Bill C-48 (Historical)

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Finance to make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion in respect of the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for the purposes and in the aggregate amount specified. This enactment also provides that, for its purposes, the Governor in Council may authorize a minister to undertake a specified measure.

Social Housing

[Christian Simard, Bloc, Beauport, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister needs to stop blowing smoke. I am not talking about Monopoly money and Bill C-48. I am talking about the $4 billion in CMHC's coffers.

There are 150,000 homeless people. Does he intend to do something with real money? It is not Monopoly money.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Housing]

Mr. Speaker, CMHC belongs to the Canadian people. In fact, it belongs to the people who are able to buy homes, to build co-ops, to live in social housing. That is to whom it belongs. It does not belong to the provinces. It belongs to the people of Canada and for those who want to buy homes.

Maybe the member should support Bill C-48 which is about building more housing for social income people.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too will speak to C-363. There is no question that the objective of the bill is laudable in the sense of social housing, providing quality homes and improving the quality of life.

However, the manner in which it proposes to do it is somewhat problematic when one looks at the composition of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Essentially there are two functions to that corporation. One is the insurance and securitization part of CMHC. In that respect it is meant to be a commercial enterprise that competes in the private market with others, like Genworth Financial Canada, that provide mortgage insurance or financial institutions that provide loans.

The other aspect of CMHC relates to assisted housing or social objectives, research and information and international activities.

CMHC's business activities, which are financed from insurance premiums and fees, require it to be competitive in the marketplace. The bill looks at having those fees moved over to social housing.

The other aspect of CMHC, which deals with social housing initiatives like assisted housing, housing repair and improvement, aboriginal capacity programs, Canadian housing market research, emergency planning and so on, is funded by parliamentary appropriations, and rightly so.

Any of those initiatives that CMHC wishes to proceed with would need to go to the Prime Minister, the cabinet and ultimately Parliament for approval. We saw that happen for instance in Bill C-48, although it was ill-conceived and under perhaps trying circumstances. Nonetheless it was a type of bill that dealt with a parliamentary appropriation for a specific purpose and it was debated by the House and all parliamentarians had an opportunity to vote on it.

This bill proposes to have that happen automatically, have it happen without any consultation in Parliament and have it move as the funds develop. When we look at the bill, it indicates that when the ratio of 0.5% of housing loans are attained in terms of profits, they would automatically move to the CMHC reserve fund. At that point, if the reserve fund reached 10% of the equity of the corporation, the funds would automatically get disbursed to the provinces. Although the concept in itself may have some merit in that it is a per capita distribution to provinces, it all together bypasses parliamentary intervention.

The clause as it now reads intends to amend section 29 that establishes a reserve fund. It states that moneys get placed to a reserve fund after taking into account a series of events like bad debts, depreciation and anticipated future losses. We find that some of those are calculable, but the anticipated future losses are dependent in a large part on the economy, on the interest rates and on a whole series of factors. To arbitrarily fix it at 0.5% of the housing loans does not bear a relationship to those factors.

What we have is an independent body, an actuary, that would predict what, in the anticipation of the actuary, ought to be held in reserve to cover potential losses. In my view that is a prudent way to operate. However, in the event we find ourselves in a situation where either the risk that is intended to be covered is over covered or more income is earned than ought to be earned, then perhaps CMHC has charged too much on its commercial side of the business.

No doubt in order for it to be competitive with Genworth or other institutions that are operated privately to provide the same services, it needs to establish a reserve to properly capitalize its assets to ensure if there is an economic turndown that it can cover those losses and it must have a divided of some sort at the end of the day to be profitable. In this case, it would be anticipated these would go to the Receiver General, ultimately to general revenue and disposed of as the House may decide. If we find that CMHC is making too much money or is receiving too much income, we then have to look at those who are paying the moneys into it and who are not receiving the benefit, and they are first time homebuyers.

Currently, to purchase a home at a low of equity ratio of, say, 95%, those loans are insured by CMHC which is insured by the Government of Canada that has a stake in this matter. It can provide housing to first time homebuyers at a very low down payment of 5% in this case. However, they must pay an insurance premium of roughly $2,300 to $2,700 depending on the value of the home. All this goes into the CMHC revenues.

If we find that it is generating too much income, or more than is actuarially sound or more than it needs to, this should be taken into account in the amount that is charged to first-time homebuyers, and there are number of ways of doing that. We could reduce the insurance premium, as has been done the last couple of years, by 15% in each year. We could enhance the benefits of the insurance, as it has with respect to title defects or title defect insurance, whether it relates to unknown easements, or encumbrances or any other defect that might cause a concern to the consumer. There are two ways of dealing with excess revenues.

First time homebuyers should be given every opportunity to acquire a home. Five per cent may even be too much and we should work toward a 0% down payment to encourage people who are unable to get into a home. When we look at first time homebuyers, many of them are young people who do not have a lot of assets or money for down payments. We should look at other ways of arriving at how down payments may be achieved. We need to look at other ways at to reduce what it costs them upfront.

Currently, the CMHC insurance portion is financed through the term of the mortgage, which is 25 years. When we look at a 25-year amortization at current interest rates and an insurance policy of, say, $2,300 or $2,700, it amounts to a lot of money over the term of the mortgage. Profits should be utilized at making a better product, encouraging home buying with less down payment or zero down payment and ensuring that premium rates are low rather than using those moneys to cross-subsidize some other enterprises, such as social housing or any other project.

The minister has reduced the premiums twice now, but perhaps he could reduce them more. He has used the extra funding to waive the premiums on rental buildings in rental projects. He also has put in a program of a 10% reduction if the home is energy efficient or if the home is retrofitted. I worry about that because it is like cross subsidization of an insurance premium for purposes other than for what it was intended.

We would be better served if we operated CMHC as a commercial enterprise with sound commercial practices that could compete with other private sectors on an even keel basis to bring down the rate of insurance that individuals would have to pay.

In respect of social housing programs, it is not the business of CMHC to use commercially generated profits from either the insurance business or from the lending business to make social housing type initiatives. That is something the government as a whole needs to do. It is something that the government would need to project and stand the test of the House and ultimately stand the test of the electorate in the event of an election. It is a policy consideration and that needs to be made at the government level and tested through the public.

There is no question in my mind that these initiatives are important and they need to be proceeded with, but it is something that needs to stand the test of the House and of the public in a general election.

Something like this in Bill C-363 would circumvent all of that. It would arbitrarily assess these moneys to those projects without regard to the circumstances we find ourselves in, without regard to what our future economy may be like and without regard to all the circumstances involved in deciding what should be a safe and proper amount not only in the capitalization of CMHC but in the reserve fund.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues who will be speaking against the proposed Bill C-363, a bill that would amend section 29 of the CMHC Act to require Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to distribute surpluses from its reserve fund to the provinces.

Housing means more to Canadians than just four walls and a roof over their heads. It is one of the key building blocks around which most of us build our lives, like access to education, good health care and employment. Having a safe and affordable home is a cornerstone that enables us to go out into the world and to prosper in our jobs, support and care for our families, and build the vibrant communities and strong economy upon which this great nation is based.

It is important to recognize, however, that housing needs of Canadians are as diverse as the faces of Canada itself: youth, new Canadians, single mothers, women escaping violence, young families, seniors, persons with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and individuals living in northern and remote communities. With all of these groups there is a wide range of needs.

Our government's approach is to view housing as a continuum. Through our national homelessness initiatives, communities are given the opportunity to build on their successes and focus on interventions to help prevent and break the cycle of homelessness. Through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we seek to address a wide range of needs, from emergency shelter and assisted housing to access to market housing and independent, reliable information on the latest market trends and advances in housing technology.

Because of this need for diversity, we work with a wide range of partners. Playing a leadership role, CMHC collaborates with all levels of government, as well as with the private and non-profit sectors and community organizations, to develop workable solutions that speak to the needs of Canadians both today and tomorrow. Our vision of housing in Canada is broad and it is constantly evolving.

What does this mean for the young Canadian family looking to buy their first home or for the single mother hoping to get assisted housing with her children so she can go back to school for more training? What does it mean for the older couple living on a fixed income who need to make adaptations so that they can live in their homes independently? It means many things, but for starters it means an expanding range of mortgage insurance products that help make home ownership more affordable for Canadians. CMHC has a long history of innovation in mortgage loan insurance and in securitization that translates into products and services designed to meet the ever changing needs and lifestyles of Canadians across the country, as well as keeping financing for home ownership and rental development accessible and affordable.

In April of this year, CMHC introduced an impressive package of mortgage loan enhancements and benefits that continue to make it easier for homebuyers to take their first step into the market. This includes a further 15% reduction in mortgage loan insurance premiums for homebuyers with as little as 5% down. This is CMHC's second premium reduction for home owners in two years.

For that young family I mentioned a moment ago, these changes result in significant changes that may allow them to enter the housing market earlier and at interest rates comparable to those financing their homes with a down payment of 25% or more. This will help to get them started sooner on the path to financial security and to direct their resources toward other things, such as saving for their children's college or university educations.

As first time homebuyers assuming $125,000 CMHC-insured mortgage with a 5% down payment, a family will save $600 on the purchase of their new home thanks to the 2005 April announcements. If we were to combine the saving with the premium reduction CMHC announced two years ago, they stand to save a total of $1,200 on the purchase of their home.

The improvements do not stop there. CMHC also eliminated its mortgage insurance premiums on rental projects under both phases of the affordable housing initiative and other projects with rents that are low enough to meet the needs of households who qualify for social housing. This will result in significant savings to sponsor groups.

Housing sponsors, in addition to saving in the order of $300,000 on a $5 million loan with a value of 95%, will also be able to continue to benefit from the access of financing which mortgage insurance assures and corresponding lower interest rates.

Premium reductions of an additional 20% were also announced in April for affordable housing rental projects that met the criteria for CMHC's partnership flexibilities. On a project with a $5 million loan and on a loan to value ratio of 95%, this could amount to a savings of almost $100,000. These are substantial savings which sponsors can reinvest in quality housing projects or to use to make more units of assisted housing available.

These changes are in addition to the $1.8 billion our government is currently directly investing in housing projects for the benefit of all Canadians. In addition to the $1 billion for the federal affordable housing initiative, $405 million has been added to the supporting communities partnership initiative, or SCPI, and $384 million has extended the residential rehabilitation assistance program, RRAP.

Approximately $2 billion a year is spent on housing assistance, primarily in support of some 633,000 lower income households.

I am happy to say that for the single mother I described a few minutes ago, finding good quality assisted housing where she can afford to live safely with her children is more accessible, in part, through these programs. They can help her get on her feet and help her with her dream of picking up her education so she can work in a job she finds more fulfilling and to provide greater flexibility and security for her family.

We are also making excellent progress in moving the affordable housing initiative forward. Agreements have been signed with all jurisdictions for the first phase of the initiative, and eight provinces have now signed affordable housing agreements with the federal government.

What about those older low income couples who need to put new roofs on their houses? CMHC is making a difference for them as well. The funds available through the residential rehabilitation assistance program will help some of them, not all of them, with the costs of these repairs.

Because the housing challenges on reserves are unlike those faced by any other segment of our population, the government is also committed to improving on reserve housing conditions for aboriginal people by investing $295 million over a period of five years, of which $200 million will be invested in the first two years. The funding will help to build 6,400 new housing units and renovate 1,500 existing units.

The additional investment of $1.6 billion announced to assist Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians, in finding a safe and affordable place to call home will allow us to further address the housing gap faced by aboriginal Canadians. This will help us to begin the true transformative change that is required to help build a solid platform for longer term sustainable solutions from the Canada-Aboriginal Peoples Roundtable.

The federal government has a responsibility to help meet the housing needs of all Canadians.

Bill C-363 zeros in on only one part of the housing continuum, assisted social housing. It overlooks the real need to make housing more available and affordable for Canadians of all income levels, including those with special needs and those who need special housing.

In addition, the bill chooses only one delivery method, that of the provinces. In reality, it takes many partners to meet the diverse housing needs of Canadians. As I mentioned earlier, CMHC works in close partnership with a wide variety of industry, non-profit and community organizations to make a choice of innovative, affordable housing solutions available to all Canadians.

In fact, we have recently held a series of national consultations to gain a better understanding of the housing affordability challenges facing Canadians. These consultations will guide us in the development of a partnership based Canada housing framework that builds on the successes of our existing programs and introduces new initiatives.

Once in place, the framework will serve as a guiding plan for all new federal investments in housing, one that recognizes the housing needs of all Canadians, and which is based on the collaborations and successes we already have achieved. Most important, it will seek to build on and foster partnerships with all levels of government.

While the interest of the member opposite in housing is commendable, I would have felt a little happier if he had felt the necessity to support Bill C-48, which added $1.6 billion into the housing economy.

Wage Earner Protection Program Act

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for the leadership he has shown on this issue and on Bill C-281, the workers first bill, which does actually speak to the issue of protecting pensions in a real and meaningful way.

I want to break out a couple of the pieces that my colleague has already raised and dissect them a little more. First, I would like to join with my colleague in setting the record straight. I was reading yesterday's Hansard where the minister said in his opening comments, referring to Bill C-55 and wage protection, “This type of program is not radical or new, but it is for our country”.

On a technicality, on a federal basis it is, but within our nation, within the country, my friend from Winnipeg Centre is absolutely right. The Bob Rae government, the first NDP government in Ontario, brought in as its very first bill an employee wage protection plan that did exactly what Bill C-55 speaks about. In fact, it went a little further. Let us understand that the NDP has a track record of taking commitments on these issues, putting them into legislation and making them real, and doing it long before other parties in this place have seen it as a priority and enacted it.

What is important in this story, though, in addition to setting the record straight as to whether or not this is ground breaking legislation, is to understand that in the Province of Ontario right now, as a I stand in this place, that law has gone. That protection for workers has gone. That law was ripped out and that protection does not exist in Ontario right now. Why? Because the Conservative government of Mike Harris eliminated it and took away those rights. Let us understand that when it comes to workers' rights, really, at the end of the day, we are either with them or we are against them. It is clear where Harris was and where the NDP and Bob Rae were. It is good that this is happening. Parts of the bill are important and do provide protection, but it is far from ground breaking in the context of Canada as a nation.

Again, the bill has some good elements in it. There is no question about that. It needs serious work in committee and we are hoping we will get the commitment from all the other parties. Certainly, today, it sounds like our colleagues in the Bloc are prepared to roll up their sleeves and make the amendments necessary to give effect to what Bill C-55 purports to do, but without that work, the bill will fall short. However, we will support it. There are some good things in the bill and we will make it better, but it does not protect pensions.

I am emphasizing the comments of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre that it does not protect pensions. It will take Bill C-281, the workers first bill or one like it to do that. Let us remember that in the case of a bankruptcy, again articulated by my friend, under the currently law, if our pensions are not totally funded, we are at the bottom of the list. The banks, the creditors and the government come first. Workers are at the bottom.

It is interesting that the minister said in his comments yesterday: “--protection of workers whose employers undergo restructuring and become bankrupt. I am very passionate about this topic”. Great. Let us see some passion behind Bill C-281 and make some real changes that provide real protection for workers. That is the kind of passion we want to see from the Minister of Labour.

In the last couple of moments I want to deal with section 33. My colleague has talked about that. The minister made some reference to it where he said:

Canadian workers suffer lost wages, reduced pension benefits and uncertainty that their collective agreements may be unilaterally changed by a court.

The working assumption right now is that federal judges do have the power. That is the current wording. That is somewhat unclear and the first thing that the committee has to do is establish whether or not judges currently have that power. If that takes us into some legal battle, so be it. However, we cannot adequately deal with section 33 until there is an absolute determination as to whether or not, under existing legislation in its entirety, a judge is allowed the power to step in, in the case of bankruptcies and restructuring, and unilaterally order that collective agreements be changed. Let me say parenthetically that they are never changed to the benefit of workers, they are always changed to reduce the benefits that are in those collective agreements. That is the worry.

If they do have that power now, then subsections 33(1) and 33(2) take us two-thirds of the way, but there needs to be another amendment, an amendment that we would call the local 1005 steelworkers amendment. In the question and answer part of the package the minister released, there is the kind of protection that my friend from Winnipeg Centre spoke of. It says that a judge, upon application of the employer, can give a court order that negotiations can begin and it forces the two parties to sit down.

In the context of judges having unilateral power, if that is now curtailed to only direct an order that there be a negotiation at a table, then that is a good thing because it would then be more restrictive. It is taking away the authority and putting it into bargaining. What is missing is what is included in the questions and answers. It is missing in the legislation and it asks, what happens if they cannot agree to any concessions?

The questions and answers part of the package put out by the minister said that the agreement would then stand pat as it is. Every word, every comma and the expiry date, and that package, the collective agreement as it was, then goes in as part of the proposal that is put forward to the creditors as to whether or not that is acceptable. It may help the proposal float. It may sink it but nonetheless in law it would establish that judges will not unilaterally change it and that one cannot be forced to make changes at the bargaining table.

The employer representatives begin by saying their niceties, then the other side looks at them and says, we have no interest in changing anything in our collective agreement right now and we will meet you at the end of the expiry date and until then we do not need to talk about this collective agreement in terms of amendments any further. Period. End of meeting. The contract would stay in place. The powers of the federal judges would have been curtailed and the labour movement would have maintained the rights that it currently has to collectively bargain on behalf of its employees without a judge or anybody else unilaterally changing that.

If it is determined, however, that judges do not have that power right now and that it becomes the accepted interpretation by all, that they do not have it, then we want section 33 out of there because it means that we are now, through Bill C-55, giving judges the power to intervene in the collective bargaining process in a way that they currently do not have the power to do. We are not interested in amending section 33 with a new subsection 33(3) in that case. We want and will demand that the entire section 33 be removed. Make no mistake. This issue will be a major determinant as to whether or not the bill meets the test.

I have not heard from the minister. The minister said in his language that there is uncertainty. There is and that is why we want the uncertainty removed. It should be replaced by clarity, so that we know if judges have that power or not. Depending on the definitive answer to that, what will happen with section 33 will then make itself apparent in a way to which I have already spoken.

Bill C-55, as imperfect as it is, contains some benefits and is here for two reasons. One of them is not because the Liberals care that much about workers. The other is because the NDP through the member for Winnipeg Centre introduced Bill C-281 in terms of protecting pensions and putting them at the top of the creditors list, and the government was on the dime. It was on the spot and it had to do something.

To date, the government has not told us it is prepared to make that legislative change, although on the campaign trail the Liberals were all full of protection for workers and pensions. It was so motherhood and apple pie one would be shocked to believe it had not already become the law.

The second reason Bill C-55 is here is that it was ordered and demanded in the NDP budget amendment Bill C-48.

Those are the reasons it is here. The NDP drove this bill to be here. We will work with colleagues in the House to make this bill as good as it should be. We will continue to fight for Bill C-281. That is not going off the radar screen just because Bill C-55 is here. Those pensions will be protected.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the current bankruptcy laws were clearly written by the monied class. Big money has controlled things in Ottawa for so long that it is no surprise that all the laws are structured in such a way as to look after the interests of big money. That is the case in the current bankruptcy laws. Employees, workers, have been left hung out to dry in the event of bankruptcies in alarming numbers.

There are approximately 10,000 commercial bankruptcies per year in Canada, with over 100,000 employees owed back wages, benefits and pension contributions. It is a huge problem. Some of the estimates are as much as $2 billion per year are owed to employees due to bankruptcies. Imagine the impact of that.

The government finally has listened to the years of pleas from members of various parties to do something about this. I personally had a private member's bill that called upon the government to address the issue of bankruptcy.

One of the key elements in Bill C-55 is the wage earner protection program. For the record and history books, this is the manifestation of a commitment negotiated with the government by the NDP in Bill C-48, or what we call the NDP/Liberal budget of 2005. The Liberal government is living up to the commitment made at the bargaining table with our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth. We find ourselves with the wage earner program.

Under this proposal, an employee can seek restitution for up to $3,000 for back wages left owing. The government would then seek compensation from the trustee of the bankruptcy, wait in line and be reimbursed. It proposes as much as $2,000. It is an idea that we can agree to in concept. My colleague from Hamilton Centre may be able to expand on it. This was an NDP idea that was put in place in the province of Ontario by the NDP government in the early 1990's.

My problem with it is the figure is too low. We do not believe a $3,000 compensation would compensate as many affected workers as the Minister of Labour would have us believe. Partly, it should not just be back wages and holiday pay. It should also include severance pay or termination pay which may be included in a person's terms and conditions of employment. It also should include commissions for salespeople who may work in retail sales who get their commissions at the end of every month. That could amount to many thousands of dollars.

We believe that threshold limit of $3,000 is not adequate and that the employees should be able to seek compensation for wages, holiday pay, termination pay, severance pay and commission for salespeople.

We also are critical that there is a three month exemption. If someone has worked for the company for less than three months, that employee is not eligible for this program. I do not see the logic in that. In fact someone who has only worked for less than three months is more vulnerable than a person who has 20 years of service if there are two weeks back wages owing. That person may have been catching up on their personal finances. We are critical of both those issues and will be moving amendments to that effect.

The second element of the bill has to do with student loans. My colleague from the Bloc has pretty much reflected our criticisms of the proposed amendment to the student loan provisions. Let us be clear. The 10 year limit that students have to wait before they can declare personal bankruptcy is like a life sentence. This is crazy. Why should they be treated any differently than any other Canadian?

This came into effect only when the Government of Canada off-loaded the student loan system to the banks. When it privatized and contracted out the student loan program, the banks, in assuming the responsibility, demanded that they did not want kids to get out from under their debt for 10 years. That is baloney. The NDP supports the idea, especially in the cases of hardship, that the discharge in the event of student loan debt should be no different from ordinary Canadians. We will be negotiating that down with the ruling party.

One of the most important terms of this new bill is the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act amendments. Under the current rules, and we have checked this out and had it confirmed recently, a judge may unilaterally and arbitrarily alter the terms and conditions of a collective agreement of the employees. When a company goes under the CCAA and is seeking to avoid bankruptcy, a judge may alter the creditors' arrangements or collective agreements unilaterally. This is fundamentally wrong. We cannot and will not abide by that.

The amendment put forward by the federal government states that a judge may intervene to the point that he or she may direct the parties, labour and management, to sit down at the bargaining table and try to negotiate amendments to the collective agreement, but the judge may not unilaterally impose changes to the collective agreement. This is a step forward, providing we can be abundantly sure that the default position will be the status quo. In other words, if the two parties at the bargaining table reach an impasse, the default position will be to revert back to the collective agreement which will stand in full force and effect as it is. Providing that is the understanding, we will support element three of the bill.

The final element of the bill we also support, and I will leave more details of this to my colleague from Hamilton Centre. It deals with personal bankruptcies, in this case for very wealthy people making $200,000 a year or more, which very few do. Usually only heads of crown corporations like David Dingwall make more than $200,000 a year. They would not be allowed to have their taxes discharged in the event of bankruptcy for a period of five years, during which time they would have to try to negotiate a payback period. In other words, the people of Canada have a chance to be made whole if these high income earners try to welsh out on the back taxes they owe to Canada.

I believe this traces its origins back to the Radwanski scandal. George Radwanski, the former privacy commissioner, owed $650,000 in back taxes and it was forgiven 24 hours before he started his job as a $230,000 a year privacy commissioner. There was no payback whatsoever to Canadians. That could not happen under the provisions of this new bill. He would have had to sit down and negotiate a five year payback period. In that scenario, making $230,000 a year as a privacy commissioner, he could have paid back $100,000 a year to the people of Canada and still earned a good salary as privacy commissioner. I support element four of Bill C-55.

We will support Bill C-55 because it is better than the status quo. It gives some relief to wage earners who are affected by bankruptcy. There are some good elements to it. We will be fighting for amendments at committee.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, there is a dispute between management and the union. First, they are now in the process of trying to reach a joint agreement, and second, I would remind the hon. member that we have maintained the funding for CBC—Radio-Canada, and have added $60 million. I would ask them where they were when Bill C-48 was passed. Was there money in it for culture? No. For CBC—Radio-Canada? No. So we are doing our duty and do not need any lectures.

Civil Marriage Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let us be quite clear about one thing. We would not even be having this debate had Bill C-38 been defeated. The member and others had a chance to defeat the bill. It is not a pall on members on this side of the House that the bill will be passed in a few moments. Members opposite had a choice and they made that choice.

I only know my constituents. I am not sure what the constituents of the hon. member might be thinking about this. However, I would be willing to place a small wager that if his constituents came up to the member and asked him to to do everything within his power to stop the passage of this bill and if the member said that he choose not to because by doing so he would have to threaten to stop Bill C-48, I would suggest his constituents would want another member of Parliament who would stand up for their wishes, desires and our hopes.

The member had a choice. He chose not to make the choice.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that I will probably be the final speaker in the debate this evening, I am not sure if there is any symbolism to that or not and I am not sure if that holds any special responsibility for the Conservative Party of Canada to try to encapsulate some of the feelings that we have about this legislation.

I will take a bit of a different tack tonight and talk about choices, choices that members opposite made which brought us to this point in history tonight.

Before I do, I want to put on the record that I will be opposing this legislation. I have stated that many times before and I will continue to state my opposition to this legislation in the future. I will not go into all the reasons why. Many of my colleagues have expressed the views I hold far more eloquently than I could ever do, but I do want to point out a couple of things.

I firmly believe that by passing this legislation, we start on a very slippery slope which could affect societal change in a very adverse way. I see things which have been expressed before that could come down the pike, things like polygamy and others, while hiding behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am fearful that societal change could happen.

I also am a firm believer in the fundamental definition of marriage as we have known it all our lives. Marriage is and should continue to be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. I was brought up in that environment and I will continue to believe that until the day I die. This is not to disrespect members who hold opposite views. I understand this is a highly volatile and emotional issue. I respect the views of my colleagues who have to taken opposite views. All I want to express is that I believe the traditional definition, as we have known it for centuries, is the one we continue to observe for the next 100, 200 years, ad infinitum.

Finally, my views are widely known within my riding. It is without question that the vast majority of my riding constituents agree with the position that I take. If nothing else, I will continue to represent the views of my constituents before anything else I do in this place.

Let us talk about those choices. What are the choices the government and the members opposite made that brought us to this place and time? First and foremost, in my opinion the government abdicated its right totally when it turned to the Supreme Court to have it make a decision on its behalf as to the definition of marriage. I am not a lawyer and I freely admit that, but I believe one thing. The Supreme Court of Canada and any court in this land should be there for two purposes. One is to administer the law. The second is to interpret the law. It is not to make the law. The government tried to turn the whole question of same sex marriage over to the courts. It hoped that the courts would give a decision that it could hide behind, and that is what the Liberals were prepared to do.

Much to their surprise, and probably much to their chagrin, the Supreme Court came back and said that it was not up to it to define marriage. It was up to Parliament. Yet those parliamentarians and the government, primarily led by the members opposite, continue to use the Supreme Court and its ruling, as indecisive as it was, to say that we have no choice but to allow same sex marriage. It complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it is a matter of human rights. Other international institutions, such as the United Nations, say it is anything but a human right. That was their first choice.

Second, the Liberals had a choice in which they could have allowed every member of this House an opportunity to express their views freely on this issue. Did they do that? Absolutely not. Parliamentary secretaries and ministers were compelled to vote with the government's position, and that is in favour of same sex marriage.

However I have ultimate respect for a few of the members opposite. The courage of their convictions on this issue forced them to resign from the government and sit as independents.They did not decide to sit as a Conservative member or for any political reasons but to sit because in their conscience they could not support the government's view on this fundamental issue.

I give great credit to the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont who both left the government to sit as independents. They chose to tell all Canadians, not just members of their ridings, their explicit views on this fundamental issue that was so near and dear to their hearts. That was their choice but there was another choice that was made by many other members opposite.

Over 30 members on the government side stood in this place from time to time and spoke, sometimes with passion and sometimes at length, on their opposition to the bill. However they had a choice: to either bring the government down and not allow this legislation to see the light of day, or to acquiesce to the government and allow the legislation to pass. It was their choice that allowed the legislation to pass and it will pass in the House in a few moments.

I have the greatest of respect for those members opposite who stood down because in their conscience and in their moral view they could not support the government. They did the only thing that was humanly possible within their realm of possibilities. They stood down because they did not want to be associated with a House, a Parliament and a party that would allow this legislation to pass.

I have heard members opposite say that even though they opposed Bill C-38 they could not vote against Bill C-48 because they had to vote on each piece of legislation on its own merits and that if they had voted against Bill C-48 it would have destroyed a budget that is good for all Canadians and therefore they had no choice, they had to vote for Bill C-48 but against Bill C-38. That is absolutely disingenuous.

If Bill C-48 was such good deal for Canadians why was it not contained in the budget that the government originally brought to the House two weeks before they made a deal with the NDP? This was a choice that members opposite made. However the point I want to emphasize is that even if they did not wish to speak against Bill C-48, they had a choice.

We have seen the Prime Minister back down from every threat posed to him. We have seen individuals challenge the Prime Minister with bringing his government down. Danny Williams threatened the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister backed down. Premier McGuinty threatened the Prime Minister and all of a sudden there was an extra $5 billion-plus for the province of Ontario. The NDP threatened the government by saying that if it did not acquiesce to its demands it would bring the government down. What happened? The Prime Minister and the government backed down. They blink first and they do so every time.

I say to the members opposite, such as the member for Mississauga South, who have stood in this House and tried to convince Canadians that they were doing everything in their power to bring down Bill C-38, They did not do everything in their power.

Had they gone to the Prime Minister and said that they would not support Bill C-48, the Prime Minister would have blinked and this legislation would not be passed tonight. This legislation, at the very worst, would have been deferred until the fall. The members opposite are the reason that Bill C-38 will pass tonight.

Let there be no mistake and let every Canadian understand these words very clearly. There was a choice to be made on whether Bill C-38 would be passed and brought into law or not and it was the members opposite, each and every one of them, who made their choice to allow the legislation to pass through the House tonight. Let that be on their heads, not anyone else's head. It is the members opposite who made that choice and shame on them.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I started off by saying that for the most part it has been a very respectful debate.

The member opposite asked me about Bill C-48. As a member of Parliament, I vote on the merits of each piece of legislation. With respect to Bill C-48 there were some very important issues that affect my constituents. There was funding for affordable housing. I know that some members of the Conservative Party think that the answer to affordable housing is simply to put people in jail and make it illegal to be homeless, but that is not my view. I support public transit. The communities in my area want public transit. They deserve public transit and that was in Bill C-48. Bill C-48 gives money for post-secondary education. The residents of my community have students at Durham College and the new University of Ontario. They need that.

[An hon. member]

Where were you on Bill C-48?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak the report stage of Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. In the 10 minutes I have allocated, and that is another issue which I will speak about, I will talk about why we are here today, the same sex marriage bill. I also will talk about how this could have been avoided and where we can go from here.

With the government invoking time allocation at report stage and third reading, we will be voting on the legislation tomorrow night and there is nothing we can do about it now except to be here to vote and we will. Bill C-38 will probably pass tomorrow night, but that will not be the end of it.

Why are we debating Bill C-38 today? That is an important question. Just a few years ago the current Deputy Prime Minister was in the House defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman. She said that nothing would ever happen to change that and anybody who would suggest that would be speaking absurdity and all kinds of things like that.

The Deputy Prime Minister rose on the opposition motion brought forward by our party back in 1999 and speaking on behalf of the government in a carefully crafted speech she said:

The definition of marriage is already clear in law in Canada as the union of two persons of the opposite sex. Counsel from my department have successfully defended, and will continue to defend this concept of marriage....I continue to believe that it is not necessary to change well-understood concepts of spouse and marriage to deal with any fairness considerations the courts and tribunals...

She went on later to say:

The institution of marriage is of great importance to large numbers of Canadians, and the definition of marriage as found in the hon. member's motion is clear in law.

This was one of her closing statements, “I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage” as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Why are we debating Bill C-38 today? That is an important question and a question I have a great deal of difficulty understanding.

We know that about two-thirds of Canadians do not support this legislation. I did a survey of my constituents and received thousands of returns. About 98% of those who responded to my questionnaire, which was dropped at every household in the constituency, supported marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Many of my colleagues have done similar types of surveys and they have found the same results. Polling nationally showed that two-thirds of Canadians do not support the legislation. In my constituency it is much higher.

Why are we debating Bill C-38 today? It seems to me that the government is so obsessed with the issue of same sex marriage that it will not let it go. In the 12 years I have been here I do not remember closure being used in the House the way the Liberals used it on Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill. If Bill C-48 had been defeated, the government would have been defeated and Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill, would not be here today and we would not be dealing with it.

It is not only the government that is obsessed with same sex marriage, but the NDP is also obsessed with this issue. This is the first time the NDP has voted with the government in favour of closure and now today on time allocation.

The Bloc is obsessed with the issue of same sex marriage as well. The Bloc members, who are generally democrats and would not support time allocation or closure, are so obsessed that in the last two days they have formed this unholy alliance with the government; the separatists, the government and the socialists. They have signed an agreement and together they are doing everything they can, including bypassing the normal rules of the House of Commons, to push the bill through.

This is an unholy alliance and this is why we are here today debating Bill C-38. Those three parties are obsessed with the same sex marriage issue. Because of that, they made this deal in bed together, the government with the Bloc and the socialists.

How could this have been avoided? First, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and many members of the Liberal caucus could show that they believe what they say. Many of them, including the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, said a few short years ago that they did not support same sex marriage and that they believed that marriage should be retained as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, there should be no reason for this bill to be debated today.

More recent, a free vote, which means all cabinet and all parliamentary secretaries in the governing party, would have killed the legislation at second reading. That is how this could have been avoided.

I want to talk a little about that. The government put our a document last week on parliamentary reform. I looked through that little booklet and I was shocked at what I saw. The document is from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. It is entitled, “First Annual Report on Democratic Reform”. What a joke. The things the government has pointed to as being changes it has made to make this place more democratic are exactly the opposite to what in reality has happened. However, there are some things of interest in there.

For example, it talks about how often the government has used the one line whip, the two line whip and the three line whip. I want to explain that. A one line whip is when the government says that it is a completely free vote. A two line whip is when the backbenchers can vote freely on the issue but cabinet and parliamentary secretaries must toe the government line. A three line vote is when all members of the Liberal Party are expected to toe the government line.

The government's own numbers in the document say that there were zero one line votes. That means no free votes whatsoever in the time that was documented in this report. Eighty-two of the votes were two line votes, including the marriage bill vote. That means that half of the Liberal caucus members are not free to represent their constituents on the important issue of marriage, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries. A three line whip was used 18% of the time. There was not one single free vote on government legislation.

I want to go to my third point. Where do we go from here? I want to say without a doubt, even if this bill passes tomorrow, which it probably will, that is not the end of the issue. The Conservative Party and the Leader of the Conservative Party are committed to bringing this back to the House when we form the government and we will have a truly free vote on this issue.

We know, as I have said before, that about two-thirds of Canadians support the option where marriage is retained as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Legal civil unions in Canada give all the rights that married couples have to those who want to be involved in a civil union. That is what we will put before the House. We will put options before the House and there will be a free vote.

Under a Conservative government I fully believe same sex marriage will be struck down and we will move on to become a country where we have marriage enshrined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure the last question deserves an answer. However, it annoys me that bills as important as Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 would come to the House without notice and be voted on while I was having dinner. I came back to the House. I have been in the House more often than that member.

The government ought to be responsible and take its duty seriously. Bill C-48 has no plan, it has nothing. How many housing units were build by the government in 11 years? There were very little for the money spent. The Liberals spent $1 billion with not a house being built.

There are more people living in poverty today than 11 years ago. There are more people homeless on the street while the government has been in office. That is something to be noted.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from the Conservative Party was pretty concerned about Bill C-48 last week. It was a good bill because it gave $1.5 billion to students to cut their debt and $1.5 billion for affordable housing. I want to ask the hon. member, why did he go for dinner with his wife at 9:30 p.m. instead of being on duty until 12:00 midnight and doing his duty by voting against the bill if he did not like it?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be taking a different tack tonight. I will look at the process that has led us to be facing Bill C-38 at report stage and closure.

I must say, in respect of the bill itself, that marriage essentially is the union of two people, a man and a woman, who consummate the relationship with sexual relations with the potential to procreate. Marriage has well been said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil, to be an institution, and it should remain that way. For the Liberal Party, it is more about politics, power and arrogance than it is about the essence of Bill C-38.

The government was prepared to make deals to keep its own members on side by promising broad committee hearings and not introducing the bill past report stage and third reading until fall. Then, when the Liberals were able to make a bigger deal, they decided to proceed to ram the bill through both stages. There will be a price for such an action and the Prime Minister and his enforcers shall pay the ultimate price at the ballot box.

Surely, the public at large will not let them get away with this. For those in the Liberal Party who oppose Bill C-38, the marriage bill, but voted with the government in a sneak manoeuvre to pass Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill, without notice, can certainly talk the talk, but they fall far short of walking the walk.

Let me speak briefly about procedures being used in this House that preclude the giving of notice. I could hardly believe that in a democracy, in a free and democratic country like Canada, the governing party would resort to procedures that would achieve their end by means of subterfuge and subtleness.

Surely, on an important issue like the NDP budget and Bill C-38, the government should at the very least provide notice of its intention and face the issue fair and square, so that the representatives of the people of Canada can make their views known.

Instead, what did the Liberals did? According to a Canadian Press report of June 25, by 8:30 p.m. Thursday last week, the Liberals were hiding out in the government lobby with one MP stating that the Liberals were going to bushwhack the Conservatives. I am sorry for the confused logic. It is really an affront and it is a bushwhacking of democracy.

I left the House at around 9:00 p.m. to have supper with my wife. Before I was finished supper, and without notice, Bill C-48 was up for a vote. Something as important as a budget vote was being snuck through the House. In all of my life, I have never heard or seen anything like it. The Liberals could not hijack democracy without the complicity of the NDP and the Bloc.

It is understandable that the NDP would engage in a procedure such as this as the leader himself asked if putting aside corruption, would the Minister of Finance change the budget? The NDP were prepared to make a deal regardless of the tactics or the manners of the government.

However, the Bloc, who opposed the NDP budget, Bill C-48, had nothing to gain or lose by the vote being taken on Thursday or on Monday, when we had a full contingent of our members in the House. To agree to Bill C-48 being placed before the House without notice was either intentional mischief or done for consideration of some kind. I can see no other rational conclusion. In either case, such actions are odious and any trust on my part from here on in will have to be earned.

All these steps were taken to force Bill C-38 to remain on its own, undressed, in full view of closure motions, limits on debate, and the concurrence of three parties to shove it through. Then on a foundation that it accepts important and significant matters, the government disposes it without notice given to the representatives of the people of Canada. That is wrong.

Any debate in this circumstance, in this context, is a farce and simply a matter of the government trying to appear magnanimous when it knows full well, it is about to drop the hammer to close matters off, as we just witnessed in this House tonight. I find this offensive. The fix, as they say, is in.

Indeed, this type of conduct may be what is necessary to awaken a sleeping giant. Those who agree with Bill C-38 and whose views will be made known in the ballot box in the next election will find out who is the ultimate judge in this particular case.

The Saskatoon Star Phoenix , on June 25, stated with reference to the government's conduct that “Thursday was the third time such a stunt was used in Canada's history”, and a stunt it was. I doubt it was ever used in such an important and significant a situation as a budget bill and a bill that redefines the definition of marriage. Obviously, it has never been done in this context. This is an all-time first and an all-time low in terms of its use in the history of this great country we call Canada.

Let us have a look at what brought us here today. Last week on Thursday morning, under Standing Order 57, a minister of the Crown served notice that debate with respect to extending the sitting of this House should not be further adjourned, with the provision that no member shall be allowed to rise to speak after 8:00 p.m., when a vote was held with respect to this motion. To put it simply, it was a closure notice with a time limit on speeches on an important issue such as we face here today. That was wrong and the government will pay the price for that.

Let us have a look at the motion itself, and I spoke to it the other day. The motion was prefaced by saying “notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice”. In other words, it was overriding anything that could stand in the way of the motion by way of Standing Order or usual practices. We put those aside. What does the motion go on to say? Essentially, that the sitting would continue until a minister of the Crown proposed, without notice, a motion to adjourn.

In other words, a minister could unilaterally have this House adjourn at any time without notice. It has come to this. What if anything or is there anything the government might not do to achieve its end? This seemed to me to be a heavy-handed approach and something one would not expect in this country.

This stunt, as referred to in the Star Phoenix , took place when the NDP, the Liberals, and the Bloc agreed that the Minister could propose to pass Bill C-48 without notice, without debate or amendment.

The government dispensed with the Standing Orders and usual practices to its advantage in circumstances that the Standing Orders were never intended to be used. It is in these circumstances, with this play of characters in office, that Bill C-38 finds itself.

What hope is there for those who oppose its passage? The hope is in the ballot box where they will have an opportunity to remove these characters from office.

The government tried to tie Bill C-48 to this bill in case it needed to apply to the Speaker for extension of the sittings, but then decoupled it when they and the sneaky, no-notice NDP budget Bill C-48 was voted in, in the middle of the night last Thursday.

Father Raymond J. de Souza said, “When holding unto office becomes the beginning and end of all activity, there are no more politics, just the machinations of power”. He went on to say that the corruption of our politics is now complete.

He refers to an article in the Toronto Sun that states, “--the time has come to cool the fury in Parliament, to ease the pressure on the Prime Minister to resort to seedy vote buying”. He says that Canada's largest circulation newspaper and ardent supporter of the Liberal Party concludes that the Prime Minister is engaged in seedy behaviour but excuses it on the grounds that otherwise he would be defeated by the opposition. It is all about power and if a little seedy vote buying is necessary, so be it.

He says what is cynicism in politics? It is the belief that politics is not about the common good, nor what one sincerely believes is right for the country, but only what is personally advantageous to the office holder. It is a Prime Minister's Chief of Staff discussing how one could go about trading offices for votes without officially trading offices for votes.

The mockery of the process of Bill C-38 in committee has caused the Liberal member for London—Fanshawe, to his credit, to leave the party and sit as an independent. Why? Because he knew what the Prime Minister promised, he would not deliver.

He observed what we did, the tricky procedural moves in committee such as removing Liberal MPs in exchange for others who would vote in correct ways, having members leave a meeting to cause it to adjourn for lack of quorum, calling witnesses in batches of four on very short notice, limiting witnesses to be called, and heavily stacking the Liberal committee members and the witnesses in favour of same sex marriage. Is this evidence of the Prime Minister's solemn word for full, fair and meaningful public hearings? Of course not.

The committee was asked to work to an unnecessary and premature deadline to report to the House. The member went on to state that witnesses were being given inadequate notice to appear at committee hearing and some have been rudely treated when they have attended. He said that the process as it was unfolding was unfair and perfunctory at best, and that it was not what he agreed to as a proper democratic consultation on such a major piece of legislation as the proposed definition of marriage. He added that in his view, the government had no democratic mandate from the people of Canada to redefine marriage.

I wish to conclude with Chantal Hébert's comments in the Toronto Star which could well be prophetic. She said:

Given the lengths to which [the Prime Minister] and his team have gone just to prolong the life of their minority government for a few more months, one has to wonder how many more ethical niceties they would dispense with--

Having heard [the Prime Minister's] chief-of-staff Tim Murphy nod and wink and dress up the Liberal window with future government considerations, can anyone doubt that this is an administration that is just as likely to live and die by the rule that the end justifies the means?

The democratic deficit [the Prime Minister] so likes to wax lyrical about has been compounded into an ethical one. And past sins of omission and/or commission have been overshadowed by current, in-your-face transgressions...It is a malaise that permeates the upper reaches of the government.

So much for the loyalty of the country. Anything the Prime Minister said suggesting that he encouraged a full debate on Bill C-38 in these sittings was, simply put, hogwash. The price the Prime Minister will pay will be paid at the ballot box. He cannot get away with such treachery as we witnessed in the House for this long. The voters will see to it. Marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others with no exceptions, no amendments, period.