Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and it was music to my ears.
The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve has consistently demonstrated his concern with poverty, an issue to which ministers of the party in power have been completely and totally insensitive for a good long while. One example of this is the EI reform, which has left many in abject poverty. The minister responsible for this aspect of the legislation and for government management is unbelievably insensitive to the straits people are in.
Because of the misery that he is causing, his fellow minister sitting just two seats from him has a poverty problem on his hands, given that he has to provide housing for these poor people. Every human being must, at a minimum, have a roof over his head.
The minister responsible for the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act is faced with responsibilities that he may not have anticipated. He did not expect it would turn out this way.
In Montreal alone, 500,000 people are living below the poverty line. The number may actually be higher, because I am quoting a figure that is at least a few months old already.
I am trying to figure out the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I heard the parliamentary secretary praise the CMHC earlier. I a, familiar with this corporation, since I used to work in the real estate sector. As I mentioned in a previous speech, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation met the expectations that people had when it was first created, at the end of World War II, when Canadian troops back from the front were settling massively in cities. They settled in cities upon their return from Europe. People were leaving rural areas to settle in Montreal, Toronto or elsewhere. The CMHC was responding to a need.
Today, that need still exists. I am thinking of my young daughter who wants to buy a house—in fact she will do so next week—and would really have appreciated benefiting from the legislation, in the sense that, right now, the initial or minimal downpayment to buy a house is 10% of the total price. It used to be 5%. The minimum down payment has been changed to 10%. There are strings attached; CMHC does no one any favours. It charges for the services it provides and the guarantees it gives.
I have been asked to comment on this matter. When someone borrows $100,000 from a bank, CMHC tells the bank “If the borrower does not make his payments to you, then we will”.
For this service, a certain amount is charged, according to the size of the loan. Often the amount charged by CMHC for its services is greater than the minimum down payment required to purchase the property, in absolute terms.
This is rather odd. They get involved because the borrower does not have a lot of money, and then they hit him with higher charges than the amount required for the down payment in order to have a secured loan.
There is something unclear about this, something that is hard to understand, a question to which no one has given any answers, particularly not the minister sponsoring this bill.
The CMHC makes loans. The risk it assumes is estimated at 5%. In the past, I have seen CHMC repossess properties and lose its shirt. Loans have been made on which the payments have not been kept up, and then the lending institution, the bank or caisse populaire, tells CMHC “Give us our money, and take back the house”. So CMHC repossesses it and sells it for a fraction of the value it had guaranteed.
All this because the CMHC, for a long time now and for reasons of economy, no longer evaluates houses or the risk it is taking. It goes by statistics. They can often be very precise. However, it is a good idea to at least superficially look at the risk being taken, so that the fees charged those who have no other way of obtaining housing are reduced because the CMHC is taking fewer risks. Everyone would be delighted, and those who turn to the CMHC would be the first to benefit.
However, the minister prefers to act on statistics, even if they are not always true. If we take as an example a country where the population averages three feet tall and another where the population averages seven feet, I, who make suits for people five feet tall, would have no clients. It is a bit like that. The statistics and the standards sometimes mislead us.
I wanted to take this opportunity in my speech to remind the minister that, even if he is hiding behind statistical arguments—a lot of things can be proven with statistics—but in truth, he can cause hardship and move the CMHC away from its prime objective, which is to provide access to property, but not just any property, decent property.
There is also a danger in this bill, which I cannot let pass, and that is regulation. The bill says that the governor in council may make, amend, add or remove regulations at any time. It does not say “by order”, meaning after consulting with parliament or cabinet. In other words, without consulting anyone about government policy, the minister will now be able to publish regulations in Part II of the Canada Gazette , obviously in the interests of speed.
When I co-chaired the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, this was the argument used by departments. They thumbed their noses at democracy as it were, but said it was in the interests of speed and efficiency. There is no denying that democracy always costs a little bit more. It is easier not to have to be accountable, not to have to justify an action or a position, and to do as one pleases.
But members of the public are already paying so much in taxes that, when all is said and done, they are entitled to a minimum of respect. They are entitled to be informed that regulations will be amended, that the rules of the game will change and that things will be different. In this case, however, regulations will not be published anywhere but in the Canada Gazette . Often, they will be published after they have taken effect. That is even worse, and often happens.
In conclusion, I wish to applaud the efforts of the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and those of the New Democratic Party member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, who participated in the debate on this bill to try and make it more humane and sensitive to poverty, unlike the Reform Party members, who saw it as an opportunity to reward private enterprise, which is in competition with the CHMC, and as a good business opportunity.