Debates of April 29th, 1999

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 1.

National Housing Act

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Group No. 1 motions concerning Bill C-66. I should say right from the start that we are opposed to these amendments.

These amendments attempt to deal with limiting the powers of CMHC in the commercial insurance market. It is interesting to note that of these six amendments, several were suggested by GE Capital in material that was sent out to MPs.

We are concerned about the effect of multinational companies taking over and influencing the direction in which housing should go. We notice that the federal government has already stepped back from the area of social housing. That has certainly given rise to the problem we see in our society today with respect to so many homeless people and the conditions that exist in so many of our communities.

There are a lot of communities throughout Canada where people do not have adequate shelter over their heads. We know how very important housing is to every aspect of a child's life. Children growing up without proper shelter, squeezed into bedrooms that house more than they should, or perhaps children not even having an adequate bedroom, all of these things impact upon the child's ability to pursue their education at school and to interact socially with others. These things come together to create some of the social conditions we see today, the many tragic incidents that are taking place across our country. We wonder how these things can take place and many times it comes right back to the root cause that those very basic necessities of life are not being provided.

We are very much opposed to things which would limit the potential for social housing and for the government to play a role. The question here is whose side are we on? Are we on the side of the large foreign owned multinational companies, or are we on the side of Canadian families who are looking for affordable decent housing?

If some of these amendments were to go through, it would certainly create a climate that would push CMHC to move away from that kind of risk market and into areas where it felt more secure. It would back even further away from helping with social housing.

We cannot say enough about how important it is that the federal government get back into the area of social housing to provide much needed accommodation right across our country. Lots of times when backing away from something people look at the budgetary reasons and say, “We have to get this deficit down. We have to cut back so we can bring the finances in line”. They forget that by cutting so deep, quite often they make the situation worse.

It is similar to a doctor who performs an operation and in cutting away a cancer cuts too deep into the bone and creates another problem. We know if we cut back on the programs to such an extent that we do not have adequate housing, then those other problems I mentioned earlier follow, people not being able to pursue their education, people becoming discouraged about looking for work. The social problems of people living on the streets, problems of drugs, needles and getting diseases because of unsanitary conditions, all of these things will develop. It escalates.

It is very important that the government assume its responsibility and role and makes sure there is adequate housing for all.

All through this bill there are provisions which would remove any direct government involvement in providing housing for those in need. Instead of parliament or even the cabinet making decisions about how best to provide affordable housing, that authority has been delegated to an appointed board of directors at the CMHC. Again we are into this whole area of privatizing everything which is something that disturbs me quite a bit.

In too many areas of public or social responsibility the government is cutting back and privatizing, putting it out into the private sector. Consequently government is losing control of the things that are really within its responsibility to make sure they are preserved in the best interests of society at large.

We have to look very closely at this whole process where everything is put out into the private sector as if it could be done better there than being maintained in the public sector. When that is done, we are actually putting a vote of non-confidence in our public service and in the people who work within that service. We are saying they cannot do things as well as private business or private industry.

The group of amendments that we are looking at and the kind of changes in this legislation are all geared in the direction of giving favour to the private industry as opposed to building up and enhancing our public service and getting the programs that are required so that all people can have adequate and affordable housing.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in this debate on the housing bill.

I ask publicly of the senior minister in the House today, the Minister of National Revenue, why has the Liberal Party strayed so far from its progressive roots of Lester Pearson and Paul Martin, Sr. when it comes to social policy and social housing?

I remember years ago when the ministry of urban affairs was created. I was a member of the House when the first policy steps were taken in the Trudeau years toward more social housing in Canada. In the last few years it seems to me that the Liberals have forgotten where they stood in those days when they were more progressive.

It seems to me that the Reform Party has had a tremendous impact in setting the agenda, in being the rudder in terms of the new Liberal policies. The Minister of National Revenue is shaking his head, I can hear it from here. I think he would probably agree with what I am saying if we had the kind of parliamentary system that would allow a bit more freedom and independence for expressing ourselves in the House.

The Liberal Party at one time was socially progressive, starting with the great thinkers conference in Kingston many years ago with Tom Kent. Lester Pearson was leader of the opposition. I remember people like Eric Kierans in the party and the three wise men coming out of Quebec, Trudeau, Pelletier and Jean Marchand. They talked about a new and just society, about participatory democracy. They swept a young man, the member for Vancouver South—Burnaby, the Minister of National Revenue, off his feet and into what he found was a great social democratic revolution. All of a sudden it went poof and the whole thing disappeared.

This is an open debate. We have 10 minutes on each of these amendments. I would like the Minister of National Revenue to explain why the party has lost its way. This minister is very ambitious. He wants to take on the Minister of Finance as a leadership candidate. He wants to challenge Brian Tobin and the Minister of Health as the left-wing progressive Liberal in terms of challenging the Minister of Finance for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I think we ought to hear from the Minister of National Revenue and have him explain what his vision is for social housing and what his vision is on what we do about homeless Canadians. I am sure the Reform Party is sitting here with great anticipation to hear where this Liberal stands.

Just last night I was coming back from a function at the Cuban Embassy, and I did not see the minister there by the way. I saw homeless people sleeping under a bridge not too far from Parliament Hill. They were not Cubans, they were Canadians. These were homeless people. A number of years ago there were not many homeless people around the streets of Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, Regina or Vancouver. Now there is homelessness.

The government has established a ministry responsible for homelessness and the minister is from New Brunswick. I want to know what the vision of that ministry would be. Will there be funding for that ministry? A New Brunswick member is here in the House. Perhaps he knows whether or not there will be funding for that ministry of homelessness. What is the vision? How do we find homes for people?

We have a government bill before the House today that is going to be regressive in terms of the amendments. It seems to be tilted toward the marketplace and commercialization of CMHC in terms of its lending policies, and the influence of the Minister of Finance and his conservative bent.

I would like the Minister of National Revenue to tell us what the vision should be in terms of social housing, homelessness and what we should do about the number of Canadians who are suffering from falling incomes. The gap between the rich and the poor has widened radically in the last five to ten or twelve years. Yet the government across the way is the government that has made the most drastic cutbacks in the history of our country in terms of social programs, particularly health care.

Of course the taxes go up. They go up very unfairly and indiscriminately. It is an unfair tax system in Canada. Most taxes are placed on the backs of the people who are least able to pay them, low income and middle income people.

In any event, we have a lot of time this afternoon. I would like to sit down now and give the Minister of National Revenue an opportunity to tell us what his vision is of social housing, what his vision is in terms of homelessness, what his vision is in terms of where we should go to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. After all, as we all know, he wants to be a leadership candidate on the left of the Liberal Party. He wants to challenge the Minister of Finance to the mantle of the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. I want to know where he stands.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday I asked a question about whether the votes would be deferred for each of these groups until the end and that the vote would be taken at the end of Group No. 3. Is that correct?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

No. Each one will be done as they come up on a voice vote.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked a question yesterday as to whether all of Group No. 1 would be deferred until the end of all of the groups, and the Speaker at that point indicated that would be the case.

I am somewhat confused now that we are taking a vote on each one of these motions in turn. Yesterday they were grouped and the understanding given to the House by the Speaker was that they would all be deferred until after the last motion in Group No. 3.