statistics Canada.
So the figure in Quebec is 20.7 per cent; in Ontario: 15.6 per
cent; in Manitoba, 18.1 per cent; in Saskatchewan, 17 per cent; in
Alberta, 17.6 per cent. In a context where Quebec has the highest
number of poor households, in a context where we are aware of the
importance of housing in balancing individuals' and families'
budgets, we find ourselves faced with a government that has
nothing to propose except the addition of a measure like any other
government action relating to shelter, a loan guarantee. One that
they have the gall to describe as not requiring anything from the
government, from the public purse, because it is self-sustaining.
(1040)
As the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, as an individual
who believes in democracy, I wish to state that it is my belief that
the government is not assuming its responsibilities, that this is
shameful, that this is unacceptable, that it is just one more reason to
separate, because we have no need of a government that cannot
offer us anything in the area of housing.
If the parliamentary secretary finds that I am overdoing it, he has
only to get up off his chair and add some substance to his proposals
on housing-at this time, as we speak, all of my friendly feelings
for the parliamentary secretary notwithstanding, we have every
reason for dissatisfaction. But I want to get back to the subject of
poverty in Quebec.
Quebec has 24 per cent of the total Canadian population. The
federal government gains 23 per cent of its income from Quebec's
individual or corporate taxpayers. Thirty per cent of all of those
living in poverty live in Quebec. There is one other reality which
characterizes Quebec and militates in favour of more government
involvement in social housing: more Quebecers rent their homes
than the Canadian average.
This means that more individuals in Quebec have insufficient
income to own property. This is why we feel a government must be
involved in social housing. What is social housing in its
co-operative or non-profit OSBL form? I shall come back to that
later.
When a government sets aside public funds for social housing in
co-operative or OSBL form, this is because of a belief that there are
people whose income alone, without a little hand up from the
government, will never enable them to own property.
This is a trend which a self-respecting government, a
government with some social democratic leanings will take action
to correct-and I am sure that the Government whip either lives in
a co-op or has plans to do so, since he shares our slight socialist
bent.
All of this to say that, in Quebec, 44.4 per cent of households are
tenants; 44.4 per cent rent their homes, while the Canadian average
is 37.1 per cent. We would therefore have been right to expect this
morning that the government would have a somewhat more
substantial policy to provide support to the provinces in the whole
area of public housing.
16183
I say ``a somewhat more substantial policy'' with respect to the
provinces, because it is clear in my mind that federal government
involvement in housing must take the form of a transfer of funds
or budget allocations, where the funds are managed by the
government of the individual provinces. I say this, because it is
clear, constitutionally, that the federal government has no
authority to intervene in the matter of housing.
When it does, it is obviously contravening the Canadian
constitution, because neither section 92 nor section 93 accords the
federal government jurisdiction over housing. We must remember,
however, that, if the federal government is to be involved in public
housing, as I think it ought, it is by transferring money to the
provinces, which want to be involved.
No one is saying the government should not set funds aside. We
acknowledge that it has a fiscal capacity, access to areas of taxation
that justify its setting money aside for the provinces.
I have an example for hon. members. Quebec has a program, I do
not know if the parliamentary secretary is familiar with it, called
Logirente. It targets people 55 years of age or older, who have
difficulty paying their monthly rent on the basis of their income
alone.
The government of Quebec assists those who meet the eligibility
criteria with their rent payment monthly.
(1045)
Some 60,000 people benefit from this program at the moment.
Quebec officials asked the federal government if it could also get
involved and make some money available.
Had the federal government agreed, through an administrative
agreement, to become involved in the operation of the Logirente
program, we estimate that 145,000 households and families could
have been helped, instead of the present 60,000.
This is the role of government. What is the point in having a
federal government that could care less about getting involved in
people's lives when the most fundamental of needs are at issue?
You will not be surprised to learn that the federal government
refused to get involved in the Logirente program, thus ensuring that
60,000 households rather than 145,000 could benefit from it. This
is one case where federalism is not working, and where a sovereign
Quebec could have, on its own and totally, a housing policy it alone
established, one that functioned independently under its control.
I would like to come back to something I consider absolutely
essential, something that could have helped us through the difficult
years of the last recession and could help Canadians through the
next recession. The program we must talk about and one I
encourage the federal government to re-establish with the
provinces is, obviously, the co-operative housing program.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember that, in 1992, the federal
government of the day abolished it without so much as a warning
cry, a hint of its intention or consultation of any sort. Of course the
parliamentary secretary will say it was not his government. That is
true. Nevertheless, his government has not taken any positive
action to date to re-establish it. Despite the fact that the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation is relatively well off, we have
not found a way to use public money to establish a co-operative
housing program.
What does a national co-op program entail? First of all, a
national co-op program requires that people be responsible since
co-op members must choose a board of directors and acknowledge
their responsibility to manage and maintain the building in which
they live. This implies that they feel concerned about their
environment.
There are now 40,000 people-I hope the parliamentary
secretary will admit that these are real figures, and I invite him to
check their accuracy-on the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation's waiting list for co-op housing. As a member of
Parliament who believes in co-op housing, I am proud to remind
you that, between 1973 and 1992, 85,000 units were funded by the
provincial and federal programs then in effect, particularly by the
federal government because it is mostly at that level that programs
were available.
Co-op housing was found for 255,000 low income people. What
is the reality? The reality is that, as we speak in November 1995, 66
per cent of households in co-op housing have an income that is less
than $30,000, or a third of what MPs earn. We should keep this in
mind. We can still agree that, in 1995, $30,000 a year is certainly a
modest or average income.
(1050)
In the past, and especially during the last federal election
campaign, I heard members say that some co-op members were
making $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000, and that co-op housing was
reserved for the better-off in our society. When we look at the
figures a little more closely, we see that co-op housing is a tool
available to the poor or to honest, middle class people, since 66 per
cent of co-op members, 66 per cent of households, make less than
$30,000 a year.
Thirty per cent of households in co-op housing across Canada
are headed by single mothers. These women are their families'
breadwinners. This shows that there is a need, that there are poor
people who, for all kinds of reasons, were not able to buy their own
homes.
It is reasonable to think that a decent government, one that lives
up to its responsibilities and cares about the people, cannot tolerate
a situation in which the federal government has nothing to offer
people with housing programs.
The main paradox of the federal government's withdrawal from
the housing sector, especially from co-op housing, is that, in the
16184
past three years, unemployment in the residential construction
sector has hovered around 20 per cent. I think that the hon.
members in this House would agree with that figure.
As our grandparents used to say, and I am sure that your
grandmother also said it, ``as the construction industry goes so goes
the world''.
Why is it that, with an unemployment rate of 20 per cent in the
residential construction sector, the government does not realize that
one way to revitalize the Canadian economy would be to promote
the construction of co-op units?
Let us not forget that, for every 1,000 co-op units built-I have
the figures here-2,000 direct jobs are created. The parliamentary
secretary should never forget that, every time public assistance
makes it possible to build 1,000 co-op units, 2,000 new jobs are
created.
There are not many sectors in which government initiatives give
a 200 per cent return. But in the housing sector, for every 1,000
co-op units built, 2,000 direct jobs are created.
Why does the government not understand that reality? Why is
the government so dull witted and narrow minded? Whay can the
government not see the obvious? Can we rely on those government
members who represent ridings, in Montreal and in the regions,
where there is a need for co-op housing? I ask these members to get
a little more involved and show a little more respect for the people
who need the government's assistance to take action.
The influence of the Quebec Liberal caucus on cabinet is aptly
described by the movie title The Silence of the Lambs. We truly feel
that the Quebec Liberal caucus has no desire to make
representations to cabinet to correct the major fundamental
injustices suffered by Quebecers because of policies put forward by
this government, particularly in the housing sector.
(1055)
Since 1989, the federal government has drastically reduced its
support in the renovation and the co-op housing sectors, including
its support to owner occupants. That withdrawal has had the effect
of destabilizing public finances, as well as the economic situation
of the poor in our society.
Let me give you an example. There used to be a rehabilitation
assistance program for rental housing, which allowed people living
in non-profit housing to get financing for up to 50 per cent of the
costs of renovations to a housing unit. That was a joint program,
with the federal and the provinces, Quebec in this instance, each
assuming 50 per cent of the costs.
Then, all of sudden, without any warning, without any
consultation, and in a period of widespread poverty, the federal
government withdrew its financial support to the program. This
resulted in a $20 million shortfall for Quebec.
Let us take the important issue of social housing. There are, in
every riding, people who live in low rental housing. We are proud
of these people, because they are a very dynamic group within our
community. People who live in low rental housing create a feeling
of solidarity. They have community halls which often alleviate the
problem of loneliness.
Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, the federal government bluntly
withdrew its support to that sector. Since 1992, not a single low
rental housing unit has been built in Canada or in Quebec. I am
shocked and I find this irresponsible. I was hoping that, this
morning, the federal government would have shown a desire to do
more in the important co-op and social housing sector.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, it being 11 a.m., we will now
proceed to statements by members. Our colleague for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve will, however, have the floor again after
question period.
The hon. member for Moncton now has the floor.
_____________________________________________
16184
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
Translation]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like today to speak to regulations in the mining industry.
[English]
Regulatory reform has been an issue of great concern to the
government. A climate of change will serve as impetus to continue
pushing these efforts.
Canadians in Quebec and across the country have made their
voices heard and have called on us to continue to make the changes
necessary to do business differently.
The mining industry is a prime example of where regulatory
reform must take place. It is also one of the six economic sectors
targeted by the government.
The Minister of Natural Resources has responded to the
challenge with the Whitehorse mining initiative and most recently
a new policy paper on sustainable development in mineral and
metals that was unveiled in Vancouver in September.
All parties must be prepared to address this issue with greater
vigour and with the conviction that mining is essential to our
economic balance sheet. Mining is a $20 billion industry in this
country and we need to ensure its viability for future generations.
16185
[Translation]
We will do what has to be done to ensure the future of the mining
industry.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
has stated that one element of fulfilling the government's red book
commitment is to ``not require blanket extinguishment of
aboriginal rights in the settlement of land claims''.
A few of the Yukon bands that signed the umbrella final
agreement after 20 years of negotiations are now refusing to abide
by its terms. They want to know if they might get more with the
new inherent rights policy. They want to know if they can sign a
final agreement for hundreds or thousands of square miles of
territories now, and not surrender their right to ask for more 10
years down the road.
Instead of certainty, the government has created uncertainty. The
minister must clearly state that a land claim is final, that
self-government does not mean entrenching special rights based on
race in our Constitution.
We all agree we must reach fair and affordable settlements of
outstanding native claims but we cannot and must not achieve
finality by sacrificing the fundamental Canadian principle of
equality.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am most
pleased to offer congratulations to Mr. Eric Robinson, named to the
Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.
Eric's love for agriculture can be seen in his family, his farm, his
community, and the company that bears his name. The company
maintains two farming operations and also buys and sells potatoes
for the domestic and export markets.
Eric's extensive travels throughout North America and Europe
resulted in the introduction of new equipment that led to complete
mechanization of the potato industry in Prince Edward Island. He
was one of the first to use a bulk harvester and to import and grow
the Russet Burbank variety, now the common variety grown in
P.E.I.
A volunteer to many organizations, Eric was a member of the
original P.E.I. potato marketing board in 1950.
Although he claims he is retired, Eric looks in daily on the
operation. Eric Robinson is indeed most deserving of this honour.
Congratulations to Eric and his family on his induction into the
Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to relate a success story in my riding of
Lambton-Middlesex, based not on government handouts but on
true community spirit.
I am referring to the recent facelift of Wilkesport Community
Centre in Sombra township. The hall was built 17 years ago by
holding various fundraising events in the community. The
community centre consists of of a 500-seat hall and three ball
diamonds, which incidentally have brought Sombra township two
Ontario championship teams and seven runners up.
Volunteers have given their time and effort to keep this hall
successful by providing the township with a focal point for a wide
variety of community events. Seventeen years later, this
community is still strong and vibrant. The hall needed a facelift,
and the community provided it.
My congratulations to all the residents of Wilkesport and area,
whose hard work and dedication exemplify a united community
spirit.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to acknowledge one of my constituents who has
returned from the Caribbean as a volunteer with the Canadian
Executive Service Organization.
Mr. Ed Peppler of Hanover, Ontario recently completed a CESO
project in Dominica. He was asked to start a furniture
manufacturing workshop within a woodworking factory that was
only producing small gift type items. Mr. Peppler oversaw the
purchasing of machinery and taught the staff how to make
furniture. The staff members were soon busy filling orders for the
new products and were looking to hire three or four new people.
The machinery, furniture, hardware, and tires for their vehicles
were all purchased from Canadian manufacturers to help the plant.
Ed Peppler's efforts stand in the tradition of Canadian aid to the
developing world. I and the town of Hanover, with its rich heritage
in furniture manufacturing, and indeed the people of Bruce-Grey
applaud the spirit of volunteerism and international co-operation of
Mr. Peppler.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 16 we witnessed an act of great courage in the House
16186
when a government member stood to speak out against the way the
employment equity bill was handled in committee. His words from
Hansard were: ``I am a first time MP. I never dreamed ever that
laws were created in this fashion''.
At least 52 other members in the House agree that changes must
be made to the system so that Parliament will function in a much
more democratic manner. The present system is perfect for
enacting a political agenda, but Canadian voters who pay our
salaries are fed up with having Parliament force its will upon them
and they are voting for change in greater and greater numbers.
We need more system changers in the House. If this does not
happen before the next election it will surely happen during the
next election. In the meantime, I ask the House to join me in
congratulating all members of the House who have already shown
that voting to represent their constituents takes precedence over the
orders of the whip or the party line.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to thank the constituents of my
riding of Prince Albert-Churchill River for their support for a
strong and United Canada.
On Friday, October 27 a large number of Prince Albertans
gathered to demonstrate their solidarity with Quebecers and
support for a united country. Many others also signed a petition in
which they stated their deeply held belief in Canada.
I wish to recognize four individuals from my riding who
travelled to Montreal to attend the no rally: Lois Holcomb, Arlene
Harper, and Jason and Karmen McNabb. I also wish to thank Val
Longworth, who spearheaded a fundraising drive to assist these
people to go to the Montreal rally. I also wish to thank those who
financially contributed to this event.
(1105)
While in Montreal I was particularly moved by the 150,000
voices singing O Canada and the outpouring of love for Quebec
and Canada.
In closing, I wish to commend the constituents of Prince
Albert-Churchill River for their commitment to our common
values of democracy and tolerance and to a strong and united
Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is once again working to reduce the
powers of the Quebec National Assembly, duly elected by the
people of Quebec. This is 1980 revisited. The member for
Saint-Maurice wants to use the defeat of the referendum to silence
sovereignists and prevent them from holding another one.
In learning that he would not recognize a slim yes vote, we
realized his contempt for democracy, but we would never have
imagined his considering restricting the democratic rights of his
own people. If this is how the Prime Minister of Canada responds
to the 49.4 per cent of the population of Quebec that voted yes last
Monday, Quebecers will do everything they can to retain their right
to speak freely on their future. Let the Prime Minister just try to
muzzle Quebecers; they will have an answer for him.
* * *
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the thousands of Canadians who went to the
rally in Montreal and Canadians elsewhere in the country.
[English]
Canadians from all across Canada, including those from
Windsor and Essex county who chartered buses from Windsor or
joined the buses from London or drove or flew to Montreal on
Friday, made a real difference by showing their support for Quebec
and the Canadian Confederation. I want to thank them for their
efforts and dedication.
[Translation]
I would also like to thank the other Canadians who did not go to
Montreal, but who were there with us in their hearts.
[English]
Finally, I would like to thank Barry Fowler and all the Windsor
Jaycees for creating the central image of the final days of the
campaign with their monstrous six metre by nine metre Canadian
flag, the largest in Canada. By holding and walking under the flag,
Canadians at the rally created the key image on the front pages of
the newspapers and on televisions in Quebec and outside of
Quebec: that of the Canadian flag awash on a sea of support for
national unity, carried by Canadians gathered from coast to coast.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
week ago today well over 100,000 Canadians converged on Place
du Canada in Montreal to stand on guard for their country. From
every part of Canada they came because they care. The rally last
Friday was a defining moment in the referendum and in our history.
It was a beautiful moment, a moment the people of Canada cannot
let us politicians forget.
16187
All week I have been getting calls from people asking me what
they can do to make sure their message was understood and
remembered. I have a suggestion. I invite those who were in
Montreal last Friday to take a few moments to put their thoughts
to paper, to share with others how they felt and why they were
there.
We must capture the spirit of the rally and build on it. Once you
have done that, people of Canada, send me a copy of your letter or
send it to your member of Parliament. I will undertake to safeguard
those letters and make sure that every premier in the land gets a
copy. Do it now. Keep up the pressure.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in light of
the disgraceful events yesterday in the House, the Deputy Prime
Minister is clearly incapable of doing her job. In response to
questions by the Official Opposition, she persisted in citing
incorrect information in disregard of her responsibilities.
Her attitude certainly left something to be desired. Unable to
justify the undemocratic remarks of the Prime Minister of Canada,
she delighted in using diversionary tactics, which are inappropriate
at this critical point in Quebec's and Canada's political history.
Clearly, this government has lost control, and the Deputy Prime
Minister no longer has any credibility, not only among Quebecers,
but among all Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday
some 49.5 per cent of Quebeckers who voted yes to separation did
so because they believe that status quo federalism is bankrupt and
the government is incapable of carrying out necessary reforms.
Others voted yes because they believed the claims of the separatist
leadership that when countries split apart the process is quick,
painless, and amicable.
(1110 )
The best way of combating these twin errors is for Canadian
federalists to adopt a two-track approach. First we must advocate
and implement a new confederation consisting of reforms that will
decentralize the Canadian federal system. The Reform Party's
20-point new confederation proposal released several weeks ago
outlines one method of doing this.
The Reform Party will also pursue a second stream intended to
outline a formal Canadian position on the terms and conditions of
separation if ever necessary. Such a position will make crystal clear
to all concerned exactly what trials would be involved should the
separatists ever attempt to lead Quebec out of Canada.
By outlining a more attractive vision-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Denis.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebecers have quickly turned the page on the proposal for a
separate Quebec, as we learned this morning from a SOM-Le
Soleil-Radio-Québec poll.
The poll, which was conducted between October 31 and
November 2 among 812 people from all regions of Quebec, shows
that 73 per cent of respondents want the Quebec government to
participate in the renewal of the Canadian federation.
The poll also shows that Quebecers give priority to
unemployment and deficit reduction as the first tasks that the
federal government should tackle. Only 16 per cent of respondents
see the renewal of federalism as a priority.
The people of Quebec have spoken once again. Let us hope that
PQ and Bloc members will set their obsessions aside and address
people's priorities.
* * *
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is only one word to describe the comments made by Yves
Blais, the PQ's regional delegate in the Outaouais, and that is
blackmail.
When he visited the Outaouais in June, Mr. Parizeau made a
commitment to give $15 million to the Outaouais economic
diversification society.
Mr. Blais said that only two promises were conditional on
achieving sovereignty: the one I just mentioned and the promise to
hire federal public servants living in Quebec.
Mr. Blais is making up excuses to justify his lack of respect for
the people of the Outaouais who voted no to Quebec separation.
After the regrettable remarks made by his leader, the PQ member is
showing us another hidden side of the separatist movement.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
wake of the Quebec referendum, the Canadian provinces' great
unanimity and unconditional declarations of love for Quebec have
given way to backtracking and to a total lack of consensus. Once
again, Quebec has been left to its own devices and its demands
have been ignored.
16188
Premiers Filmon and Romanow want to take this opportunity
to make cosmetic changes to the constitution. Premiers Klein and
Harcourt, however, would rather wait until 1997 before doing
anything. And what about the ineffable Clyde Wells, who is still
incapable of understanding what Quebec is all about?
As for the Prime Minister of Canada, he will certainly not be the
one to propose comprehensive changes. Is he even willing to
consider Quebec's legitimate aspirations, or does he simply intend
to put Quebec in its place?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am aghast
at the seeming arrogance of the Minister of Justice.
First he neglects to adequately consult his provincial
counterparts and aboriginal representatives on Bill C-68, while
claiming otherwise. Then he dismisses the concerns of the rural
members of his own caucus. Next he grabs for himself the power to
prohibit any firearm that in his opinion is not reasonable for use in
hunting or sporting purposes.
During report stage of Bill C-68 the justice minister changed one
of his own colleague's amendments, which would have limited the
autocratic powers of the minister. The justice minister's extensive
knowledge about firearms banned the Olympic shooting pistol.
For the first time in history the justice minister has granted the
federal government the power to commence proceedings under the
Criminal Code, clearly infringing on provincial jurisdiction.
Finally, the minister on his own has rendered the Senate useless.
He has said that even if the Senate dares to amend his gun
legislation he will not accept it.
Confidence, Mr. Speaker? No, I say arrogance.
* * *
(1115 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October
23 I had the distinct pleasure of presenting awards to the Minto
Elementary and Junior High School and Chipman Junior-Senior
High School in Queen's county, New Brunswick. They placed first
and second for their contributions to the Canada Remembers
contest in Atlantic Canada.
The contest was part of the Canada Remembers program. It
encouraged all junior and senior high schools to participate in the
commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the second world war.
It is this kind of community spirit which has been demonstrated
in Minto and Chipman, New Brunswick which has led to the
success of the Canada Remembers program and the successful
commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the second world war.
I am extremely proud of the commitment demonstrated by the
students. All of us congratulate them. We are very proud of their
contributions.
_____________________________________________
16188
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
on
Téléjournal, the Radio-Canada news program, the Minister of
Justice clearly mentioned the possibility of resurrecting a federal
power that has not been used for more than half a century, the
federal government's power of reservation and disallowance, to try
and prevent Quebecers from voting when they see fit on their
political future.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree it is inconceivable the
federal government should try to use a power that has become
obsolete, as the Supreme Court of Canada admitted, to prevent
Quebecers from voting democratically on their political future?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Quebecers made a clear choice Monday night. Even the
Leader of the Opposition agreed that the democratic position was
to accept the fact that they voted no to separation. In Quebec, the
Parti Quebecois was elected with a majority of one-quarter point.
And in this case, the Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear
he would not challenge the referendum results. I think that if his
members have any respect for democracy, they should not
challenge them either.
The best way to prevent a second referendum is to renew
federalism, and that is what 73 per cent of the population wants,
according to a poll released today.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
serious. The federal Minister of Justice says the federal
government wants or may wish to use the power of disallowance to
go over the head of the Quebec National Assembly. The minister is
off topic and using all kinds of excuses to try to evade the issue.
How could the federal government even consider ignoring the
powers of the Quebec National Assembly by using a power that,
according to the Supreme Court, has become obsolete? Are we to
understand that with this government, democracy comes second to
federalism?
16189
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us hope the Parti
Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois respect democracy. Because
if they have the slightest respect for democracy, they will accept
the outcome of the vote last Monday, and they will abide by the
wishes of 73 per cent of Quebecers who want the Quebec
government to work towards renewing federalism. That is
democracy. Democracy spoke Monday night, and the Parti
Quebecois should listen.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this from
the Deputy Prime Minister of a government that, I may remind you,
was formed by the party that introduced the War Measures Act in
Quebec in 1970. We know your democratic propensities. A party
that, through its Minister of Justice, tells us it will use a power now
obsolete, the power of disallowance, to flout the authority of the
Quebec National Assembly and ignore its decisions. And this party,
which according to the Prime Minister would not have respected
the results of the referendum, now wants to give us a lesson in
democracy.
(1120)
An hon. member: The nerve.
Mr. Gauthier: Are we to understand that because they have
nothing to propose, because the provincial Premiers are starting to
reconsider, because the government has no plan and because they
know that next time, the Yes side will win, the government is
desperate, and its only option is to deny the democratic system,
either through the power of disallowance or by going before the
courts?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder what Anita
Martinez thinks of democracy according to the Parti Quebecois.
Anita Martinez is a 23 year old worker in Quebec who was accused
by the Deputy Premier of Quebec of not being a real Quebecer.
Those people over there want to teach us a lesson in democracy,
but we respect the results and we respect the fact that whether it is
cast by a Nunez, a Martinez or a Lucien Bouchard, a vote is a vote,
and the results of Monday night's democratic vote should be
respected by the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the last stretch of the referendum campaign the Prime
Minister of Canada, along with several premiers of English
speaking provinces, clearly implied that changes were coming in
Canada, particularly the formal recognition of Quebec as a distinct
society. It would appear that the Prime Minister is planning in the
very near future to make a ``motherhood'' announcement of his
intentions toward the distinct society.
Does the Prime Minister realize that bringing in any federal
legislative measure whatsoever on the recognition of distinct
society status will not offer any response at all to the legitimate
aspirations of the Quebec people, for Quebecers want more than
cosmetic changes with no true meaning?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when will the party of the official opposition give up on
continuing to fight a lost referendum, and when will it start
addressing the true problems of Quebecers, which are problems of
unemployment and problems of investment?
We face the official opposition here as a government which is
attempting to develop Quebec and Canada, which is attempting to
reduce unemployment. We know that Quebecers want us to renew
federalism and want to see the economic situation improved. And
the official opposition is continuing to debate arguments that were
settled on the evening of the referendum. Quebecers decided
democratically that they did not want out of Canada, and I implore
the official opposition to return to the path of duty and to defend
Quebecers, to help us create jobs and investments.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the minister talk about the real problems of
Canadians, when the government is tabling no legislative measure
whatsoever in response to those very problems?
Now, to my question. How can we have any faith in the Prime
Minister when it comes to the distinct society, when his allies in
English Canada wasted no time immediately after the referendum
in diluting the content of the resolutions they had adopted in their
legislative assemblies, particularly when we are familiar with the
views of the Prime Minister, the man who killed Meech Lake, on
the distinct society?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the person who changed
sides, who jumped ship one month after the Meech Lake
agreement, was the Leader of the Opposition.
It would be advisable, if the hon. member does not want to listen
to the voice of the people as expressed in this morning's poll, for
him to listen to the former leader of his party, Pierre-Marc Johnson,
who today stated according to the Parti Quebecois that ``the
government ought to get busy instead with governing, given the
unemployment situation and the pressures on the public purse''.
If they will not listen to Daniel Johnson and the Liberals, they
might at least listen to Pierre-Marc Johnson.
16190
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian federalists must never get into any future
contest with Quebec separatists-and regrettably there will be one
more contest-as ill prepared and ill equipped as they entered the
last referendum campaign.
If we are to keep this great country together, we have to fight the
separatist dream with a federalist vision, not the status quo. We
have to fight separatist deceptions not with panic or propaganda,
but with the naked truth about what separation really means. The
time to prepare the ground is before, not during some future
campaign.
I ask the intergovernmental affairs minister, in this period prior
to the next real confrontation with the separatists, what is the
government going to do to make the real consequences of secession
crystal clear to every Quebecer?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during the campaign the economic arguments against
separation were done well. They convinced a large number of
Quebecers that separation was not in their economic interests and
would be very costly especially to the vulnerable elements in
society the separatists say they want to defend.
What is more important is that federalism is not the status quo.
Federalism has been flexible. We indicated in fact, not in words
like the opposition, that we were ready to reduce the size of the
federal government and we were ready to review the powers of the
various levels of government.
We are presently doing that. The federalism test we have applied
is presently resulting in all kinds of powers being reassessed
between the federal and provincial governments.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it may be that some of the economic arguments on the
dangers of secession were presented.
The sad fact is that on October 30 over 30 per cent of the people
who voted yes thought they were voting for a new and better
economic union with Canada rather than for a separate Quebec.
The federal government and the no campaign failed utterly to get
through to those voters on the negative implications of a yes vote.
That simply cannot be allowed to ever happen again.
To prevent that from happening again, will the government begin
to clearly and openly answer from a Canadian perspective all the
what if questions which are raised by a Quebec secession and
which I presented to the Prime Minister on June 8, 1994 prior to
the last campaign?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that the question asked was confusing.
We said that during the campaign. A number of Quebecers who
voted yes voted yes under the misapprehension that a partnership
was possible and that it was a mandate to negotiate.
What is important now is not to relive the referendum. It is
important now to see that we have to reform Canada. The
government has not only agreed to that, but we indicated that
especially in last February's budget where we re-established fiscal
responsibility and where we indicated the future elements of
decentralization that should take place.
We are not in favour of decentralization for the sake of
decentralization. We are for decentralization to the extent that it
serves the people of Canada by making the various levels of
government more efficient. We will not move in the direction of
decentralization without justification.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government can try to ignore 30 per cent of the yes
people who thought they were voting for something else. I suggest
that is keeping the government's head in the sand. That is not going
to win the battle with the separatists the next time around.
(1130 )
Quebecers must know the Canadian position on terms and
conditions of separation. Quebecers have to know the Canadian
position on debt division, the Canadian position on boundaries, the
Canadian position on protecting Atlantic Canada and the Canadian
position on terms and conditions of trade.
Since over 30 per cent of yes voters thought they could keep all
the benefits of Canadianism and vote for separation, will the
government begin to spell out the Canadian position on terms and
conditions of separation in order to make the negative
consequences of separation clear to every Quebecer?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position
includes Quebec. It is still part of Canada, thank God, after Monday
night.
Even if the leader of the third party will not listen to members of
the federal House who ask for his help in the rebuilding process,
would he at least listen to the leader of the no forces, Daniel
Johnson, who said yesterday: ``Mr. Manning is playing into the
hands of those who want to break up Canada by not recognizing
some of the self-evident truths that this country is founded on''.
Please listen to Mr. Johnson and join team Canada.
16191
The Speaker: My colleagues, even though we are quoting
someone else's statement, I would appreciate it if we would
address each other by our ridings or our titles in the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The day before yesterday, the Prime Minister stated in this
House, and I quote: ``I said it would be a veto for the people of
Quebec''. When questioned about the meaning of this statement,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs suggested that we ask the
Prime Minister himself for clarifications, because he was unable to
tell us what the Prime Minister meant.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister clarify for us what the Prime
Minister was referring to when he spoke of a veto for the people of
Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is
asking all kinds of questions about the promises made by the Prime
Minister, but I can assure the Bloc that we will keep our word. We
will stand by the Prime Minister's promise for change.
Let us just hope that the Bloc Quebecois will respect the result of
Monday's vote, in which a majority of voters in Quebec said no to
separation. They now want the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois to focus
on the issues. Unemployment figures were released today. We
should work together to find effective ways of dealing with the
unemployment problem, instead of continually quarrelling about
the constitution.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Quebec regard as important the questions
that we, as the official opposition, ask in this House.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain how the Prime
Minister can refuse to clarify what he really meant with respect to
the right of veto, when the minister responsible, one of the
brightest members of cabinet, admits to not knowing what the
Prime Minister was talking about?
(1135)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, members may
ask any question they want. The question the people of Quebec are
asking themselves right now is: When will the Government of
Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois start focusing on the economy?
We know for instance that the Parti Quebecois was prepared to
put on the line billions of dollars from the Quebec old age pension
fund, as Mr. Parizeau himself indicated when he said: ``The
defensive tools we are referring to certainly include the deposit
fund. This, of course, represents a lot of money. Hundreds of
millions of dollars''. In fact, it is more like a few billion dollars.
The Premier of Quebec was prepared to put on the line billions of
dollars that Quebecers have contributed to the Quebec old age
pension fund to further his own separatist ambitions, and the
people have said no. Let us hope that he will respect their wishes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government collects money from taxpayers in
Quebec and other provinces. It then spends that money, after
keeping some of it, on programs for manpower training, for
immigration settlement and a whole range of programs, all with
lots of strings attached that the provinces do not like.
My question is for any minister responsible for such spending
programs. For the sake of unity, why do not the ministers
responsible for this spending simply call up their counterparts in
the provinces and say: ``As of the first of next month we will send
you the money, totally without strings attached, for you to spend
any way in which you wish for the sake of unity''?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to remind members of the third party that we were
elected by Canadians like they were and Canadians did not ask us
to implement every desire of the premiers of the provinces.
They asked us to act in their interests by spending the taxes we
collect from all Canadians for the benefit of all Canadians, not for
the benefit of province a, b or c, in particular, but within province
a, b or c, for the benefit of all Canadians. This is how we differ
from provincial governments.
In this case the question to be asked is are the interests of
Canadians being served well? The record is clear. The country we
have created is the proof. As the federal government we have been
serving Canadians right. There are some fields where the powers of
the various levels of government must be reassigned. But it must be
done for reasons of efficiency and service to citizens, not for
reasons of ideology.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question did not reveal ideology. It reveals a new
position in which this country is finding itself, one over which the
last election was not fought. At that time we did not know how
strongly
16192
Quebecers felt about their desire to have control over these kinds
of spending programs.
The ball game has changed. I would like to get to the question of
spending another $750 million on yet another program that not
only we cannot afford but also impinges on provincial sovereignty,
namely spending on day care facilities.
When will the Minister of Finance cancel the program that not
only destroys national unity, but ruins spending programs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal of
discussion in the House in the last few days about democracy. One
clear responsibility of a democratic system is to respond to the
desires of people as they express them at the ballot box.
(1140 )
In the last election in 1993 this party put forward a proposal for
assistance to the provinces to enhance child care. In that way we
could ensure a basic standard of development for children right
across Canada regardless of the respective wealth of different
regions. We want to ensure that in this new workplace where many
families have both parents working, where there are many single
parents who want to go back to work that need good care for their
children, the federal government would provide assistance. The
government does not want to impinge, does not want to take over. It
wants to share, as we have always tried to do in this party.
In 1993 we received the mandate of 178 seats elected. That is
why we are the government. That is why we intend to carry out a
major investment in child care. It may not be the priority of the
Reform Party but we happen to think that good care for children is
a real priority for all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
As we know, several telephone companies ignored the CRTC's
ruling or ban and allowed tens of thousands of Canadians to phone,
at no cost, Quebecers to influence their vote on sovereignty.
Can the minister tell the House what penalties might be imposed
to the telephone companies that violated the Quebec referendum
act and ignored the CRTC's ruling?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this really is a question for the CRTC. At this point, we do not have
all the facts. As the hon. member knows, the CRTC made a ruling
last Friday regarding the special rates announced by the telephone
companies. That ruling should have been complied with by those
companies.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to make
sure that this issue will not be shelved and that these telephone
companies will be given the maximum penalty, so that they do not
again ignore the CRTC's rulings?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the request that the member puts to me is one that is not within my
powers.
I find it surprising that the separatist movement is so frightened
that Quebecers would hear the true views of Canadians from across
the country that they want to put up walls around their province to
keep those voices out.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we both
know and a lot of Canadians know there are a lot of problems in
this country, not the least of which are the high levels of taxation
and the huge debt this finance minister is proud to add to at the rate
$37.5 billion per year.
He said this on Wednesday: ``This is a marked improvement in
the fiscal situation and one which illustrates that making forecasts
based on prudent assumptions will pay off. This is another good
news report''.
I am glad his family business is in trust because if he ran his
business the way he runs the country he would be broke.
When will the finance minister do the responsible thing and
present a balanced budget to all Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would have thought
the hon. member would take some comfort in the fact that for the
first time in over a decade we have a government that is capable of
hitting its targets which is obviously very important in establishing
the credibility of one's position.
At the same time we have indicated that the best way to control
spending, the best way of keeping government's feet to the fire, is
to operate on the basis of a set of rolling two-year targets. That is a
process which clearly works and is one that we continue.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let me try
to keep the finance minister's feet to the fire.
16193
Two years ago I ran to get rid of a government that ran up a
$38 billion deficit. Here we are two years later and nothing has
changed. We are still bringing in deficits in the $35 billion to $38
billion range.
Once again for the good of Canada, for the good of the global
market, when will this finance minister-if he is not capable, step
aside-present a budget that is clear, that sets out a target as to
when we will be at a zero deficit? When will he quit adding to the
problem and quit playing his games with our future?
(1145 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the deficit number
two years ago that we inherited was not $38 billion. It was $42.5
billion. We improved on it by $4.5 billion.
For the good of Canada, for the good of global markets, could
the member opposite please get his numbers right.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the
Environment. Early this week, the intrepid Minister of the
Environment took advantage of the absence of Bloc members to
accuse them of obstructing her plan to refloat the
Irving Whale.
The truth is, the minister is so incompetent that she is desperately
looking for a scape goat to hide her own inability to find a safe
solution to the problem of the
Irving Whale.
Would the minister agree it is high time she showed some
flexibility and agreed to appoint a panel of independent experts
who would be able to find a safe solution that would take into
account the presence of PCBs aboard the barge, something she has
failed to do so far?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do have a safe solution.
We plan to refloat the barge next spring, despite the official
opposition which is still obstructing this plan and always has.
Mrs. Tremblay: Now look, it was the courts, not us. Really,
now.
Ms. Copps: It is unfortunate that the Bloc is obstructing. One
thing is clear: the Magdalen Islands RCMs are on my side, because
they want the Irving Whale to be refloated.
Mrs. Tremblay: Exaggerating again.
Ms. Copps: And that is not what the Bloc Quebecois wants, that
is the truth.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, we have just spent $12 million for absolutely nothing.
This is money citizens will have to pay.
Will the minister admit that the reason she is faced today with a
worldwide campaign by Greenpeace, not just Greenpeace Canada
but Greenpeace International, which has condemned her
incompetence in this matter, the reason is she is incapable of
considering an alternative to the least costly solution, which will
cost twice as much as initially estimated and which is also the most
dangerous one?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Greenpeace campaign
stresses how important it is to refloat the Irving Whale. I hope
Greenpeace will acknowledge there has been only one government
in the past 20 years that had a policy for refloating.
Unfortunately, when the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was
Minister of the Environment, the Irving Whale was at the bottom,
and there was no question of refloating. We are going to refloat it,
over the protests of the Bloc members, and I am glad Greenpeace
acknowledges the fact that refloating is important to prevent a
crisis as a result of the leaks that are now occurring. That is why
fishermen, the population and the RCMs on the Magdalen Islands
support the policy adopted by the Government of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago in Halifax the solicitor general announced
the second phase of a national program to help protect the young
and the vulnerable from sexual abuse at the hands of people in
positions of trust.
Could the solicitor general tell the House how the new program
would protect our children from potential sexual abuse?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government is working with the Canadian Association
of Volunteer Bureaus to carry out a program to educate voluntary
organizations on the need for screening people who are seeking
employment or volunteer positions working with children or other
vulnerable individuals.
The program involves sending briefing books and videos to over
200 volunteer bureaus across Canada and to some 1,900 police
services. There will also be a series of workshops conducted in
over 200 volunteer bureau areas.
16194
This will supplement the program I announced last year of using
the Canadian police information system computers managed by
the RCMP to provide a screening system to help prevent people
involved in sex abuse from taking up positions as volunteers or
employees when it comes to working with children or vulnerable
individuals.
(1150 )
The program is a worthwhile one and responds to the objectives
of all Canadians. I hope it will have the support of all members of
the House.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all
Canadians are aware of the horrific torture of three Ottawa teens
and the death of 17-year old Sylvain Leduc at the hands of a vicious
youth gang.
The minister is aware the studies his department has received by
noted criminologists state that young offenders believe there will
be no serious consequences for criminal action and they will
commit unlawful acts that include torture and violence.
Would someone on that side of the House explain why the
minister will not put severe consequences in the Young Offenders
Act for brutal, violent, sadistic crimes committed by young
offenders?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has brought forward legislation to tighten up the
Young Offenders Act and provide more severe penalties. The law
has been adopted. It will go a long way to responding to the kinds
of concerns raised by my hon. friend.
At the same time, the justice committee of the House has been
mandated to carry out an overall review of the work with respect to
young offenders. I hope it will be able to take into account the
understandable concerns of my hon. friend. I appreciate his raising
this important point.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
remind the minister that these types of crimes are showing up more
and more often and that they need to be stopped. If he is referring to
Bill C-37, forget it; it will not do the trick.
I have a supplementary question. When will the minister change
the Young Offenders Act so the names and pictures of violent and
sadistic gang members such as the Ace Crew, regardless of their
age, become available to the general public for its own protection?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this information is available to and used by law enforcement
agencies. The hon. member's suggestion is one that can be given
active consideration in the course of the wide ranging and urgent
review of young offenders provisions currently under way in the
justice committee.
I urge my hon. friend and his colleagues to take that review
seriously and participate in the hearings so we will have a good
result in the interests of all Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Recently, the Globe and Mail revealed that some people have
managed to find a way to follow the advice of the Minister of the
Environment, who wished to see Canada transform its
environmental challenges into economic opportunities. Despite its
regulations, Canada is in fact exporting hazardous waste to the
third world.
Does the minister confirm her departmental employees'
complaints of being so short of resources that they cannot assume
their responsibilities and apply the regulations on hazardous waste
exports properly?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): In fact, Mr. Speaker, during the review of
the budgets for environment, the budget for protection was
increased.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today the minister is avoiding direct answers with
surprising regularity. I shall, however, try a supplementary.
Does the minister understand that she ought to ensure that her
departmental employees apply existing regulations properly, rather
than seek to set national standards and to continually meddle in
areas of provincial jurisdiction?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I am trying
to follow the lead of the former Minister of the Environment, the
hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who stated that the federal
government had not only a duty to be concerned about the
environment, but a responsibility. And I endorse that statement by
the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the
men wanted in the torture slaying of Sylvain Leduc was on parole
at the time of the killing and wanted on a Canada-wide warrant.
16195
John Richardson was on mandatory release from Millhaven
penitentiary after serving just two-thirds of his sentence.
(1155)
Reform has been asking for the elimination of mandatory release
but our pleas and the pleas of many Canadians and victims of
violent crimes have fallen on deaf ears.
My question is for the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor
General of Canada. In view of the murders of Sylvain Leduc and
Melanie Carpenter, also murdered by an offender on statutory
release, why will he not move immediately to eliminate mandatory
release?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my hon. friend in beginning his question said that the individual in
question was on parole. The person in question was not on parole.
He had not been released pursuant to any decision of the parole
board.
Instead, as the hon. member said later in his question, the
individual was on mandatory release. The conditions in the law for
the automatic sending of the person's case to the parole board for a
detention hearing had not been met because the person's original
offence did not involve crimes of violence or drugs.
With respect to the basic point he is making, most of the people
on mandatory release are not involved in further offences.
Experience has shown that a controlled period of supervision at the
end of a sentence is the best way of ensuring that there are not
further offences, something I hope the hon. member will support. I
hope he will support measures designed to avoid further offences
rather than steps that might create more.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, John
Richardson was denied parole not once but twice because the
parole board said: ``There is indication of behaviour that
demonstrates a potential to commit an offence involving
violence''.
When Richardson was released by statutory requirement
conditions were attached because: ``You remain a high risk to
reoffend''. This evidence clearly indicates that the death of Sylvain
Leduc could have been prevented.
When will the minister move to eliminate mandatory release to
keep dangerous offenders locked up? When?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
at this point the individual in question is wanted for questioning.
Charges have not yet been laid against him.
The hon. member is jumping to conclusions which may or may
not turn out to be correct. At the same time he is raising an
understandable concern which I share. However the point he is
making with respect to the absolute abolition of mandatory
supervision does not fit in with reality. The best way to help ensure
further offences do not take place is to have people under a form of
supervision and controlled release into the community so that they
will not do things that are likely to lead to further offences. Most
cases of mandatory supervision turn out well and tragic incidents
are the exception rather than the rule.
There is a provision in the law whereby if a person is considered
to be likely to carry out further offences and certain conditions are
met the case can be referred to the parole board for a hearing which
can lead to the person's detention to the end of sentence.
Unfortunately the conditions were not met because the person's
original conviction was not for one of the offences in schedule one
or two.
The hon. member calls for changes in the law. This can certainly
be considered. If we present changes to the law I hope he will
co-operate in ways that protect public safety rather than simply
making a lot of noise about it.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
This week the House has been debating at second reading an act
to implement an agreement concerning Canada's internal trade.
Certainly in the province of Ontario members of the business
community and consumers strongly support the legislation because
it is good for our economy.
Will the agreement be as good for Quebec?
[Translation]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker. Another economic study last week indicated that the
provinces of Canada do twenty times the business among
themselves they do with the United States, once differences in size
and distance are taken into account.
This reveals the importance of internal trade for jobs and
Canada's economic growth.
(1200 )
[English]
In trying to make the internal market work better in Canada, it
would be very helpful in the context of the current debate if some
members of the House were less concerned about what powers are
exercised in what capitals and more concerned about looking at
ways to make the internal market of Canada work better to create
jobs and opportunity for Canadians across the country.
16196
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Like the rest of us, the Minister of Finance noted the profound
desire for change in the referendum. He is obviously very attuned
to the question of public finances.
I wonder whether the Minister of Finance might not use this
opportunity to put forward a national plan to the country to
eliminate the public deficit and debt with objectives we could all
support and joint deadlines and whether now is not a singular time
to do so for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party is entirely right to talk of a desire
for change that is reflected right across the country, from Atlantic
to Pacific. He should know that this very thing was discussed at the
last two meetings of the country's finance ministers. I agree with
him totally about what must be done, namely, drawing up a
federal-provincial master plan with very clear objectives of
consolidating public finances at both levels of government.
I can also tell him that the provinces have made a lot of progress,
with one exception, perhaps, and that the federal government is
now on the right track. We will have to continue in this vein, and I
hope all the provinces will take part.
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, this would bring to a close the
question period.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of the House the presence
in the gallery of the Hon. Wayne Gaudet, Minister of Agriculture
and Acadien Affairs for Nova Scotia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
16196
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, 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.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 97th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the
associate membership of the Standing Committee on Government
Operations.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this report later this day.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for
Kent, that the 97th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1205 )
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has
been circulating all across Canada. This particular petition has been
signed by a number of Canadians from Langley, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill
or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from my constituents concerning the methods our
government might use in the area of furniture moving.
16197
The petitioners indicate a concern that the proposed method, if
adopted, could indicate that one company would have the entire
system of moving furniture for all governmental departments.
They petition that the former system, the one that has been in place
for some years, be continued and that all companies across Canada
be given some portion of that movement.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present another 1,239
names to the tens of thousands of signatures already submitted.
These 1,239 signatures represent people from across the country
who are asking that Parliament enact legislation against serious
personal injury crimes being committed by high risk offenders by
permitting the use of post-sentence detention orders and
specifically by passing Bill C-240.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition this afternoon signed by a number of people from
all across Canada.
The petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the following question will be answered today: Question No. 209.
[Text]
Question No. 209-Mr. Hart:
With respect of the Department of National Defence's white paper promise to
purchase new search and rescue and shipborne helicopters, (a) does the
government intend to purchase one helicopter for both roles or two, (b) what is
the total amount of money the government is allotting to the purchase of new
search and rescue and shipborne helicopters, (c) over how many years will the
new search and rescue and shipborne helicopters be purchased, (d) how much
money will be allotted annually to a program to purchase new search and rescue
and shipborne helicopters (e) is the government considering purchasing a
scaled down version of the EH-101 and if so will companies awarded penalties
due to the cancellation of the former government's EH-101 Program be getting
new contracts?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): With
respect to the purchase of new search and rescue and shipborne
helicopters, the Minister of National Defence has not yet brought
recommendations to his colleagues. Therefore it is premature to
state what the government's intentions will be with respect to these
projects.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if Question No. 208 could be made an order for return, this return
would be tabled immediately.
[Text]
Question No. 208-Mr. Hart:
With respect to the decision by the government to cancel the EH-101
Program, (a) what is the total cancellation cost the government must assume
including (i) penalties paid to contracted companies, (ii) research and
development costs incurred by the government, (b) what was the total cost the
former government had allotted to spend on the EH-101 acquisition program
including spare parts and pilot training and (c) how much was to be spent
annually on the EH-101 Program during the lifetime of the program?
Return tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16197
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-108,
an act to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-108, an act to
amend the National Housing Act. I am speaking on behalf of the
member for Comox-Alberni, the Reform critic for Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
This is actually a very brief bill and its intent is quite simply
explained. Bill C-108 proposes to increase the aggregate amount of
outstanding CMHC loan insurance from $100 billion to $150
billion, plus any additional amounts that may be authorized by
Parliament. That means that CMHC's liability limit will be
increased by $50 billion. That is billions, not millions-fifty
thousand million dollars, a huge increase over the present
liabilities.
16198
I am not surprised that the Bloc would support such an increase
in liabilities. It really thinks it is getting something for nothing.
It thinks money grows on trees. The fact is it is a much more
complex situation than that.
There are many areas of concern that are raised by this bill,
concerns that are being voiced by Canadians right now. It surprises
me that given the nature of this bill the government is not listening
to those concerns. On second thought, maybe it is not such a
surprise, given the history of the government so far.
(1210)
Canadians are already very concerned about the current debt
load. They are carrying that debt load and it is creating an inability
for them to move forward financially or personally because of high
taxes. Every way they turn they are being taxed over and over.
There is no room to move. Pretty soon there will not be much left to
tax.
The bill does nothing to halt the trend to ever bigger government
and increasing public liabilities. It appears that the government is
willing to gamble taxpayers' dollars at a time when the present debt
is already more than $564 billion and climbing by $100 million
every day.
Increasing the liability limit for insuring mortgages is nothing
more than government speculation without any money. It is a trend
that has been going on in other departments and it really must come
to an end. The Liberal government has borrowed more than $80
billion in the first two years of its mandate, and it is continuing to
spend beyond its means. This year alone the government had to
borrow another $32 billion.
CMHC finances are actuarially accounted for every 20 years, so
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not know
what its ultimate liability will be or what it really has outstanding
right now. Bill C-108 should be of great concern to all Canadians,
who can clearly see that the government is continuing to spend well
beyond its means and incurring liabilities that on a standard
accounting balance sheet would show that we are actually in very
deep trouble.
By increasing Canada's liabilities we are increasing our risks.
Although Bill C-108 does not ask for actual cash per se, it is
increasing the liability, which will in the end cost taxpayers a
tremendous amount of money if there is a major default. Loans and
mortgages are not guaranteed; they can fall back on the
government and lead to a further lowering of Canada's
international standing and raise the overall debt.
Canadians are already staggering under an oppressive tax
burden. They do not need government to dig them a deeper hole.
They want to get out of the hole, as proven by the types of
provincial governments they have been electing of late.
The government will not disclose its ongoing liability. I would
like to see it publish a standard accounting style balance sheet once
a year, as was done in New Zealand. Members know that I am
originally from New Zealand. There is a law there that requires the
government to actually print once a year all of its liabilities in
standard accounting form. The first year the country did that, it
discovered there was a negative worth in the country and it had to
cancel a lot of the liabilities.
If standard accounting practices were used here in Canada to
show the liabilities, we would probably find a network of debt and
liabilities all strung together in a way that would be completely
unacceptable and illegal probably in the private sector.
It certainly appears the government does not know how large the
liabilities will be 10 or 15 years from now. Yet it is continuing to
increase that liability load on us. This trend of increasing
government liabilities across the board will only lead to the
government overextending itself, to the detriment of taxpayers who
bear the burden of the national debt.
Last week on television the Prime Minister spoke from Montreal
with desperate pleas to Canada and promises to Quebec that the
Liberal government would make changes if Quebec would stay in
Canada. Yet it is ironic that on the eve of the Quebec referendum
the government had the gall to table this bill. While the Prime
Minister was in Montreal making overtures of a new and
decentralized federal government, at the very same time his
representatives in Ottawa were tabling a bill that takes us in exactly
the opposite direction. So it should not be a surprise if Canadians
find that the Prime Minister is trying to back down on his promise.
Looking at this bill, it is obvious the government has no intention
of decentralizing and that it really wants to cling to every piece of
power it has.
When asked about promises of decentralization, all the Prime
Minister could say is: ``That is going to require a lot more thought
and discussion, but I am sure there is going to be some of that''.
Some of that-what does that mean? Has the government not
learned anything from the Quebec result? Did it not do any forward
planning? Demands for decentralization are being heard across the
country. They did not start with the Quebec referendum; they were
there long before that. It takes a major crisis of unity in the country
before the government will even begin to address the problems.
(1215)
When asked about what degree of decentralization the
government was considering, the Prime Minister responded that he
did not know at this point in time. He did not know. More waffling
as usual. Canadians are getting pretty tired of all the waffling from
the Liberal Party.
16199
The answer is right here in this bill. The government does not
want to decentralize. It is looking to strengthen its federal control.
Canadians are not going to tolerate the double talk for too long.
Misrepresentation of intent from the government can be seen in
the changes that are now sweeping the country at the political
level.
The Liberal government's response to Canadians' desire for
change has been totally inadequate to say the least. The status quo
has got to go if we are going to move forward as a nation.
There was an example today in question period when we asked
yet again about the Young Offenders Act. We have been asking
week after week after week for two years and the government has
done nothing to address the concerns of people. We still have these
young punks out there who do not have their names or their
pictures published. We have to get this government doing
something for Canadians for a change.
Lingering uncertainty in Quebec continues to plague Canada's
economic security. Only a few days ago it was reported in the
newspapers that the bond raters are still uncertain about Canada's
economic future because the Quebec situation remains unresolved.
If the government cannot take steps to address the problems at
hand, we are simply headed for more chaos.
The future financial stability of this country depends on how
well this government addresses its fiscal problems. So far, the
picture does not look very rosy. Canadians want a smaller federal
government.
The minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation claims that his departments and responsibilities,
including CMHC, are headed in that direction. However, this bill
shows the federal government is actually moving in the opposite
direction.
Instead of downsizing and moving away from the housing
market, the government wants to put another $50 billion of
mortgage liabilities on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. This will
increase the federal role, not downsize it as the government claims.
If the government is as committed to decentralization as it would
want us to believe, then why is the minister responsible for the
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation grabbing for more
money?
The federal government must realign its responsibilities with
other governments in this country and the time to start doing it is
now. It is absolutely necessary that the government take steps in the
right direction, not backward as it is doing with bills like this one.
In the light of the disastrous campaign the government led during
the referendum debate, it is a pity it has not learned any lessons.
Canadians are taxed to the hilt with all the levels of government
they are financing. Not only are they paying for services whose
needs are often questionable, but they are paying for the same
services again and again through user fees, not just at the federal
level but at the provincial and municipal levels as well.
The Reform Party proposed in its recent 20-point plan for
decentralization to totally transfer over to the provinces a number
of areas of operation at the federal level that are duplicated at the
provincial level. Those areas illustrate mostly a federal level of
meddling in affairs that are actually set under the Constitution to be
provincial. The federal government is long overdue in getting out
of those areas of provincial responsibility.
This is not the time for the government to put up its feet and
relax because it thinks it won the Quebec debate. It is time for the
government to start coming up with a plan that truly decentralizes.
One of the things it could be doing is moving total responsibility
for housing to the provincial level. If the government would come
up with such a plan, it would begin to save the taxpayers some
money.
Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea if the government tried
adopting the suggestions the Reform Party has made. We have
offered the government the entire plan. We have dropped the plain
brown envelope on the floor outside the office door of the Deputy
Prime Minister. All she has to do is look inside the envelope to see
what good ideas are shown there.
Yesterday in his speech at the Canadian Club in Toronto, the
leader of the Reform Party received a standing ovation for the
suggestions in that 20-point plan. It was very well received as could
be seen by the live telecast of that speech on the ``National''
yesterday.
(1220)
The Reform Party has been listening to Canadians. If
government members need some help heading in the right
direction, we are more than happy to assist. They just have to pick
up the plain brown envelope off the floor outside the Deputy Prime
Minister's office.
As I said, one of our proposals is for the federal government to
get out of the housing business. If crown corporations like CMHC
are truly self-supporting let us turn them over to the private sector.
Areas which are perhaps socially oriented should be turned over to
the provincial level.
Not only do Canadians want an end to federal interference in
areas of provincial responsibility, they also want clearer
distinctions of responsibility between the provinces. They do not
want this muddled thing we have right now where municipal,
federal and provincial governments get all mixed up together
giving one another grants. It is like government incest in a way.
Canadians also want an end to federal interference in the private
sector. They are sick and tired of the federal government interfering
unnecessarily in their affairs.
Bill C-108 allows the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation to significantly increase its presence in the mortgage
market.
16200
It represents a further intrusion into a private market and will lead
to further distortions of that market.
The federal government is artificially inflating mortgages in
urban areas in order to subsidize rural areas. The government's
policy of cross-subsidization of mortgages means that houses in
urban areas cost more to Canadians than they would if the federal
government stepped out of the housing business in the first place. It
is all very well to offer a lower price to rural residents, but why
should urban areas bear the brunt of that cost? Federal meddling in
the housing industry also means that private companies like GE are
offering mortgages at a higher rate as well.
It is time for the government to stop artificially jacking up
mortgage rates and to stop subsidizing one kind of mortgage by
gouging rates on another. Let private industry do what it does best,
provide consumers with competitive mortgage rates.
In terms of the 5 per cent down program, there is a very real
danger that any economic downturn which continues the trend we
have seen lately where property prices have been falling could
create a situation where homeowners are left holding mortgages
worth more than the property. It is a simplification for the
government to say that the liabilities we are incurring have no cost.
If the property market turns down and homeowners walk away
from some of those commitments, the taxpayers are left holding
the can.
I was in the U.K. in August over the summer break. Incidentally,
my trip was paid for with my own funds and not those of taxpayers.
I met with some bankers while I was in London. To my
astonishment, I was told that because of the property downturn in
the U.K. some banks are now holding a lot of mortgages in their
portfolios which are currently valued at 120 per cent of the
properties on which the mortgages were originally taken out.
The banks are also holding in their portfolios huge numbers of
vacant properties because people have walked away from those
commitments. That is a sign of the sort of disaster which can
happen if the government does not take into account where these
liabilities could lead.
It is pretty frightening that we are building up a liability account
in this area of something of the order of $150 billion. It is
wonderful to offer this opportunity for new homeowners to get into
home ownership, but to do it on the backs of the taxpayers is not a
good idea.
For that reason among others, the Reform Party does not support
an increased federal role in the mortgage market. We do not
support increasing federal liabilities. We do not support federal
meddling in the private sector and therefore, we do not support this
bill.
In conclusion, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That''
and substituting the following:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-108, an act to amend the
National Housing Act, because the principle of the bill does not address the
issue of transferring the responsibility of housing from the federal
government to the provinces.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion
the hon. member just moved was a substantive motion and not an
amendment to the motion now before the House. I do not believe it
is in order.
(1225 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We certainly take every
consideration necessary before making the proper ruling. Having
reviewed the full contents of the motion and its form as it is written
here, the motion is in order.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to speak about housing.
Since giving my first speech in this House during the throne
speech debate, I have pledged to be one of those members who tries
to make a difference and tries to make things work.
A wise man was once asked which was the most important level
of government: provincial, federal or municipal. The wise man
thought for a little while and responded by asking which was the
most important leg of a three-legged stool.
We have had the referendum. I must say that I work in this House
with all members from all sectors, the independents, the BQ, the
Reform Party, the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Conservative
Party. There is a lot of talent. Many of us are spending a lot of time
on other things when the taxpayers have indicated there are so
many restructuring things happening and the Canadian economy
needs to be addressed. Yet we get into partisan discussions which
are sometimes pretty nonsensical. We talk about devolution,
restructuring and downsizing. Some people do not even know what
the heck they are talking about with regard to those.
As a member of this House I am going to start talking directly to
the Canadian people. They have sent us to this place to do a job. We
have talents and we have to use those talents. We must use
Canada's resources, both human and natural, to the best advantage
for Canadians. Canadians expect to have jobs. They expect to have
good health care and they expect to have good housing.
To address one of the points raised by the hon. member of the
Reform Party, I remind him that the mortgage insurance premiums
charged by the CMHC are sufficient to meet the risks being
assumed at no cost to the government. The viability of CMHC's
mortgage insurance fund is assessed annually by an independent
actuary. An actuarial evaluation of the fund as of September 30,
1994 has confirmed its long term solvency.
16201
Since 1946 CMHC has returned $1 billion in the form of taxes
and profits. The mortgage insurance fund contributed an additional
$35 million in 1992 to the consolidated revenue fund. The member
also needs to be reminded that the activities of the fund contribute
to the stable supply of affordable housing for all Canadians,
including the handicapped and poor people.
No province has expressed an interest in moving into this sector
of the economy. There is no duplication. A change in the market is
essential for the viability of the fund. This balances the economic
and budgetary risks. Clearly the third party is ignoring 320,000
Canadians who have purchased homes throughout the land with the
fund.
(1230)
Before returning to the substance of the bill I would like to
address some comments by a member of the Bloc Quebecois. On
one hand we have the Reform Party balance sheet argument. On the
other hand I had a lot of sympathy for my friend from the BQ
because he was looking at disadvantaged people. He talked about
the fact that some of them made only $30,000 and had problems.
I will return to the facts. I say as a mayor of a community that we
needed intervention by governments. There were slum landlords.
There were cockroaches. There was inadequate housing. The heat
would be turned off at certain periods of time. That intervention has
brought real standards so that we could have good homes for all
Canadians.
The member opposite did not give the correct statistics with
regard to the amount of funds spent in Quebec. I will address some
of his comments. Between 1986 and 1993 Quebec received 29 per
cent of all federal social housing units committed nationwide. In
1994-95 in Quebec $357 million was spent on social housing. The
member simply chooses to ignore the importance of that
contribution.
That contribution means that 140,000 units of social housing
received federal assistance in Quebec. It also means that Canadians
in Quebec have benefited from federal programs like the
residential rehabilitation assistance program.
One factor the member should be aware of is that the funding for
new social housing commitments in Canada has been distributed
according to a model established on need. That is why Quebec
received 29 per cent of all federal units between 1986 and 1993.
Additionally between 1992 and 1994 there were more than 53,000
instances of first home loan insurance for Canadians in Quebec.
This is one example of what the federal government can do to assist
all Canadians.
This program costs the government nothing. CMHC has returned
more than $1 billion in profits and taxes to the federal government.
Over and above this amount, the federal government has received
$55 million from the mortgage insurance fund. This amount was
returned to the consolidated revenue fund in 1992. It is being
applied to reduce the federal deficit.
We have a great country in Canada. We have our problems but
we have solutions to the problems. When we work collaboratively
on the solutions the country will do well. That is why we are the
best in the world, between number one and number three. That is
why we have good standards.
Notwithstanding that globally we have a lot of structural change,
Canadians will come out better because we will apply the programs
for which the government was elected. We have the talent to do it
and we have the will to do it.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill
C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act. This is an
administrative bill, the purpose of which is to increase the ceiling
of the CMHC mortgage loan insurance from the current $100
billion to $150 billion.
My colleague also described for us the importance of the role of
the CMHC's mortgage loan insurance, the importance that it
played and continues to play in helping Canadians to have access to
home ownership.
Home ownership is a cherished dream held by many Canadians
and there are good reasons for it. Home equity is a major portion of
wealth accumulated by households and has been a great source of
retirement savings for Canadians. The concept of home speaks to
one of our basic human needs. Home is a place where people feel
secure. Owning a home gives people a stake in their community
and a sense of belonging.
(1235)
Home ownership is a concept that the people of Canada support.
That is not likely to change at any time soon. It is therefore critical
that CMHC is able to continue to provide mortgage loan insurance
to Canadians today and in the future.
One of the most important aspects of CMHC mortgage loan
insurance is the public policy mandate to provide equal access to
mortgage financing at the lowest possible cost for all Canadians
regardless of where they live in Canada. Equal access is achieved
through cross-subsidization. Surpluses generated from lower risk
businesses are used to fund shortfalls in higher risk businesses.
The public policy mandate of equal access distinguishes the
CMHC in a major way from the private insurer. Without access to
16202
CMHC mortgage loan insurance Canadians in some parts of the
country would have to come up with a conventional 25 per cent of
the value of the house as a down payment. Needless to say, many
Canadians would hardly ever be able to purchase a home if this
were the case.
CMHC's mortgage insurance is therefore critical in helping
Canadians to access home ownership. CMHC has long recognized
that the housing financial needs of Canadians are diverse. The
corporation's mortgage loan insurance has traditionally
demonstrated the flexibility to respond to varying needs.
I refer to an example that has helped hundreds of Canadians
realize the affordable home ownership dream. The manufactured
housing or mobile home industry has contributed greatly to giving
Canadians access to good quality, affordable housing. CMHC has
been working in partnership with the manufactured housing
industry for many years because of the importance of the housing
sector in the economy of Canada as a whole.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation introduced its
chattel loan insurance program, known as CLIP, as a five-year
experiment in 1988. The objectives of CLIP were twofold: first, to
improve access to alternative forms of affordable housing without
involving government expenditures and, second, to help place
manufactured homes in a more competitive position with
conventionally built homes.
CMHC completed an evaluation of CLIP last year which
confirmed that the program is an important instrument in
increasing access to good quality affordable housing without
involving government expenditures. The evaluation also confirmed
that CLIP has had a positive impact on the manufactured housing
industry and mobile home park developments.
Following the results of the evaluation the minister responsible
for CMHC was pleased to announce an expansion of the chattel
loans insurance program. As a result it now includes new homes,
resale homes and manufactured homes in Canada.
CLIP is an affordable alternative for many of the approximately
335,000 moderate income rental households that could not
previously afford to purchase a mobile home. The CMHC and the
manufactured housing industry have enjoyed a productive
partnership for many years. They have been working together to
help Canadians gain access to good quality, affordable housing and
to enhance the viability of the industry. The enhancement of CLIP
will lead to greater access to mobile homes as affordable options
for many Canadians and will encourage growth in the housing
industry.
CMHC and the mobile home industry have done their part. The
consumers have shown they are interested in mobile homes as a
housing option. Certainly there can be no doubt of the importance
of NHA insurance in making the program possible.
This is only one example of how NHA mortgage insurance has
met the specific need and why NHA mortgage insurance must be
maintained as a public policy instrument capable of evolving to
meet the future housing needs of Canadians.
With any eye on future needs CMHC is currently working to
develop a variety of new housing finance instruments made
possible by innovative uses of mortgage loan insurance. In
developing new products CMHC is looking to the challenge the
creativity of the financial community to ensure that the largest
possible number of borrowers can find a product in the marketplace
to meet their precise needs. A variety of choices will encourage
lenders to compete on a basis of service and product
differentiation.
(1240)
The financial environment in which CMHC's mortgage loan
insurance business operates has undergone significant changes in
recent years. The introduction of one-stop financial services, the
increased use of technological systems to support businesses and
operations, and the need to manage expenditures and facilitate
better risk management are factors that have had an impact on the
way in which CMHC runs its mortgage insurance operations.
CMHC has responded to a changing environment by continually
reviewing its processes for delivering mortgage insurance and
introducing improvements and efficiencies where needed.
Ensuring that CMHC's mortgage loan insurance remains relevant
and capable of responding to the changing housing and financial
needs of Canadians adds a major focus to the activity of the
corporation.
CMHC is now focusing on the introduction of new processing
mechanisms which will utilize the capabilities or electronic
communications between CMHC and its approved lender clients.
The enhancements will allow the corporation to serve better the
needs of the Canadian housing consumer.
Mortgage loan insurance has played a significant public policy
role in the past. CMHC's stewardship will continue to evolve to
meet the changing needs of Canadians and the financial
community.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have one question for the hon. member in relation to the overall
concept of CMHC.
My understanding is that it was felt necessary in the past that we
had to develop this corporation to address the needs of Canadians
who were incapable of meeting the 25 per cent, et cetera, to realize
their own homes.
If we are to put another $50 billion into it, it implies that more
Canadians are in need of it. Since the economic situation in the first
place did not allow them to buy their homes we created the
16203
program and now we are expanding it. Would it not be better to put
the $50 million into the economy so the people can get work, meet
the 25 per cent requirement and reduce CMHC instead of
increasing it?
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her
question. The corporation and the Government of Canada are
responding to the housing need.
In the construction industry housing is a major motor of the
Canadian economy. When the housing sector falters the whole
system falters. Many people are looking for jobs right now. In my
earlier dissertation I alluded to the fact that nobody in the private
markets is not responding.
The initiative does not cost the government a cent. Using my old
hat as mayor of Owen Sound, we have had private sector and
CMHC interventions. The main role of CMHC is to make sure that
handicapped people are looked after, that the heating requirements
and other construction requirements are met before they are
allowed insurance. There has to be a balance in the system. If the
government intervenes too much it probably affects the private
sector people. In the communities there is a groundswell to keep
that from happening.
I assure the member there is a need for the initiative. Infusion in
this category is probably better than putting it in other places
because of the spinoff effects of building homes in communities.
There will be a multiplier effect on the dollar and job creation. The
activity it will create in the hardware store, the corner store and for
construction workers, et cetera, will be enormous.
(1245 )
It is simply that there is a real need and it is a great thing to
happen. As I have said before, health, work and housing are the
three most important things for Canadians. This initiative helps
those exactly.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise again to tell the Canadian audience that the speech made by the
hon. member for North Vancouver was somewhat wrong. First, I
wonder if he has read the bill and second, I do not know why he
disagreed so strongly with the fact that this is a cost revenue neutral
program.
As a matter of fact, the Government of Canada made money in
1994. The mortgage insurance fund gave $55 million back to the
treasury. It is beyond my wildest imagination why members of the
Reform Party would so strongly object to this bill.
My colleague from Bruce-Grey made an eloquent speech. It
was obvious that he had read and understood the thrust of the bill
which says essentially that $50 billion in liability will be added to
the $100 billion that the Government of Canada already has to
provide those Canadians with low incomes the backing to be able
to own their own homes. This is extremely important because in
many cases a 25 per cent requirement for a down payment is not
there. They simply do not have the revenue. However, if they have
5 per cent or 10 per cent, the Government of Canada comes in and
guarantees their loan with any bank in Canada.
I would like to ask my colleague from Bruce-Grey how
important is this initiative for those Canadians who would not
otherwise have the opportunity to buy their dream home?
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, the CMHC gives Canadians a choice
of mortgage loan insurance. Without the CMHC Canadians would
be served by a private sector monopoly. The risks with a monopoly
are higher prices and fewer choices, making housing less
affordable, particularly for first time home buyers.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise
and speak on Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act.
In 1987, CMHC introduced National Housing Act mortgage
backed securities, a new way of attracting investors into the
mortgage market and increasing the supply of funds available for
home buyers. Since then the program has become a key part of the
financial system in two respects: first, as an attractive real estate
based investment offering very good yields and maximum safety;
second, as a source of financing for the Canadian housing industry.
The mortgages are all insured under the National Housing Act.
The fact that these blue chip securities are the only ones of their
kind backed by the federal government makes them as solid as
Canada Savings Bonds but with the added advantage of higher
yields. Yields are greater because their liquidity is market based
and their value fluctuates with market interest rates.
MBSs help to increase the amount of private capital available to
finance the construction and purchase of homes and rental
accommodation and encourages competition in the mortgage
market. MBSs help to support the availability of lower mortgage
interest rates by assisting smaller approved lenders to compete with
the larger ones.
MBSs have also improved the security of tenure for Canadians
through longer term mortgages. Before they were introduced,
mortgage terms usually ranged from six months to three years and
now consumers can benefit with terms of up to 25 years. Over $25
billion worth of mortgage backed securities have been issued since
the initiative began in 1987.
Turning to the bill itself, it is quite straightforward. It is intended
to increase the maximum aggregate mortgage loan insurance from
$100 billion to $150 billion. It sounds like a large sum of money,
but at the same time we have heard members on this side of the
House explain that this is really a profit making venture on the part
of the government, which contributes to the reduction of the
16204
national debt and at the same time encourages housing
construction.
(1250)
Many really do not understand what we are talking about when
we say mortgage insurance. Some people have the view that it is
like life insurance and it is something that is put on a mortgage to
insure someone's life. Most lending institutions will only lend up
to 75 per cent of the value of a house or a property available for
construction, so there is the leftover portion of roughly 25 per cent.
That can only be accommodated in one of two ways, either the
person who is building the home or buying the home comes up with
that 25 per cent, or the financial institution receives a guarantee
that it will be paid back that 25 per cent. That is where mortgage
insurance comes in and that is why it is essential.
It is clear from everything I have read that if mortgage insurance
was not available for that 25 per cent, housing construction would
literally grind to a halt and we would see no activity at all.
I have gone through the joys of constructing a house of my own.
I use the term joy very loosely. It is a challenge more than a joy. I
contracted out the work myself, which means I used to be seven
feet tall and have no grey hair, but after having being beat up by all
of the contractors and chasing around, I realized exactly what goes
into constructing a home.
What I was struck by in the process was the amount of
employment created in the construction of just one home. People
have no real appreciation of the facts because a lot of people have
contractors build their homes and do not really see the full effect of
what one house has in the construction industry.
I had five framers working on my house for six weeks. Those are
the people who build the house and do all the rough construction. I
had two plumbers working on my house for at least two weeks and
three electricians working for another two to three weeks. Eight
roofers put on the roof in two days, which I was very impressed
with, but there were eight people scampering all over the roof. Four
people put up the gyprock and another two put on the plaster. As
well, there were painters and finish carpenters.
I was lucky to have fixed contracts so that I did not get beat up by
the time that it took on this particular contract, or else I really
would have been looking stupid, but fixed contracts are very
important in these circumstances. What struck me was the sheer
number of jobs created. That does not even account for the other
people who were involved, the building supply people, the
manufacturers of the pipes, the sinks, the toilets, the sewer pipes
and those types of things, the cabinet makers, the people who do
the hardwood floors and the carpets.
I am sure I have forgotten some of the people who were actually
involved in the process. My wife is sitting at home telling me I
have forgotten about this and I have forgotten about that because
she did it all and that is why I do not know. She did most of the
contracting rather than me.
The fact is that literally hundreds of jobs are created because one
person chooses to build a house. If we can make that happen
throughout the country, then we are really going to be creating a
large amount of employment. It is clear that housing is a major
contributor to the creation and the maintenance of employment.
That is why mortgage insurance and CMHC have a very critical
role to play.
In this major indication of commitment, the government is
saying it wants to spur on the housing industry. For those on the
opposite side that say it is crazy, that we should not do it, that we
should let the marketplace do it on its own, I would like to read
some of the stats that are put out by the housing industry.
In a press release in September of this year CMHC forecast
housing starts of 112,500 for 1995, an astonishing 30,000 drop
from the initial forecast of 141,000 starts at the beginning of the
year and far below national housing requirements of 165,000 starts.
While the news is a little better in 1996 with CMHC forecasting
another 127,000 starts, the housing industry is at recession levels.
Ways have to be found to encourage the housing industry because it
creates the employment Canada needs.
(1255)
The press release went on to state that lower interest rates are not
the cure all for the current situation. Lower rates will not address
the principal problem, the loss of confidence among many
Canadians in their employment prospects.
That is why we have a double barrelled task here. First, to create
that confidence, which is what the Liberal government is doing
now by getting our financial house in order, while at the same time
providing those mechanisms like mortgage insurance so that the
housing industry can easily facilitate the increase in construction
which is necessary. I want to emphasize that the key is confidence.
We have to establish confidence. We have now turned the corner on
the referendum. It is time to start talking about confidence, about
creating employment and carrying this country into the 21st
century.
New approaches and new directions for financing the housing
industry have to be found. I know the industry has brought forward
a number of imaginative approaches. It talked about RRSP loans
for mortgages and all of those things. I found it interesting to look
at some of the things that Central Mortgage and Housing is actually
doing now. I thought I should read those into the record because
they are important as we try to grapple with housing. If this country
is going to succeed, one of the areas which will help cure crime
16205
problems, create jobs and, in effect, fuel a positive, caring society
is through the provision of adequate and proper housing.
Here are some of the objectives of the National Housing Act and
what CMHC supports. Through social housing, CMHC works with
provincial, territorial and municipal housing agencies and with
local non-profit organizations, co-operatives, urban native groups
and First Nations, for those whose needs cannot be met by the
private market. Assistance is provided to more than 661,000 social
housing units.
CMHC's direct lending program enables CMHC to act as a break
even lender to public and private, non-profit and co-operative
projects that are subsidized by CMHC.
CMHC is helping the Canadian housing industry to promote the
Canadian housing system abroad by helping to develop housing
export strategies to assist the Canadian housing industry market
Canadian housing technology, products and services in world
markets.
CMHC's Canada Centre for Public-Private Partnerships in
Housing facilitates housing partnership projects involving the
production of affordable and accessible housing for low to
moderate income households without ongoing federal subsidies.
CMHC continues to provide leadership in improving not only
Canadian but international housing standards. Those are just a few
of the things that are ongoing.
In conclusion, this bill will be pooh-poohed by the members
opposite, some saying it is too little and some saying it is too much.
Mortgage insurance has been one of those key catalysts to keeping
the housing industry functioning and a positive contributor to the
economy and to the creation of jobs. At the same time, as has been
mentioned before, it makes a contribution to the reduction of our
debt as CMHC returns a profit to the Government of Canada.
I am sure that members opposite will see their way clear to
quickly support and pass this piece of legislation.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am really pleased to hear the hon. member's comments
regarding this bill and the positive forces it will have on the
economy of our country.
Only a few weeks ago I had the ambassador from Poland in my
riding of Cumberland-Colchester, Nova Scotia. The purpose of
his visit was to look at housing for Poland and eastern Europe. The
interest is there because they know that Canada and particularly
Atlantic Canada have numerous sawmills making new houses
constructed of wood, high insulation products and meeting the
R-2000 code for insulation standards.
(1300 )
When we had the G-7 conference in Halifax in June, we
produced a G-7 model home. This was the interest the east
European countries had in looking at Canada and the great potential
in development. Could the hon. member elaborate a bit on the
value of this construction, on the high prestige of construction of
homes, on the value to the world structure, on the peace and
economic development it will bring, as well as bringing jobs here
at home and adding to that great potential of export for our
country?
Mr. Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
It is an interesting one, because in a country the size of Canada,
with a population of roughly 30 million, the key to a lot of our
economic success is the role we are to play on the international
market and what we will accomplish there.
What is very gratifying for me in my role as parliamentary
secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources is dealing with
companies that are actually building model homes or sending
building materials into the international marketplace.
I recently had a meeting with a model home builder who is
building homes for the Japanese market. A lot of people said that
would not happen, that we could not crack that market. The
manufacturer was telling me that he cannot supply the demand, that
if he could generate more he would. The market is flooded with the
types of housing that do not fit the strict criteria necessary in the
Japanese market. Canadians have developed the techniques, the
building standards, and those types of things that make it easier for
us to introduce our products into the international marketplace.
I hear the Reform Party from time to time talk about doing away
with the Department of Natural Resources, saying that the federal
government has no role to play. As we set the standards so that we
can meet the international criteria and the International Standards
Association requirements, as we do the research and the
development that is necessary and develop the new technologies
that allow our industries to compete in the international
marketplace, we are making that contribution to creating jobs in
Canada. That is where the housing market has an integral role to
play.
In my home province, Kent Homes, part of a larger company, is
building model homes and is trying to sell those all around the
world. Just as I described the number of people who were working
on my house when I was building it, the same sorts of things are
going on in the construction of model homes. These are job
creators. They are a transfer of money, jobs, and growth to the
international marketplace so that we can then reap the returns from
those activities.
The Department of Natural Resources has an excellent role to
play, CMHC has a role to play, and we at the federal government
16206
level have a very important role to play in creating employment
through housing. This bill will make one small step for that
approach.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In closing the intervention to
the hon. parliamentary secretary, the word from Moncton from
many subcontractors is they wish he had stayed in Ottawa and let
Mrs. Rideout look after the contracting.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about
CMHC's involvement in providing insurance so that more people
can afford homes. I would like to touch on the area of social
housing and the way the National Housing Act and CMHC have
helped in the social housing. I would like to use experiences in my
riding.
Canadians of Lithuanian descent in my constituency saw the
need for housing for seniors. In no way could these seniors afford
individual homes, et cetera, so they built Vilnius Manor. How did
they build it? They got a long term mortgage from CMHC at a very
low percentage over a long period of time. Today these seniors are
enjoying one of the most beautiful homes in Toronto, probably. In
this home the seniors not only mix with Canadians of other
heritages but they can also hear their own language. They can also
see part of their own culture that they brought with them to Canada.
It is a real success story, situated right on Bloor Street in Toronto.
(1305)
An example of a similar project, again funded or assisted by
CMHC, is Copernicus Lodge. A group of Polish descent built
Copernicus Lodge as a home for seniors. It was filled up before it
was even completed. In these models some people have to pay the
full rent and others get a subsidized rent. Again, there is a women's
auxiliary with this Copernicus Lodge who provide activities for the
seniors. You will not see happier Canadian citizens than the ones
living at Copernicus Lodge.
Another example in my constituency is Wawel Villa. Again
thanks to CMHC funding a group of seniors can live in Wawel Villa
just opposite High Park. They can walk through the park and enjoy
life in their older years.
I had the experience also of helping Canadians of Latvian
descent to build Kristus Darzs in the Woodbridge area. Again, this
home would never have been built if it were not for the assistance
of long term loans from CMHC.
I hope this program will never be cut. We have thousands of such
homes across Canada providing comfortable living for those in
these kinds of homes.
A problem is beginning to develop that I would like to share with
the minister, the mover of this bill. As these people age in these
homes they now need more intensive care. Many need ongoing
nursing care. Many require chronic care assistance and they do not
want to move out. These homes were not built for these kinds of
clients.
Do they move out? Where do they move to? Most of them want
to stay. All the homes I have mentioned are looking. Copernicus
Lodge has already built a second phase. They have floors that
provide more intensive care for the people who need it. This is a
problem that is facing our country. We build affordable homes for
senior citizens as they get into their eighties and nineties. And I am
so pleased that many are living into their eighties and nineties, and
some are reaching a hundred and over. But they need special care.
Rather than move the people out, we have to provide in these
homes more intensive assistance, which requires a different kind of
personnel. It requires highly trained nurses, psychologists, social
workers, and so on. Yet these are the areas where unfortunately the
Conservative provincial government is cutting back. I do not know
why the Premier of Ontario wants to cut back on the backs of
seniors. I believe we have to reduce our deficit. We have to run a
much leaner government, but not a meaner government, such as the
province of Ontario appears to be doing. This is an important issue,
which will be facing the country even more intensively.
This brings me to the issue of jurisdictions. We have been talking
over the last month about perhaps moving some of the powers the
federal government has to provincial jurisdictions and co-operating
with the provinces to decide who can deliver these programs the
best.
(1310 )
We are talking about federal programs in housing. The province
of Ontario also is involved in housing. If someone in the greater
Toronto area wants a subsidized unit, they go to the metropolitan
Toronto level. The city of Toronto has a program called City
Homes to help people with affordable housing. There are four
levels of government-federal, provincial, metro Toronto, and
Toronto-all involved in housing.
If we want to keep the country together, these are the areas we
must look at to see who can deliver the housing programs best,
most efficiently, et cetera. And let us talk with the other levels of
government. If there is one level that can do it better, fine, it can
take over a certain area. If the federal government can do it better,
it would take over, with the caution that the federal government
will still need a strong central government to maintain standards
coast to coast to coast, be it in housing, day care, or health care.
I wanted to put on the record the kind of assistance my
constituency received thanks to the type of bill we are amending
here today, the National Housing Act.
The House has heard the problems that are facing the Parkdale
area of my riding, with prostitution, drug trade, high school
dropouts, et cetera. We are trying to analyse why in one part of my
riding there is such a heavy concentration of all these social
problems yet in another part of the riding there are not the same
problems. One thing, in my analysis, that contributed to this is the
16207
lack of home ownership in the troubled area. In that area only six
per cent of the population own their homes.
Again, if all levels of government got together to make it
possible for people to afford their own homes and build a family
unit, et cetera, I think we would reduce the numbers and the kinds
of problems facing the Parkdale area. We are working on it, but we
do need help from legislation such as we have here today.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments about the value
of housing to seniors. I am sure every member in the House can
appreciate that in his or her own community.
So often we hear criticism about CMHC, about government
involvement in mortgages. I would like to ask the hon. member
why the government is involved or should be involved in the
issuing of mortgages for housing here in Canada.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, wherever government involvement
creates unfair competition, I feel government has no right to be
there. However, the mortgage insurance that is provided with this
legislation is fair and equal competition. It provides insurance for
people who would normally not get it through private insurance
companies. By providing this alternative, it keeps the rates down
also. If we believe in the free market forces, which I do, it is good
for consumers, because it does keep the rates down and it makes
mortgage insurance available to those who otherwise would not get
the insurance and consequently would not be able to purchase a
home.
We made some amendments not long ago about allowing first
time homebuyers to make a down payment of just 5 per cent. This
was another good move to make home ownership more accessible
and affordable to more Canadians. It is the same with the
insurance.
(1315 )
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has been
interesting to listen to the comments of my colleague and others
who have spoken on the bill and to understand the intricacy of this
legislation. It touches the aspect of social housing, to which my
colleague has just referred. Previously we heard how it will impact
the building trades and local economies across the country.
We also understand that this legislation will have an impact on
our ability to trade in foreign markets. As the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs knows, this is an
important aspect of this legislation as well. Here we have a bill
presented in the House of Commons that is prepared for the
national good and yet we have the third party challenging it,
wanting this responsibility for housing to be devolved to the
provincial level.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can see any
real value in that kind of solution, given the kinds of things that we
are hearing and the facilitative role that this particular and single
piece of legislation has for all Canadians in so many different ways.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her concerns
and for raising these issues. She ran and I ran and I think most
people in this House ran on one theme in our platform, which was
prosperity and job creation.
The more homes made available to Canadians the more jobs are
created. When you consider what is bought when someone
purchases a home, people mention immediately fridges, stoves, et
cetera, but those you need in an apartment when you do not buy a
home. Think of all the other infrastructure, the landscaping, the
garden, the paving of the driveway and how many jobs this creates.
I am glad we are having this debate because the member
mentioned her experience with the Polish ambassador and his
interest in our housing system. When I was taking cour des français
in Saint-Jean, I met with a representative of a company from
Quebec who wants to export 240 homes to Krakow, Poland. The
technology is totally Canadian, totally Quebec. It would be shipped
out to Poland all prefab and later put together.
Imagine the kind of job creation that project alone would have.
However, the problem in Poland was that people cannot get
mortgages to buy those homes. Poland is looking very closely at
the legislation we are discussing today because through such a
program the people in Krakow, Poland could buy those 240 homes.
If it is successful, we can repeat this model not only in Poland,
but in Ukraine, in Russia, all over the world. This would be a niche
for Canadian manufacturers of housing. This would be a niche for
getting into the export field.
The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade is now looking at how we can help the SMEs, the small and
medium sized companies, to get into the export market. We have
such great entrepreneurs who are sharing their expertise with our
foreign affairs committee. Again, I keep stressing jobs because if
you increase exports by $1 million, you have created about 35 new
jobs. When you are exporting in the billions, imagine the kind of
jobs that will create.
We have a beautiful country. We have a country like no other in
the world. Let us stick together. Let us co-operate with every
province and the nation. Let us co-operate with every province and
the world. We have expertise such as I have mentioned here and we
16208
will keep our number one position. Not only that, but we will
improve the lifestyle of people in other countries.
I thank the member for that question.
(1320 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, November
6, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find a disposition
on the part of the House to call it 1.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall I call it 1.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): So ordered.
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.
_____________________________________________
16208
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-343, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant),
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-343 which I am happy to address
today is not a lengthy bill. I do not believe it will require a lot of
debate. I would like to read the actual amendment:
Subsection 495(1) of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following
immediately after paragraph (c):
(d) a person who has committed the offence described in subsection 740(1) or
who on reasonable grounds, the peace officer believes has committed or is
about to commit the offence.
The purpose of this bill is to give the police or a peace officer the
power to arrest without a warrant a person who is in breach of a
probation order binding the person.
This is not an idea that was dreamed up out of the blue. It came
to me from talking with a number of police officers during many of
the ride-alongs I had with various police units throughout the
country including Calgary and particularly Toronto. The officers
had mentioned to me on a number of occasions that if they had the
power and authority to arrest individuals who were in breach of a
probation order, it would be a good preventive measure to stop a lot
of crimes.
Let me give a couple of examples. When I was riding in a
Toronto police car a couple of officers identified a young offender
who walked by on the street at two o'clock in the morning. They
named him and said he was a young offender who was on probation
for dealing drugs. He was not even supposed to be on the streets
past six o'clock in the evening.
I asked what they would be able to do. They said that they would
take the name and report to the probation unit that this individual
was in breach of probation. However, they had no authority to do
anything. A young fellow who had been convicted of drug dealing
being out at two o'clock in the morning probably meant that
something was not right. It is the belief of those officers, and they
have a number of cases they can name, that had they had the
authority and the ability to take the person into custody for breach
of probation that the crime, which was committed later in the
evening by the individual, would have been prevented.
(1325)
Another example. An individual, because of an alcohol problem,
was on probation for either a domestic dispute or for committing
crimes while under the influence. Whether there has been a court
order or this individual is under probation, the individual is not
allowed to enter a bar or a drinking establishment. This is part of
the probation order. Police have told me that a number of times
they see such individuals breaking their probation orders by either
being seen consuming alcohol or going into places where they were
directed not to go.
All the police can do is report to a probation officer which may
take as much as one or two weeks because of the lack of manpower.
Had they been able to just arrest the individual on breach of
probation, summary conviction, that it would have prevented
problems later in the evening.
16209
A number of other times in one particular area there had been
young offenders arrested on 52 counts of break and enter. These
are young offenders who are required to attend school, are required
to be at home by six o'clock in the evening and are required to
do a number of different things. They were obviously in breach
of probation on a number of occasions by being out very late at
night. There were 52 charges of break and enter but only one
conviction. They were found guilty on all charges. There was the
one conviction but they were not incarcerated. They were put on
probation and were expected to follow the rules.
More break and enters followed because these individuals were
out late, clumped together and kept stealing. The police said: ``If
only we had the authority and the power we could have prevented
some of these problems''. They do not even have to arrest and lock
them up. The fact that they would have the authority to stop them
and ask them what they are doing breaking their probation orders,
maybe giving them an opportunity to get the heck out of there and
go home, would help. However they need the authority to do it.
This small little bill is just one measure that would help a great
deal in the prevention of crime throughout the country. It is
something the police have asked for. It is something that I have
agreed to submit on their behalf. It was awhile before my name was
drawn. I was lucky enough to get it drawn so I am putting this
forward.
In the near future I will also be putting forward legislation that
would give police the authority to arrest people who are in
violation of parole and statutory release. Whenever there are
conditions to a release somebody should have the authority to do
something when they are in obvious breach of those conditions.
I do not believe any member in the House can say for a moment
that it would not be a good idea to stop crime before it happens.
There is no doubt in the minds of all the enforcement officers I
have talked to that if they had the authority, which they do not have
now, if they had the ability, which they do not have, they would be
more than pleased to do these things because they feel that would
be a major part of their job. Let us face it. Enforcement of the law is
a major part of their job, but so is prevention. If those in the
enforcement agencies can prevent it from happening, they do so.
That is why they stop drunk people from getting behind the
wheel of a car and driving off. They do not wait until a drunk
person drives off, they prevent it by trying to stop that person from
getting behind the wheel.
This is a perfect example of something this House should do by
adopting this kind of measure. I do not have much more to say on
it. It is a common sense measure and does not encroach on
anyone's rights or privileges. We always seem to be worried about
the charter and the interference we may run into on a charter
challenge.
The supreme court judges surely would get the message from
legislators that this kind of legislation is serving a purpose. This
purpose appears in the red book. It is in the Reform Party policies.
It is in the Bloc policies. One of the policies of every party in this
House is to make Canada a safer and better place in which to live.
This kind of legislation would do that.
I encourage support from everyone in the House to put into the
hands of the police departments throughout the country, the power
and the ability to do this. They do not have it now. I repeat, they
cannot do it now. Let us make it possible for them to do so. Let us
take the burden off the understaffed and undermanned probation
departments. They are running at an unbelievable pace trying to
keep up with all the difficulties they now have.
It is a way of accomplishing what we all said we would do in our
policies. It is a small way, but a good place to start. I suggest that
we adopt this bill immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate. I see the
member for New Westminster-Burnaby rising. It is not for me to
manage the operation of the House but of course in private
members' hour the mover of the motion has 20 minutes and the
other speakers have 10. I do not believe the member for Wild Rose
gave any indication as to whether he might be splitting his time. He
did use only 10 of his 20 minutes. Perhaps the member for Wild
Rose could help the Chair.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I did not make any arrangements
to split my time. It does not take 20 minutes to talk on this topic. I
am willing to share my time with either one of my colleagues, with
agreement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Upon that clarification,
certainly if another member of the hon. member's party wishes to
split that time, there is 10 minutes remaining. I will recognize the
member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, after further consultation with my
colleagues, let us go in the rotation order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As you wish.
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-343. Let me begin by acknowledging
what I understand to be the objectives of the member in putting this
bill forward.
The objective is to make it easier for a peace officer to arrest
someone who is breaking the terms of a probation order. The target
group for this measure is anyone who is under a probation order.
Such an order could include many types of conditions, for example,
that the probationer refrain from alcohol, stay within the
jurisdiction, avoid use of firearms, or attend counselling.
We may be talking about family situations where someone is
convicted of an offence and is ordered to keep away from other
16210
family members. It might be a situation where an offender is
ordered to keep away from public parks or school yards.
Failure to comply with a probation order is an offence under the
Criminal Code. I suggest that this is good criminal justice policy.
Under the current provisions, an offender's probation can be
revoked because of a serious breach of a probation condition. He
can be arrested and charged for the distinct offence of breaching a
condition.
(1335)
Let us examine some situations and where it leaves a police
officer who encounters someone who appears to be breaching one
of the conditions of his probation. The police officer's authority is
defined in section 495 of the Criminal Code which authorizes the
peace officer to arrest without warrant a person found in the course
of committing a summary conviction offence.
Say for example the peace officer finds someone loitering
around a public park where children are playing. If the peace
officer is suspicious of the person he sees loitering at the park, he
can investigate in the usual way. If he finds that the person is bound
by a probation order which forbids the person going near public
parks, he may actually be in a position to arrest him on the spot.
Just being present in the park may constitute an active criminal
offence.
At the moment, breach of probation is a summary conviction
offence and the peace officer's authority to arrest without warrant
is limited. To arrest without a warrant the peace officer currently
must satisfy the conditions set out in section 495 of the Criminal
Code which states that a peace officer shall not arrest a person
without a warrant where on reasonable grounds the public interest
may be satisfied without so arresting the person at the time.
In making this judgment the peace officer must have regard to all
the circumstances, including the need to establish the identity of
the person to secure or preserve evidence concerning the offence,
or to prevent a continuation or repetition of that offence or another
offence. In effect the peace officer has some discretion to arrest on
the spot but he must exercise that discretion according to several
criteria laid out in the Criminal Code.
Bill C-343 would make the policeman's job easier by freeing
him from having to satisfy these conditions. If breach of a
probation order were an indictable offence, fewer conditions would
need to be satisfied. In that case the police officer could arrest the
person if he believed on reasonable grounds that the person had
committed the offence or was about to commit it.
This is precisely what Bill C-41 does. Bill C-41 deals with
Criminal Code amendments to improve and modernize our system
of sentencing. It makes failure to comply with a probation order
under section 740 a hybrid offence, that is, one that can be
proceeded with by way of indictment or by summary conviction
procedure. Hybrid offences are considered the same as indictable
offences for purposes of arrest without warrant.
The bottom line is that the police officer will now have the
flexibility the member for Wild Rose would like. The police officer
can arrest without warrant where he believes the person has
breached or is about to breach a condition of his probation and not
just during the course of the offence.
Bill C-41 received royal assent on July 13, 1995 but is not yet in
force. Therefore the first part of Bill C-343 will be unnecessary as
soon as Bill C-41 comes into force.
I would also like to bring to the attention of this House another
relevant modification included in Bill C-41. It is a modification to
section 740 that may make it easier for the police officer to do his
job. Section 740 refers to someone who ``wilfully'' refuses to
comply with a probation order. Bill C-41 changes the wording to
``without reasonable excuse''. This may make it easier for a police
officer to legitimately challenge a person, in the situation I have
described, to provide a reasonable excuse for being in the park or
near the school yard in apparent violation of the probation order.
Bill C-343 would give more freedom to arrest than Bill C-41
would give. Bill C-343 would create an exception to the general
rule for this offence of failure to comply with a probation order.
The arresting officer would not have to bother considering the
overall circumstances, or whether it was necessary to take the
person into custody in order to establish his identity for example.
It is evident there is a preference in our criminal law for using
appearance notices or summons as opposed to arresting persons on
the spot. Taking someone into custody without warrant should only
be done where it is necessary. Alternatively the peace officer is
expected to seek a warrant or issue the appearance notice.
Why should we make the breach of a probation order an offence
different from most other offences in the Criminal Code? Why
should the peace officer not be bound to respect the safeguards
placed into the code to guarantee basic rights and liberties?
It is unacceptable to exempt this particular offence from the
rules governing arrest powers for other criminal offences. I am not
sure whether an argument could not be made that such an
exemption is arbitrary or otherwise excessive and therefore
contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms. The real issue here is
controlling the risk to the community or to particular individuals
presented in various situations.
(1340)
Probationers are subject to the active supervision of probation
services and this supervision provides an additional measure of
control. Probation officers are experienced in judging when a
breach of probation order is merely a technical violation or
16211
something more serious that deserves revocation of the probation
or an arrest and separate charges under section 740 of the Criminal
Code.
Police and probation officers work together to monitor these
conditions. I believe peace officers have what they need to handle
almost every situation. If a suspect is actually committing the
offence of breach of probation, they have authority to arrest that
person without a mandate. Similarly, they have that authority when
they believe the suspect has committed the offence or is about to
commit an indictable offence. Alternatively, they may choose to
issue an appearance notice or even seek a warrant.
They are not overly restricted in their ability to arrest someone
who is hanging around a park or drinking alcohol or attempting to
approach the residence of a former spouse without a reasonable
excuse. If they believe a loiterer is about to repeat that offence or
commit another one, they can exercise their good judgment and
arrest that person.
I do not believe the criminal law modifications proposed in Bill
C-343 are necessary.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have just a few extemporaneous, spur of the moment
observations to make.
Perhaps I can provide some perspective on the bill, seeing that
my previous profession was that of probation officer and I was in a
situation where administratively I dealt with the relationship with
the 24-hour contact agency, which is the police, and saw the
behaviour of probationers. Often on a Friday or Saturday night
things were happening in the community, but the probation officer
generally worked in an office in a day situation.
Certainly the well meaning intention of this private member's
bill comes from legitimate police concern. It also can be seen that it
comes from public concern. I am adding that it also comes from
criminal justice probation officer concern.
The bill gives some reasonable discretion for giving additional
tools to the police. That is not to say, as the member for
Lanark-Carleton would say, that this is unjustifiable in the
panoply of what is available to police officers. However, we must
look at what are the administrative instructions to police
specifically concerning their justice time and the allocation of
dollars. They are under administrative control to be very careful
not to arrest on a summary conviction unless they are absolutely
pushed over the limit and it can be justified.
The operational difference between what happens on the street
and the permutations that may be technically possible under the
Criminal Code are quite different.
I am saying that the bill is going in the right direction because it
conforms to the principle of minimal intervention and intrusion to
achieve a public good. Rather than trying to change the offence
from summary to an indictable offence, it looks at a specific
exception to the law, which is a minimal change. It is the minimum
possible to achieve the objective. It provides an exception to the
summary procedure in a special case where the police officer
decides for the general social good that it needs to be done.
Currently, because of administrative procedures those are simply
avoided and discounted by saying we really cannot intervene. Why
should we do this?
The administration of justice has been brought into disrepute by
the current operation in the streets. Probation orders are often seen
to be not worth the paper they were written on. Orders are given
and they must be obeyed. They will be obeyed increasingly if there
are regular consequences that flow. We are talking about general
deterrence and the community reputation that develops around the
operation of these court orders, especially conditions of probation
such as not to enter premises where alcohol is sold or not to be out
after a certain hour, not to frequent a particular bus exchange where
it seems that criminals have a tendency to meet, geographic
prohibitions or prohibitions to stay at least one block away from a
girlfriend's residence because of a history of assault or threats. The
community expectation is that these orders will be obeyed and can
reasonably be administered without unnecessary administrative
barriers. We see in the newspaper that the offender received a
sentence and was placed on certain conditions, and the public can
feel good about it. However, when we investigate it, we find the
administration of the order actually breaks down.
(1345)
The probation order must have some real meaning. The public
delegates to the authority and then has an expectation that the order
will be administered properly. The orderly operation and
administration of court orders are very important. I think the public
reputation is that court orders are not that well administered.
We have to overcome the community notion that the order is not
worth the paper it is written on. There are administrative barriers
that could be put aside by this measure. The bill is minor in size but
I am saying it is very meaningful in its practical form.
The member for Lanark-Carleton outlined in some technical
sense how this bill went beyond the current bill before Parliament.
I am recommending it is an additional permutation that would be
very helpful for the administration of criminal justice in the
community.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will take a
few minutes to express some of my feelings and concerns about the
area addressed by the bill.
For what purpose do courts issue prohibition orders? They feel
under the circumstances it is the adequate action that should be
taken to protect society. Probation is a comforting term, an order of
probation. It is not unlike mandatory supervision term we hear.
16212
Is it comforting that someone will be released before his or her
time on mandatory supervision? The state is to conduct supervision
over the person to ensure the safety of the public. We have seen
how absolutely useless that type of condition is in protecting the
Melanie Carpenters and the Sylvain Leducs from the kind of action
the court has surmised will never take place.
I support the bill. If the court issues a probation what is it
asking? It is asking the accused person to obey certain
requirements: to stay away from bars, perhaps to stay away from
the classroom or perhaps to stay away from a spouse who has been
subjected to abuse, physical or otherwise. Does the court expect the
person will simply obey those orders? What happens if he or she
fails to obey? Probation officers do not have the manpower to deal
with circumstances late at night. We also know police officers are
usually there. At least they are on duty 24 hours a day. The public
has access to them in case a probation order is violated.
If a wife realizes her husband is to stay away from liquor under
probation and he is at a bar at two o'clock in the morning and she is
sitting at home in fear of his attendance, what protection does she
have? Should she phone the probation officer? Nonsense. That is
impossible. She could phone the police under the circumstances.
The police do not have any authority whatsoever to intervene to
protect her from her husband even though he is in violation of a
probation order set as a result of his violation of her.
I listened to the hon. member across the way speak about the
laws being in place now to prevent that. If that were the case we
would not be receiving feedback from police officers about the
violations of individuals they have brought before the courts and
the courts have placed on probation. They have seen the violation
of those probation orders and can do nothing about it except to
report the situation to the probation officer on Monday morning
and if the probation officer has time he will follow it up perhaps
two or three weeks later.
This is a common sense response to the cries of the police to give
them reasonable tools to prevent crime and criminal acts from
occurring. I suggest violation of probation is a criminal act. I do not
think anyone will deny that. Why not place within the hands of our
peace officers the power to do something about it? Therefore I
support the bill.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the
time of preparation of the bill I discussed it with a number of
people, particularly those of legal mind, who felt it was an
important bill to pursue. They also felt that it completely qualified
under the 12 or 15 points that clarify whether a piece of legislation
is votable or non-votable. It certainly met the criteria in all their
eyes. I have also talked to a number of police authorities about it
and they said it was the kind of thing they could use to help prevent
crime.
I do not believe it is in contradiction to or identical to Bill C-41. I
have been advised that is not necessarily the case. Therefore, with
the idea that all of us are here to do whatever we can to prevent
crime, it would be a small step in the right direction if we all
supported it as a votable item. If there is unanimous consent I
would move that Bill C-343, for the sake of the safety of
Canadians, become a votable item.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion by the hon. member for Wild Rose. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There being no unanimous
consent, there being no further members rising for debate and the
motion not being designated a votable item, the time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing
Order 96.
It being 1.52 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 1.52 p.m.)