Debates of Dec. 12th, 1995

Constitutional Amendments Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declared the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to.)

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

A point of order. While I understand that the current motion has been carried, I was wondering if it is the intention of the House to keep the final tally open for another day until we hear from the leader of the Tory Party-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order.

National Housing Act

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

moved that Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act.

I would like to point out at the outset that Bill C-108 deals with a purely administrative matter. It is essentially aimed at setting the maximum amount of all outstanding loans insured by the mortgage insurance fund.

This bill will amend the National Housing Act by increasing the authorized ceiling of outstanding loans from $100 billion to $150 billion, thus allowing the CHMC to continue offering mortgage insurance services throughout Canada.

I want to stress that this $50 billion increase is not an expenditure and is not costing the government anything. The bill also stipulates that any future increase in the aggregate amount of outstanding loans is subject to parliamentary approval.

While the amendments contained in the bill represent administrative matters, passage of the bill is essential to the continued operation of CMHC's mortgage loan insurance.

The federal government provides mortgage loan insurance to all Canadians regardless of where they live in Canada, at the smallest feasible down payment and the lowest possible cost. Due to the success of mortgage loan insurance, the current ceiling needs to be increased to allow CMHC to continue to insure new mortgages.

In 1994 CMHC's total mortgage insurance activity was over $24.7 billion, representing over 300,000 units. Approximately 40 per cent of the mortgage stock in Canada has involved financing with CMHC mortgage insurance. As well, approximately one-third of the housing stock in Canada was built with the help of National Housing Act insured financing.

Allow me to take a minute to explain why this bill is so important to Canadians.

Housing is a basic need. It is generally recognized that access to affordable and adequate housing is essential to individual well-being and therefore to a healthy, productive society. It goes without saying that a well-housed person is more inclined to contribute to the community.

For these reasons, the desire to own a home remains strong among Canadian people.

CMHC mortgage loan insurance allows Canadians to access affordable housing. Homebuyers can secure up to 95 per cent financing from an approved lender because CMHC insures the loans that are made by the approved lender. Because CMHC will assume the risk should a borrower default, mortgage lenders are able to make available more money to finance mortgages for Canadians and at lower cost than would otherwise be possible, thereby making home ownership more affordable.

With CMHC assuming the risk of borrower default, lenders are able to reduce the mortgage financing rates. Lower mortgage financing rates mean more affordable homes for Canadians.

One of the most important aspects of CMHC's mortgage loan insurance is its public policy mandate to provide equal access to mortgage financing at the lowest possible cost for all Canadians regardless of where they live in Canada. This equal access is made possible through the pooling of higher risk business with lower risk business.

Without access to CMHC's mortgage loan insurance, Canadians in some parts of the country would have to come up with the conventional 25 per cent of the value of the house as a down payment.

Needless to say, many Canadians would hardly ever be able to purchase a home if this were the case. CMHC's mortgage insurance is therefore critical to helping Canadians access home ownership.

The CMHC's mortgage insurance fund is self-financing and therefore is not costing the government anything. Under CMHC policy, the fund must become self-financing in the long term but only through the premiums and fees paid by borrowers.

Premiums are equal to a percentage of the loan, which varies according to the amount borrowed and the ratio between this amount and the value of the property. Premiums are set so that there is always enough money in the fund to cover any claims.

The government introduced the first home loan insurance initiative in 1992 and reduced the minimum required down payment to 5 per cent for first time homebuyers. This 5 per cent initiative has been a tremendous success in helping to increase home ownership in Canada.

Since November 1993 over 235,000 Canadian households have taken advantage of the lower down payment to become the proud owners of either a new or existing home. First home loan insurance is an excellent example of CMHC's ability to adapt its mortgage loan insurance activity to ensure that Canadians can enjoy the benefits of home ownership.

Some have suggested that the government should get out of the business of mortgage loan insurance and leave it to private industry. But it is important to know that, without CMHC providing mortgage insurance, Canadians would be forced to deal with a private sector monopoly, which would result in higher prices and fewer choices.

We must also bear in mind that the NHA mortgage loan insurance provides Canadians with equal access to mortgage insurance in whatever part of the country they live in.

GE Capital Mortgage Co, our competitor, does not provide similar services in 18 areas in the country. Competition is the best way to keep prices at the lowest possible level to encourage innovation in the mortgage industry to meet the changing needs of Canadian consumers.

It has been suggested that CMHC should get out of the mortgage loan insurance business and leave it to the provinces. I would like to point out that the federal government has a constitutional responsibility for banking and finance. CMHC mortgage insurance and guarantee are a demonstration that the federal government is fulfilling this responsibility.

Without CMHC, there would be a federal policy vacuum in the system of housing finance. The result would be unequal access to home loans across the country. Furthermore, borrowers of modest means could pay more for low down payment mortgages or have no access to financing altogether. Housing constitutes an engine of economic growth responsible for creating many thousands of jobs and business opportunities in communities across the country.

Housing accounts for about 7 per cent of the world's domestic product, over half of all construction and one out of every 12 jobs in Canada. House construction and renovations create jobs and business opportunities. For every $100 million of construction spending, 2,310 person-years of employment are created on site and in directly related supply and service industries.

The federal government through CMHC has been providing national mortgage insurance for four decades in Canada. CMHC has remained a significant player throughout this time with a mandate from the federal government to provide mortgage insurance to support loans to all Canadian homebuyers regardless of where they live in Canada at the smallest feasible down payment and the lowest feasible cost.

In conclusion, today the private housing market is able to meet the housing needs of the vast majority of Canadian households. There is no doubt that CMHC's mortgage loan insurance has played a critical role in that achievement.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to participate in this debate on Bill C-108 to remind the hon. members how important social housing is.

Social housing is an issue of great concern to me because I know how much some of the people in my riding who are living under the poverty line-50 per cent of the people in my riding are living under the poverty line and 28 per cent are on welfare-rely on social housing.

That is why, in April 1994, I presented in this House a motion requesting that several major measures be initiated, such as entering into agreements with the Government of Quebec to reactivate the co-operative housing program, putting in place a rental housing renovation assistance program and restoring the public housing program, and that Quebec oversee, of course, every aspect of these programs.

In response to that motion, government members assured me that social housing was a laudable and important principle. In particular, the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general told me, with a hand on his heart, about the great co-operation between Quebec and its big brother, the federal government. He even criticized me, sardonically, for asking that the province be given back the moneys allocated to social housing, given the harmony that prevailed.

Nothing is settled yet. Worse still, particularly for a government elected on the basis of its commitments to social justice and dignity, nothing was even done. Nothing at all. As we say, nothing not. Sure, the nice principles remain nice. They are still used occasionally to illustrate the virtues of certain policies, particularly federal ones. We no longer believe them. But, for my constituents, for other Quebecers, and even for Canadians, nothing has changed.

Figures do not lie. They do not indulge in nice rhetoric. They do not wax eloquently on noble feelings. Figures are there and they tell the story. What do they tell us or, rather, what do they keep telling? They tell us that nothing has changed. Last year, the federal government did not build a single social housing unit. This year, it is a repeat performance, zero. You heard me right, zero. The federal government is no longer involved in building social housing units. It is content to express noble feelings.

Figures also tell us that, from 1989-90 to 1993-94, Quebec received barely 19 per cent of the total money spent by the CMHC. Yet, 25 per cent of the country's population live in Quebec. Moreover, during that same period, Quebec accounted for close to 30 per cent of Canadians living in inadequate dwellings.

Then they tell us that the federation is good for Quebecers. They try to make us feel guilty to want to leave such a nice family, a family that is so fair to one of its children. The facts speak for themselves, and eloquently so. For five years, the federal government acted in an absolutely unfair manner towards Quebecers living in inadequate dwellings. Then, it totally withdrew its support to social housing. It did not care at all. The results are tragic for Quebec: an estimated $1.3 billion shortfall, taking into account existing needs.

In the meantime, our Ontario neighbours, who were so fond of us just before the referendum, took considerable advantage of the federal manna. Now, let us look at figures. In 1991-92, Quebec received 19.3 per cent of the expenditures of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Ontario got 34 per cent. This is a difference of 14.7 per cent. I am not making it up, these are the figures.

In 1992-93, the difference between Quebec and Ontario was 16.8 per cent and, in 1993-94, it was 14.1 per cent. As I said a few moments ago, the figures speak very clearly. For those in my riding with housing problems, the figures do not count for much. What counts is results. In their experience, public housing is becoming a very rare commodity, especially in Quebec.

My constituents know that, for many of them, public housing is often their only means of getting decent and affordable housing. The 4,300 single mothers waiting for public housing in my riding know this to be so and do not find the situation amusing. The federal government got out of public housing without transferring tax points in exchange. Quebec is now stuck, as is happening in more and more instances, with needs to fill and no money to do it. So much for their great federalism, we have no use for it.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act.

Bill C-108 proposes to increase the aggregate amount of outstanding Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, loan insurance from $100 billion to $150 billion, plus any additional amounts that may be authorized by Parliament. Put simply, Bill C-108 increases CMHC's liability limit by $50 billion.

Many members on the government side seem to think that $50 billion in liability is not a big deal and they are affronted that Reform is questioning the bill. They are in such a hurry that they pushed clause by clause consideration of Bill C-108 through standing committee in a record 30 seconds, a record 30 seconds for $50 billion. This is hardly the fiscally responsible approach that Canadians expect from their government.

Our deficit continues to be a reality that will not go away until something constructive is done. The debt load that each taxpayer has to carry is immobilizing the nation. Yet the Liberals continue to overspend. The Liberals are not cutting back; they are spending more. For example, last year alone their spending increased by $2.8 billion.

The national debt is presently at $566 billion and is increasing every second. Canadians are so strapped with debt that they cannot move forward. It is little wonder, given this situation, that the housing market has slowed to a crawl in Canada. The average person simply does not have the money or financial security required to invest in a long term mortgage. Increasing the loan liabilities for CMHC will not change the hard financial reality that many Canadians are facing today.

The government promised jobs and it promised deficit reduction. Yet Canadians are facing higher unemployment and more taxes. Things are not getting better, and the government refuses to make the changes necessary to turn things around.

The Liberals are still practising the same old politics that got Canada into this deficit in the first place. Liberals are spending, buying jobs, artificially propping up private industry and messing up private markets. All this does is drive us deeper into debt.

Increasing the CMHC liability limit for insuring mortgages is nothing more than government speculation without money. The government has done this on several occasions. For example, Bill C-91 expanded the loan liability of the Federal Business Development Bank from approximately $4 billion to $22 billion.

Bill C-75 increased government loan liability for farm improvement and marketing co-operative loans from $1.5 billion to $3 billion. Outstanding loans under the Small Business Loans Act rose from $3 billion to $6 billion in 1995 and is now up to $12 billion. This is only a small segment of Liberal initiatives to increase federal loan liability.

Although liabilities may not involve borrowing money, they are a risk that if defaulted will cost taxpayers money. The government has grown accustomed to handing out grants left, right and centre. Accordingly government liability simply increases our chances of going deeper into debt.

In addition, Canadians should be particularly concerned that the government does not know what its outstanding liabilities are at this time. CMHC could not tell me its outstanding liability at this time or 10 or 15 years down the road. This is not acceptable.

Liabilities are risks. When mortgages are defaulted these liabilities fall back on the taxpayer. When the bill was in the House for second reading a few weeks ago, Reform members asked the Liberals again and again who pays on defaulted mortgages.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Who pays?

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

The taxpayer pays. Let me make that perfectly clear to members on the government side because there was a great deal of confusion with government members on the Reform position on the bill. We are not advocating an end to CMHC mortgage insurance. We are saying that $100 billion worth of liability is enough. The government does not need to add another $50 billion in liabilities.

The fact that the government is asking for the additional liability to be retroactive to 1994 indicates that CMHC has already overextended its liability limits. Canadians should be concerned that CMHC needs to increase its liability funds, not only because there is no guarantee outstanding liabilities will not cost taxpayers but because there are obvious problems with government management of CMHC programs and funding.

I mentioned earlier that CMHC does not know what its outstanding liabilities are. This should concern many Canadians because CMHC does not appear to be keeping records of its outstanding liabilities to the expiry of its term 10, 15 or 20 years into the future.

To illustrate, access to information requests reveal, first, that CMHC does not have records of how much money it has forgiven under its residential rehabilitation assistance program. Second, it does not keep records of past contracts, only of current contracts. Third, it has no centralized records of the financial subsidy amounts and operating agreements for many of its programs, including its public housing program. Fourth, no centralized records were kept of moneys going into its aboriginal programs, which is a major component of CMHC. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

If the government through CMHC is to be doling out money and insuring loans, surely it should keep track of what it is spending, how much it owes and how much it is liable for. If the corporation cannot keep track of its fiscal activities, we should not be increasing its liabilities, especially by another $50 billion. This is not only irresponsible. It is absolutely ridiculous, particularly when we consider our debt situation.

The bill is not only a step toward deeper fiscal uncertainty. It is clearly a move in the wrong direction. The government should not be leaning toward a greater federal role in housing but rather toward a more decentralized government role.

Whatever happened to the Prime Minister's promise to decentralize federal powers? It has obviously gone out the window with many other Liberal promises.

Canadians do not want a bloated federal government. They do not want the federal government meddling in every level of provincial, municipal and private enterprise affairs. Canadians want a leaner, more efficient federal government.

The minister responsible for CMHC claims that his department is moving toward a smaller organization. Yet if the federal government is downsizing and moving away from the housing market, why is it asking for another $50 billion in mortgage money? It does not fit.

This will not downsize federal responsibilities. On the contrary, it will strengthen and increase the federal role. It is time for the federal government to realign its responsibilities with other governments. Canadians are taxed beyond belief from all levels of government. They have simply had enough.

The federal government is long overdue in easing out of a number of responsibilities duplicated at the provincial level. Canadians want a clear separation of responsibility between levels of government. They want a shift of power away from bureaucrats toward the people who pay for the programs in the first place. Canadians want an end to federal interference in the private sector. They do not want or need big brother meddling in their affairs, and Bill C-108 allows CMHC to significantly increase its presence in the mortgage market.

It is time for the government to allow private industry to do what it does best: offer consumers competitive mortgage rates. It is time for the government to stop interfering in the housing industry. Canadians want a clear separation of responsibility between levels of government and they want responsibility toward the people.

It is time for the government to get out of the face of private industry. Reformers are saying we do not want an increase of the $50 billion. We are not saying CMHC should get out of the market, but $50 billion is too much and because of that we will oppose this bill.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many petitions have been submitted in the House since this government took office, and several of them, from all over the country, concerned social housing.

I personally submitted a number of such petitions. The former Conservative government gradually withdrew from the social housing sector by adopting various measures.

In 1989, it withdrew from the rental housing rehabilitation program. In 1992, it took another devastating measure in that it

reduced by 21 per cent the number of new housing units. In 1993, it ended the long term financing of new low-cost housing units. As well, the RRAP, which provided assistance to repair social housing units, was abolished. Quebec thus sustained a major shortfall.

This Liberal government made promises during the last election campaign. In October 1993, several Liberal candidates, including the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, attended a meeting with officials from the Confédération des coopératives d'habitation de la grande région de Montréal, and made commitments regarding social housing. Among other measures, they were supposed to unfreeze the CMHC budget, so as to make it possible to build 5,800 new co-op housing units in Canada. They were also supposed to re-examine the percentage of investment required of the municipalities. Hooray for this wonderful platform. But after October 25, 1993, as if by magic, the Liberal government forgot its commitments.

Let us look at what the Liberals have done since they came to power. They have dashed all hopes of new housing units being built. They have required CMHC to turn back to the government close to $270 million saved in current operating expenses which could have been ploughed back into the community.

In 1995, this government pressured the provinces to raise rents in social housing. Six provinces gave in, while Quebec made it clear that it would not. The present government is quite simply continuing along the same political path as the Conservatives before it.

Yet the last time they campaigned, the Liberals condemned the brutal cuts in subsidized housing. Even the Minister of Finance, the same gentleman who predicted that one million jobs would disappear if Quebec voted yes in the referendum, himself committed to ensuring secure, guaranteed funding for social housing. Nothing has come of this. In Quebec, the losses over the past five years are estimated at very close to a billion dollars.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot tolerate such a situation. Social housing is more than a roof over people's heads. It is a vital element of economic and social policy. A good housing program must enable people to acquire a feeling of social identity and must provide them with the opportunity to control one of the factors influencing their lives.

For example, a co-operative housing project allows its members to live within a co-operative framework. Often various recreational activities are organized. Furthermore, members have to get involved in running their co-operative. Without their social housing, many of them would live in isolation. By dropping social housing, the government aggravates housing conditions that in turn substantially increase other problems such as poverty and hunger. Poverty, hunger and housing are closely linked.

Consider the situation in my riding. In Chicoutimi, more than 9,000 households or 44 per cent are tenants. Of that number, 3,000 have to spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing. This is unacceptable. This percentage is critical. Thirty-five per cent of tenants face this kind of situation. And more than 16 per cent spend half their income on housing.

This is a situation that has dramatic consequences and must be corrected. To pay the rent, an increasing number of tenants are obliged to cut back on essentials like food. In many households, even that is not enough. The statistics of the Régie du logement show that the number of tenants behind in their rent is increasing, not because they are more reluctant to pay but because the proportion of their income they must spend on rent is too high.

In its health and welfare policy, the Quebec government stated in 1992: "The cost of housing is a major item in a family's budget. If the cost of housing constantly causes major cuts in the budget for food, clothing and recreation, the quality of physical and mental health will be affected".

In 1993, the UN committee on economic, social and cultural rights published a report on poverty in Canada. The report paints a damning picture of the housing situation. This committee was surprised to learn that social housing expenditures did not exceed 1.3 per cent of public spending.

In this era marked by a lack of permanent jobs and basic social rights, social housing is an important problem and will become increasingly so. The very health of those living in inadequate housing is at stake. We know who these people usually are: women who are the main breadwinners in their families, people who live alone, single parent families.

To tackle the problem, the government must substantially increase investments in housing, which would result in significant savings in health and social services. We must also consider the considerable impact on employment, which would be very beneficial at this time.

The government should develop an ambitious housing policy focused on building new social housing units by the year 2000, with a view to offering quality, environmentally sound housing, with adequate services and facilities for handicapped and mobility impaired people, among others.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today by unanimous consent, the question is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until tomorrow at 5.15 p.m.

Small Business Loans Act

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, for the Minister of Industry]

moved that Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Again, under the terms of the agreement, a member from each party will be allowed to speak to this bill for 10 minutes.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on third and final reading of the amendments to the Small Business Loans Act.

I will review some of the initiatives we have accomplished in the industry committee over the last year. It is important to do this because I see in the House tonight the member for Okanagan and the member for Trois-Rivières, the members who led the debate on behalf of their parties.

The industry committee in the last year was one of the most unique committees on Parliament Hill. When the public sees Members of Parliament getting together, especially in the chamber, all it sees is the adversarial debate. It sees by and large the experience of question period, which is such a misleading image of what the Parliament of Canada is all about.

This will be my last speech in the House for this year on matters related to industry and on the whole issue of access to capital. To the members for Trois-Rivières and Okanagan, it was a real pleasure.

When I leave the House to go back to whatever I will do when it is all over and reflect on my experience in Ottawa, I will say one of the most productive years in Ottawa was working on this committee when our focus was so united on the whole issue of access to capital for small and medium size business men and women.

I believe with all of our differences on distinct society and veto and so on, and goodness knows there are a lot of other issues we have differ on, there is one common cause shared by every member of the House: the small business community represents the greatest hope for putting Canadians back to work.

The number one issue or the number one difficulty that community faces is issue of access to sufficient capital to support its risks, to support its basic business activity. If we move the banks an inch, and I think we have moved them only an inch, it is because banking institutions have not been able to break up or divide the industry committee. We have worked as a team.

I have to confess to Canadians that the best lobby system on Parliament Hill is the financial institutions. They have a way of lobbying and intimidating, but we held firm in our convictions, in our cause in the last year. I hope that over the next year we can keep that type of commitment. Whoever else is on the industry committee, I hope they carry on with the torch and keep that cause moving forward.

I am optimistic about this. Last night I watched the Prime Minister in the second national town hall meeting. Canadians from across the country asked the Prime Minister many questions. I remember vividly the question from a small business entrepreneur who ran a grocery business. He asked the Prime Minister when he was going to get serious about his commitment to take on the banks.

I was pleased that question was put to the Prime Minister and for a split second it caught the Prime Minister off guard. The Prime Minister is well aware that we are working hard on the issue. Because we are working as a team one would think we would be moving the banks forward, but it is such a small movement that it has not really impacted yet. The Prime Minister said that we have been working on that.

The idea was put forward by the member of Parliament for Trinity-Spadina. He has been pushing, debating and arguing for the past year and a half that all banks in Canada should have a target of approximately 30 per cent of their total corporate loan portfolio devoted to the small business sector. I was stunned that the Prime Minister mentioned that objective. Many members of the committee thought that the member for Trinity-Spadina was being overly aggressive in directing the banks on to whom they should lend money. I opposed the member's recommendation that these targets be put in writing.

I am beginning to think that maybe the member for Trinity-Spadina was right when he told us a year ago that the banks were not really going to deal with the issue unless we gave them a specific benchmark. The member for Okanagan remembers how we almost ganged up on our fellow member saying that we cannot go quite that far, that we cannot dictate 30 per cent of the total loan portfolio.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. My hon. colleague does not seem to realize that the agreement was said to be a maximum of 10-minute speeches for anybody from the three parties speaking on the bill.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in summary, the bill before us tonight is a reinforcement of the government's commitment to support small business loan activity. We have accepted amendments to the bill from the Reform Party.

I hope that as we head into the new year which is just around the corner, that the signal all members of the House have sent to all the financial institutions through speedy passage of bills and through the speedy and united recommendations in our "Taking Care of Small Business" report will be recognized.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in the debate at third reading on Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.

Before going any further, I would like to make a few comments about what our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, said. If I understand correctly, our colleague told us that he was leaving at least-unless I misunderstood-the Standing Committee on Industry, if not the House itself.

In any event, if he is indeed planning to leave the industry committee, I would like to tell him again-I say again because I already had the opportunity to tell him through the Speaker-how much I appreciated working with him and what a distinguished parliamentarian the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is. I was in a position to appreciate his many fine qualities and his great contribution to the work of the committee. As a man, I have always considered the hon. member to be a liberal in the noblest sense of the word and a humanist as well. I hope to have the pleasure of continuing to work with him.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

A true liberal.