Debates of Nov. 7th, 1995

National Housing Act

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act.

As my colleagues well know, CMHC has an important role to play in helping Canadians gain access to ownership. While listening to the debate and the questions, I am wondering what is at issue here, whether we are discussing the essence of contingent liability, as opposite members referred to it, or whether it is the issue of whether they agree with giving access to housing to moderate income Canadians. Is that the real issue? Is it the issue of subsidization they are interested in weasel wording about, or is it that they want to carry on with their right wing agenda and do not want to give anything to middle income and poor Canadians? Is that the real debate? That is the question we should ask members.

In terms of subsidies, a clothing subsidy was mentioned. Well, they have a clothing subsidy, a subsidy for the suits for their leader. That is interesting.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Your pension would make house payments too.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

I earned it, thank you. I forfeited one pension and I am not ashamed to accept my pension.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Another shallow argument.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

What is really shallow here is the debate coming from the other side.

I want to focus on the issue of CMHC's mortgage loan insurance and its mandate to provide equal access to Canadians throughout the country. It is important to achieve that goal.

As an aside, there is a shortage of housing across the country. Some 11,000 units are needed. In my riding I believe 3,400 units are needed. There is overcrowding, health problems, young people in overcrowded situations where it makes learning and living difficult. The safety and security of the person is at risk here. That escapes the rhetoric coming from the opposite side.

I should also say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with having Canadians gain access to housing. That is a real source of empowerment. It is a way to give integrity to the family, to the individual, and a way for people to build a life in this country, to build security and stability. Homeowners across the country throughout many decades have said that the main source of empowerment is to own a home and build from that home for their children.

The party opposite says it is family oriented. What is more family oriented than owning a home? Reform members talk about the value. They call it a shallow argument that home ownership is related to family values. Let us think on that one. The weasel wording of that one sad opposition member is very shallow and indeed is misdirected. People are very well aware of that.

CMHC has the unique role of ensuring equal access for Canadians throughout the country. It is a major factor that distinguishes CMHC's operation from private mortgage loan insurance operations.

CMHC'S commitment is to provide mortgage loan insurance in the small communities of the country, the places private insurers do not traditionally want to serve, such as my riding. In many parts of my riding, which is very isolated, and in rural parts of the country

we do not have access to the banking system. We are right off the financial institutional grid.

Those people are not eligible to get mortgages. Even if they had a high income, a moderate income, or double income, they are not eligible to get into home ownership in terms of the financial institutions. They are not served in that way. That is a fact. In places private insurers have not traditionally wanted to serve or have not been able to serve, many Canadians might not be able to buy a home.

Let me illustrate how important CMHC mortgage loan insurance is to Canadians in small communities. Take CMHC's 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. Take for instance the importance to the Northwest Territories, where I come from, in terms of home ownership. I guess it is very difficult, but looking at the statistics in the Northwest Territories, 660 loans were let out and were insured to $110 million. These are for people who want to own their homes.

Under the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation assistance program, in August 1995 CMHC accepted as equity grants provided under the NWT's down payment assistance program. This helped families who could afford the ongoing operating and maintenance cost of home ownership and purchasing their own homes. Since its introduction, 24 families have purchased their own homes. It is very significant for our population of 72,000 people to have loans that were given to that many people so they would be able to move into their own homes.

In fact there is one other special need you could look at: the underwriting on federal lands reserved for Indians. This is an issue that should really get the opposite members hot under the collar. Anything for Indians would be almost not spoken of or forbidden.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Oh, come off it. Give your head a shake.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

In October 1995, CMHC provided mortgage loan insurance-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. There is no doubt that any debate can raise some very strong views and strong emotions, but in the best tradition of this 35th Parliament I would remind members to direct all their interventions through the Chair.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, through you to my colleagues in the House, there is an underwriting on federal lands reserved for Indians. In October 1995 for instance, CMHC provided mortgage loan insurance to an operating company of the Yellowknife Dene band so it could access bank financing to build a 10-unit apartment building on federal land reserved for Indians. The apartments will be occupied by low income families and the operating costs of the project will be subsidized by the NWT Housing Corporation. That is a fact.

Many of those communities do not have access to those financial institutions. They are looking at innovative ways of getting housing for those people. There are 34 housing units that are needed in the north.

The south does not have the inclement weather and the harsh climate we have, nor the heating costs we have. Maybe they do in some of the northern parts of the provinces. Really, look at the opportunities these people have carved out for themselves to empower their people, to enable their people to become independent and self-sustaining. One of the first ways they look at is home ownership, by building that infrastructure and making it possible for people to own their own homes.

This year, as of September 30, going back to the community of Brooks, Alberta, 153 households became proud homeowners thanks again to the mortgage insurance funds. Make no mistake, if CMHC were not in the mortgage loan insurance business 290 families in Brooks, Alberta might not have been able to buy their homes. These 290 households represent 83 per cent of the total number of households, 349, that bought homes in Brooks, Alberta during that period.

The government knows how much Canadians value home ownership. Home ownership has always been valued at the community level. The first thing the settlers of this country did was build a home. Many were eventually able to get assistance from the banks and their communities to do joint projects to build homes. That is the way it was done and there was nothing wrong with that. Home ownership is much valued as the Canadian way. It is a source of retirement income for some. It is the one thing they may hang their hat on and feel security from. It is also an important component of quality of life.

We believe every Canadian should have access to home ownership. CMHC's 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. That is why I support Bill C-108. I hope my colleagues will see fit to give swift passage to the bill so that CMHC can continue to help Canadians realize their dream of owning a home.

There is an abundance of ideas out there, but many challenges befall Canadians who are isolated or in remote areas or who are not in the high income brackets and who face many fiscal challenges. Those people need help from various levels of government and organizations.

There are so many things that happen but when it comes right down to it we can talk in technical terms and be very abstract. We can talk about the whole fisc and all that but when it boils right down to it we are talking about the quality of life for people. The real meaningful essence of this is that people have access to homes, that they are able to own their own home and build a life for their

children and themselves; real security and in practical terms, stability.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Chuck is next.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Members can flip a coin if they want but right now it is the member for Fraser Valley West.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that with the previous speaker I asked how much of a contingent liability is recorded on the books and how much the government lost by loan guarantees in the eighties recession. The answer, which was passed down to the member from the lobby, was that there were people in my riding who took advantage of a CMHC approved loan. That is the answer to those two questions.

I presume therefore the member is suggesting that because people in my riding took advantage of a CMHC approved loan I should be in favour of increasing the loan liability from $100 billion to $150 billion. There is more logic. It boggles the mind where some of these shallow arguments are coming from.

When this legislation was brought in one person in opposition spoke to it. Since then it has been all Liberal members speaking to their own bill. The reason is there is no legislative agenda from over there whatsoever. For a country that has overspent in the last two years by $80 billion, for a country $566 billion in debt, for a country where crime is very serious, one would think there would be a legislative agenda. But no, what we have are Liberal MPs talking to the bill and nobody on the other side making speeches to it. I think it is a disgrace.

My question to the member is the same as to the previous speaker. Surely she can get an answer from the lobby on this. How much of a contingent liability is recorded on the books of the government?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, and I am a little doubtful about the hon. part-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. secretary of state will withdraw that statement immediately.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. member fundamentally asks whether the MIF is in trouble. Is this an additional $50 billion liability to the federal government? The mortgage insurance premiums charged by CMHC are sufficient to meet the risk 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.

The member is creating a worst case scenario that is not justified by the facts. Government members have explained again and again that CMHC charges premiums that cover the risk. The fund is sound and has helped thousands of Canadians.

The real liability is the sense of uncaring, the sense of indelicacy on the part of this member, not caring that people of moderate incomes have access to home ownership. That is the real liability. If past governments had taken that attitude, nobody would own a home today.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

You do not know what you are talking about.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

You think you know what you are talking about, you idiot.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem here.

[The Deputy Speaker]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. The Speaker seems to have walked in on an interesting discussion.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate debate in the House. Whether they like it or not, it is going to happen. However, this is the second time now and I would like the member to retract the word idiot.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the member himself has hurled many abuses across the floor. We have sustained them. We have taken them but I can be honourable enough to retract the word idiot as I referred to the member.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. I did catch what she talked about, the importance of home ownership in Canada, which many of us believe in. It is important for many reasons, whether for enhancing the family, sense of ownership, pride and so on.

She mentioned the necessity for CMHC to be involved specifically in lending money to build homes on native reserves. I agree with the member it is very important for people to own their own land. I would like to see the right to own property entrenched in the Constitution, something we do not have constitutionally now.

I wonder if the member thinks it would be useful to allow natives on reserves to actually own the land. Then they could mortgage it and put houses on the land, just as everyone else does in Canada. It is a bit of a problem. The federal government is the only lender which will guarantee those mortgages because the natives do not own the land they live on in fee simple.

She talked about the pride of home ownership. I wonder if it would not be a move in the right direction to allow natives to own the reserves in fee simple so they could then take out mortgages like any other Canadian and have the pride of ownership she spoke about earlier.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up a very interesting point. It is a very complicated question. The issue to which he referred would involve changing the Indian Act and making a number of constitutional amendments. It is complicated.

It is not in my mandate to make such a pronouncement. However, if we attempt to ensure that aboriginal people can gain access to home ownership, the issue we are debating today, we know the hon. member would support us. If it involves any kind of work dealing with aboriginal rights, dealing with self-government, dealing with the empowerment of aboriginal people, of course the hon. member would support the government. We would appreciate that. Essentially that is what it would take to answer the very complicated question he asked.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to relay for the information of the House that one aspect of the CMHC loans has not been mentioned: CMHC guarantees do not always kick in. There is an example in my riding of a condominium which failed to keep up its premises. As a result the directors of that condominium corporation were liable. There are inherent risks not necessarily covered by the insurance.

I compliment the secretary of state for bringing the essence of the debate down to the importance of home ownership. I ask her again to remind the House of the importance of the home to Canadian life.