Don Bell

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak against Bill C-363 as proposed by the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou to amend the CMHC act to require the distribution to the provinces by Canada Mortgage and House Corporation of surpluses from its reserve fund.

Housing is a fundamental priority of the federal government, as it is for the people of this country. We in the House have a responsibility to ensure that those Canadians who are in need of assistance are able to access a basic level of safe affordable housing.

Through CMHC the government is working to meet that need by helping to increase housing options and accessibility for low income families and individuals, aboriginal people, seniors, those living with a disability and Canadians with special needs. As the elected representatives of all Canadians, we also have an equal responsibility to all Canadians whose needs are met by the marketplace and who are likewise struggling to build a better life for themselves and for their families. To this end we must do everything we can to help our housing and financial markets work better and more efficiently and to ensure that the Canadian housing system remains one of the best in the world.

The ultimate test of our efforts in this regard is the percentage of Canadians who are able to meet their housing needs without having to rely on government assistance. Today, thanks in large part to the efforts of CMHC and its partners, more than 80% of Canadians are well and affordably housed. Sound financial management has resulted in eight balanced budgets, lower interest rates and a series of exceptionally strong housing markets.

A strong housing market combined with good corporate management and numerous public product innovations has allowed CMHC to enjoy several years of record earnings. The federal government and CMHC are already putting these benefits back into the pockets of Canadians through premium reductions and other enhancements to its mortgage loan insurance activities.

As Canada's national housing agency, CMHC is committed to helping Canadians access a wide choice of quality, affordable homes and making vibrant healthy communities in cities a reality across the country. CMHC's mandate as described in the National Housing Act is to promote housing construction, repair and modernization; housing affordability and choice; improvements to overall living conditions; the availability of low cost financing; and the national well-being of the housing sector.

Part of fulfilling that mandate includes building on its long history of innovation and mortgage loan insurance and securitization to offer a wide range of mortgage insurance products and services that help make home ownership more affordable for Canadian homeowners. These products and services continue to evolve to meet the ever changing needs and lifestyles of Canadians across the country and in all markets.

For example, in April, CMHC introduced a package of enhancements and benefits worth $200 million annually. This included a 15% reduction in mortgage loan insurance premiums for home buyers with as little as a 5% down payment. This is CMHC's second premium reduction for homeowners in two years. This means that a home buyer with a $120,000 mortgage and 5% down payment who obtains a CMHC insured mortgage will save a total of $600 on the purchase of his or her home. Combined with the premium reductions announced by CMHC two years ago, that homeowner is now saving 30%, or $1,200, on the purchase of his or her home.

To increase both the affordability and energy efficiency of Canadian homes, CMHC is offering a 10% refund on mortgage loan insurance premiums for homeowners who purchase an energy efficient home or who make energy-saving renovations to their existing homes.

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 in the order of $300,000 on a $5 million loan with a loan to value of 95%.

For affordable rental housing projects that meet the criteria of CMHC's partnership flexibilities, CMHC implemented a further 15% reduction in mortgage loan insurance premiums. This follows on a 20% reduction announced in 2003, for a total reduction of 35% below the premiums that are charged for regular market housing. For a project with a $5 million loan and a loan to value ratio of 95%, the combined benefit of these premium reductions will amount to a savings of almost $100,000.

More than 633,000 units of social housing are currently managed by CMHC provincial and municipal housing agencies or by local, non-profit organizations such as housing cooperatives and urban aboriginal groups. On behalf of the federal government, CMHC supports social housing by subsidizing these units on a cost shared basis with provincial and territorial housing agencies. If we are to successfully meet the housing challenges of tomorrow, we must continue to work in collaboration with all our partners, including all levels of government, industry and community groups, aboriginal peoples, and the social and private sectors, to build on what we have achieved so far.

Partnerships such as these are at the core of CMHC. It has only been through the active engagement of its partners and stakeholders that CMHC has been able to foster such an impressive housing legacy for the benefit of all Canadians.

Today, a wide spectrum of housing solutions in Canada involves both market and assisted housing. Through CMHC the government is demonstrating its commitment to making housing more affordable for both market and assisted housing needs on all parts of the housing continuum.

Canadians should be proud of their housing finance system. It is a system that provides low cost mortgage funds throughout the country with equal access for all Canadians in good economic times and bad.

Bill C-363 would tie the government and Parliament to an inflexible formula. Too often critics suggest that homeowners get no benefit from the purchase of mortgage insurance; that it is a cost borne by the homeowner to protect lenders. Clearly, the homeowners do benefit financially through lower interest rates, but they are also able to acquire their home earlier and benefit from the growth in home equity sooner. CMHC is also the only provider of mortgage loan insurance for rental housing, retirement and nursing homes in Canada, forms of housing that touch the lives of many Canadians.

CMHC pays claims from the premiums it charges and does this without government subsidy. As such, CMHC sets aside reserves for capitalization to ensure that it remains financially viable through good economic times and bad, and where CMHC has been able to gain efficiencies in its operations, it has passed this benefit back to Canadians through a reduction in mortgage insurance premiums.

In addition, CMHC's capital reserve helps ensure this important and effective crown corporation, which is at the heart of this country's housing finance system and remains self-funding with no need for government subsidies. Let us not deprive CMHC of its ability to do the job we have entrusted it to do for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Search and Rescue, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on September 17 it was my honour to attend the 40th anniversary celebration of North Shore Rescue, a volunteer and community based search and rescue team. It has approximately 40 members from all walks of life who share a common interest in providing an important life saving service to the public, year round, 24 hours a day.

The team has served our community during the last 40 years by successfully completing 1,600 search and rescue tasks involving over 2,000 individuals who are frequently found in dangerous conditions. North Shore Rescue volunteer members have contributed well over 100,000 rescue hours during the past 40 years and in doing so have become recognized for their high levels of expertise and dedication throughout B.C. and beyond. To date, in 2005, they have responded to over 82 calls, far greater than in previous years.

I would like to thank these volunteers for their caring and dedication to the community and thank their families who are without them while they are away helping others in need. In the past year we have all been witness to the necessity of emergency preparedness and we are comforted knowing that the men and women of North Shore Rescue give their time and energy to remain prepared.

[TELUS Communications, September 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, TELUS Communications and the Telecommunications Workers Union have now been without a collective agreement since December 31, 2000. The ongoing inability of these parties to reach an agreement has caused great uncertainty for the workers and disruption of service to many of my constituents. This is a matter that needs to be resolved now for the benefit of all concerned, the community, the workers and the company.

Can the Minister of Labour and Housing give us an update on the status of this dispute?

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-49, the act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to trafficking in persons.

These proposed reforms will strengthen Canada's response to this horrible crime, a crime that victimizes the most vulnerable. We know that children are disproportionately at risk of being trafficked. UNICEF has estimated that as many as 1.2 million children are trafficked globally each year. The International Labour Organization has estimated that of the 2.45 million people who are in situations of forced labour at any given time as a result of trafficking, 40% to 50% are children.

Children, along with women, are generally the primary victims of trafficking. In fact, they are almost exclusively the victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation. The International Labour Organization estimates that 98% of those forced into commercial sexual exploitation are women and girls.

This estimate reflects just how susceptible the most vulnerable members of our society are to this crime. Although children are the most vulnerable to being trafficked for sexual exploitation, they are also forced into other kinds of work such as domestic labour, which often involves sexual abuse. In some parts of the world, children are also trafficked for their body organs, if we can believe it, or as child soldiers. These children are treated like objects to be owned, used, sold, mistreated and abused.

Children's evolving capacity and dependency make them the most vulnerable members of society. They are at a much higher risk of being exploited and abused, and those who suffer socio-economic and other disadvantages are at an even greater risk. No child should have to suffer like that.

I understand that Canada is actively engaged, both domestically and internationally, in the fight against trafficking. I am convinced that our efforts put us on the right track. We must continue to be at the forefront of this global effort.

Canada's ratification on September 14 of the optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child, on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, is one example of this government's commitment to protecting children from trafficking and other forms of abuse and exploitation. Bill C-2, which received royal assent this past July, is another example.

Bill C-49 contains criminal law reforms which, once enacted, would expand the availability of existing testimonial aids to children as well as to other vulnerable victims and witnesses to ensure that such victims can provide a full and candid account.

I am proud to rise today to support Bill C-49, which proposes three new offences that will specifically target trafficking in persons. It will strengthen our ability to hold perpetrators to account for treating others in a way that is unfathomable and abhorrent to Canadian society and the world. These reforms will offer law enforcement additional tools to combat trafficking-related conduct and will assist in protecting victims by denouncing and deterring this heinous practice.

The proposed new reforms would create a main offence of trafficking in persons, prohibiting anyone from engaging in specified acts such as recruiting, transporting, harbouring or controlling the movements of another person for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating the exploitation of that person. It would be punishable by a maximum penalty of life imprisonment where it involves the kidnapping, aggravated assault or aggravated sexual assault or death of the victim and to a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment in any other case.

I note with approval that exploitation would be a key element of the trafficking offence. Exploitation is really the aspect that makes this crime so reprehensible. I support this approach, as it would clarify that our criminal law sanctions severely those who would exploit others for their own gain.

Two additional offences would also be created, one prohibiting anyone from receiving a financial or other material benefit for the purpose of committing or facilitating the trafficking of a person, punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, and the second prohibiting the withholding or destruction of documents, such as a victim's travel documents or documents establishing their identity, for the purpose of committing or facilitating the trafficking of that person, punishable in this case by a maximum penalty of five years.

I am convinced that this bill, once enacted, will assist law enforcement in holding to account those who would traffic children to exploit them for sexual or other purposes. It will help us deter this type of conduct and, in so doing, it will help us protect vulnerable children. I hope all hon. members will support Bill C-49.

[Fisheries, June 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made an important announcement today on the management of the Fraser River fishery for this season.

Could the minister tell the House what investments the government is making to ensure fishery compliance this year?

[The Budget, June 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, while testifying before the finance committee, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers spoke in favour of the government's proposed technology fund contained in Bill C-43. Its president said:

Canada needs to increase its investment in new technology. The policy direction for LFE targets includes an innovative feature that recognizes the importance of technology development.

This initiative has the support of industry, it has the support of the environmental community and it has the support of government. Can the Minister of Finance explain why the Conservative Party turned its back on industry and defeated this initiative?

[Excise Tax Act, June 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Vancouver Island North on his initiative on this. I sit on the finance committee, and I was there when this item came forward for consideration. The history which has been given is correct with respect to this going back many years. The Canadian Jewellers Association was formed for the express purpose of having this excise tax removed. I believe this goes back to the time of the war effort when the tax was justified.

At committee we considered the proposal to remove the tax from watches, jewellery and clocks. The original proposal that came from the member for Vancouver Island North dealt with jewellery and the issue that watches had not been included. That was dealt with by virtue of a proposed amendment at the committee.

The main concern is, as diamond production grows in Canada, perhaps making us one of the largest diamond producers in the world, we want to ensure that jewellers and their business, particularly those located close to the border, are in a competitive position.

The primary discussion that we had at the committee with respect to the jewellery industry was whether it should be phased out in one move, as is proposed by the hon. member, or whether it should be phased out as proposed by the government. The previous committee was sympathetic and the government was agreeable with the minister that the tax should be removed

I would point out that there are some 12 or 13 private members' bills, many of which are very well-intentioned and have good value, as is the bill of my colleague across the room. However, the our concern is that the cost of all these well-intentioned private members' bills is something like $2.5 billion. In fact the lost revenue from this proposal alone would amount to $85 million a year when phased out. Those were the issues that we had to consider.

We received delegations from the industry--

[Justice, June 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak out against a hate crime that took place in my province last week.

A 17-year-old Canadian Sikh boy was walking through an elementary school field when he was cowardly and callously attacked by five young men. They approached the boy and made several racial slurs before they assaulted him several times. One of the suspects apparently even went so far as to remove the victim's turban and proceeded to cut his hair off with an exacto knife. Cutting his hair with a knife was not only a serious physical assault, but also a very serious insult to and attack on the cultural and religious beliefs of the victim.

This attack has all the ingredients of a hate crime. This type of action does not represent the type of Canada we are trying to build. Canada is an open and tolerant society that celebrates differences and does not accept hatred.

I hope that community representatives everywhere will speak out against such acts.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, is the member aware of the time when the situation was reversed and the provincial governments were running surpluses while the federal government was in a deficit position? I am not aware of any argument at that time that it was a fiscal imbalance that needed to be addressed.

One of the arguments the finance subcommittee heard from witnesses was that if a fiscal imbalance or an even greater fiscal gap existed it was between the provinces and the municipalities. I say this as a former mayor with 30 years in local government and as a member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We as municipal politicians at that time argued very strongly that we needed federal assistance in many of these programs because the provinces were getting money for some of these programs and were not funnelling it through to where it was intended to help municipalities but were putting it into general revenue.

Therefore I am very pleased to be able to bring my experience to the government and use it to help see that the money that is needed for municipalities gets through to them.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the questions the hon. member had with respect to the issue of fiscal imbalance, is he aware that the parliamentary finance committee, of which I am a member, has a subcommittee, of which I am also a member, that has been travelling around the country looking into the issue of fiscal imbalance?

Is he also aware that we have had witnesses before that committee, largely political, who have argued that there is a fiscal imbalance? We also had witnesses, largely academic and in some cases business people, who have indicated to us that they believe there is a fiscal gap but they do not describe it as a fiscal imbalance.

Is the member aware that some provinces, while lowering their tax rates and boasting about having been able to reduce their taxes, are at the same time complaining about the alleged fiscal imbalance? In other words, by lowering their costs they have created this pressure and are now looking to the issue of fiscal imbalance.

Is the member aware that the government has put money through the provinces for the health accord, the gas tax money which of course flows through the provinces to the municipalities, which in many cases relieves some of the pressures the provinces are feeling in that area? I would also point to the renewed money through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the municipal green fund.