Debates of April 29th, 1999

Committees Of The House

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the sixteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to its order of reference dated April 20, 1999, the committee has adopted Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 16, 1999, and has agreed to report it with amendments.

Criminal Code

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-504, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this private member's bill which proposes to amend the section of the Criminal Code dealing with prohibited sexual acts committed with children or in the presence of children, and would prohibit such acts where they are committed with children under the age of 16. It would essentially raise the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16 years. It would also provide for a minimum sentence of five years imprisonment for anyone convicted of an offence under sections 151 and 152 of the Criminal Code.

Given the recent ruling about child pornography in B.C. and the presentation of a petition of over 100,000 signatures calling for the protection of the most vulnerable members of our society from sexual abuse, I think this House will find this bill very timely. I look forward to receiving the full support of all parties. I thank the member for Kelowna for seconding this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Income Tax Act

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-505, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child adoption expenses).

Mr. Speaker, I am very please to present this bill to the House. It proposes to allow a taxpayer a deduction for expenses related to the adoption of a child.

Adoption is a gentle option to ensure that a child can be placed with loving parents. Adoptive parents often face significant costs when they embark on adoption, but out of pocket adoption expenses are not tax deductible even though adoption is a significant social contribution.

An environment where there is a mom and a dad is an environment where children thrive. Adoption is also very cost effective at a time when we are seeing so many single parents and teen pregnancies.

The bill is in appreciation for the social contribution that adoptive parents make and recognizes the inequities that adoptive parents face.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees Of The House

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 70th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, be concurred in.

It is a pleasure to rise and debate the 70th report of the procedure and House affairs committee. Those who have been watching regularly on television and our regular attenders in the House realize what is happening. They realize we are debating a report from committee for quite a few reasons.

I would like to go through some of the reasons committee work, the important work of committees, needs to be highlighted during motions under Routine Proceedings. The Reform Party has been highlighting the issue for several days to point out to the government some of the failings in the democratic system and in the parliamentary system.

Why do we need to debate this committee report? I would argue that committees demand a great deal of time, money and energy from both members of parliament and from parliament itself. Yet the reports are largely ignored.

If we just take its number, it is the 70th report of the procedure and House affairs committee. It has been tabled in the House, expecting a response from the government. As is often the case, it will be ignored. There will be no earth shattering changes made to the system. There will not be a response from the government.

By and large, especially on reports from committees, the government seems to take them as something tabled at the clerk's table which goes into never-never land, never to be seen again.

A couple of examples come to mind right off the bat. I remember a unanimous report that was brought forward by the natural resources committee back in the days when I was on that committee. It was called Keep Mining Off the Rocks . All parties agreed to it. They came forward and made about a dozen recommendations to the government. We brought it forward to the House and tabled it. Guess what? Not one of those recommendations was followed up on.

Members of all parties on that committee did all that work. They heard all the witnesses. There were all the expenses and all the time spent, the give and take. It was the best of democracy, we would think. The voice of Canadians was represented in the committee. They did detailed work and brought forward a report. It was given to the government with a plea from all parties, Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Reform and so on. It was laid before the House and not one of the recommendations made it into government policy or even, it seems, got a response from the government.

Another example is the recent 48th report—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member for Fraser Valley, but I am sure he recognizes the report he has moved concurrence in has to do with the selection of votable items in Private Members' Business.

I have to admit that in all the time of his speech so far I have not heard Private Members' Business mentioned once or votable items or any criteria.

I know he wants to address the report he has moved concurrence in. I would invite him perhaps to direct his attention to the words of the report and tell us a little about that.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I started by mentioning that the 70th report deals with Private Members' Business. I am building the foundation of why this report is an important one. I am talking about the importance of the work of committees.

This committee's 70th report is no less important than any other committee's work. A subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee diligently goes about its work. It sacrifices its time and energy. It calls witnesses. There is give and take in committee and again it is brought forward. I am just building the argument. The trouble is that all that work is for naught.

The work of that committee on the 70th report talks about criteria for Private Members' Business. It talks about bills being drafted in clear, complete and effective terms. They must be constitutional. They must concern matters of significant public interest and so on.

I do not have any quibble with that report. The report is fine. The problem we are talking about is that in general reports come into the House and go into a dark hole, never to be seen again.

I will continue to build the case, the background, the underpinnings of this argument. Another report dealt with was the televising of committee work. It was the 48th report of the same committee. It was a unanimous report brought forward to the House of Commons. It talked about how we got together.

I was on that committee and spent more than a month there. We listened to procedural experts. We listened to constitutional experts. The press gallery made presentations. We listened to people from the print media. We talked on and on.

The conclusions we came to were unanimous. The government whip was on that committee. The chief opposition whip was on that committee. There were 15 or 17 members from all parties of the House on the committee which brought forward this case.

As I mentioned earlier, the unanimous report, the 48th report, talked about televised committees. What has happened to it? What has happened to the televised committee report? Absolutely nothing.

Recommendations were brought forward that all of us had agreed to. They talked about the need to show democracy at work. MPs spent all this time in committee. There are committees, right now as we speak, that are diligently doing their work, the give and take in committee. Who knows about it? We cannot even get a Hansard from committees any more.

The televised committee alternative that all parties agreed to has gone nowhere. It has been ignored by the government. It has been sitting in its hands for weeks. There has been no response. The silence is deafening.

We are talking about the 70th report on Private Members' Business today. These types of reports are abused by the government. Often they involve busy work, work given by the government to members of parliament to keep them occupied while the government does what it darn well pleases.

Nothing comes of a committee report on a good subject matter. A good mandate has been given by the House or by the committee. A study sometimes involves hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours. It involves the testimony of witnesses, written reports, give and take, and all that I mentioned earlier. What comes of it? Nothing. It is something that keeps people busy, but it does not have an impact on this place because it is ignored by the government.

When decisions are made in committee no one even knows what happens to the recommendations. I was in a committee the other day and a parliamentary secretary, who should know better, stood and asked how we could make sure something happened to the recommendations.

I had to break the news to the poor fellow. I told him it would be tabled in the House and that nothing would happen to it. It would be tabled in the House with our unanimous support. The government would take a look at it and probably one person in one office would say “I do not like it”. Then it would go into that big round filing cabinet, never to be seen again. That is what would happen to it. That is the sadness of the committee report system. That is why the 70th report, another piece of good work, is largely ignored.

[An hon. member]

You educated the parliamentary secretary?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

I do not know if we can educate the parliamentary secretary, although he was shocked to hear the news that his report would never be seen again.

This report deals specifically with Private Members' Business. Even Private Members' Business is no longer dealt with fairly in committees. This particular committee, the subcommittee, is not the problem. The problem is what happens to the Private Members' Business that is generated by this process.

The 70th report talks about the guidelines and the types of bills it will consider. It chooses which ones are votable. They come into the House. We often pass that same bill. We send it off to committee, and then what happens to that bill in committee?

I have seen it happen before. People bring in a bill. It passes at second reading. All of us give a standing ovation. We do not even care what it is about, hardly, because we are so thrilled that one actually got passed in this place and that the government whip did not hammer to stop it. We finally send it off to committee, thrilled that the subject matter will actually be discussed and a private member will actually see some fruition to all labour he or she put into an idea and into a bill.

What happens to it? Let me give the House a couple of examples. The hon. member for Mississauga East had exactly that success with Bill C-251, a justice bill concerning consecutive sentencing. I was here when the bill was passed. I saw the standing ovation for the hon. member for Mississauga East. I was one of those standing. I was thrilled.

It was a great bill. I supported the bill. I thought the essence of it captured the Canadian desire to have the justice system reflect more accurately our desire that people who commit consecutive serious crimes again and again should be given consecutive sentences. I thought it was a good bill.

It was sent off to the justice committee and what happened? The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs met on March 24, one month ago, and in three minutes eliminated every clause of her bill and voted to report it back to the House as a blank piece of paper.

Let us imagine that. Three years of work by the hon. member for Mississauga East and it was all for naught. Private Members' Business is the root of how business came to the original mother of parliaments. The hon. member brought it into the House and got a glowing standing ovation. It was sent off to committee and the committee destroyed it in three minutes.

One of the reasons they got away with that is that the proceedings of committees are not televised. Let us imagine the change in attitude, the smirks on the faces of those who eliminated the clauses of her bill, if they had to smirk in front of the television cameras for all Canadians to see. Let us imagine their attitude when someone stood and asked if they realized that three years of work by this member of parliament is being destroyed in three minutes. They should smirk then on CTV news. They should smirk then while The National on CBC has them covered. They should go ahead and gloat over their ability to destroy this person's bill when the television cameras are present.

They have not adopted the 48th report about televising committees. They know they can act almost with impunity because no one is there to report on them. We cannot see all this happening. Members of the public and members of parliament read about it in a paper a few days later, saddened by what went on, but no one is there under the watchful eye of the television camera to make sure they are acting democratically and properly.

Another example is that the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge brought forth Bill C-235. This was a little different. I was as thrilled as all members and gave him a standing ovation when it passed and was sent off to committee. I did not happen to support the bill but that was not the issue. The issue was that the House should have to deal with that bill. That was the point. I do not agree with every bill in this place but the House should have to deal with them.

Instead the bill got sent to committee. On April 15, about two weeks ago, that hon. member was subjected to the humiliation of answering the question of how many years had he worked on the bill. In five minutes committee members made a blank page out of the whole thing and destroyed the bill. They nuked every clause out of that bill and will report it back to the House as a blank piece of paper and let the House deal with it.

Of course, when it comes back here, there is nothing to deal with. It has all been eliminated in committee. There is nothing we can do. It is a complete waste of Private Members' Business time. It is a complete waste of the committee's time. It is a complete waste of the democratic process when a mockery is made of it by handling important Private Members' Business in this manner.

I again refer to the 70th report, which is what we are debating at this moment. The 70th report lays out the criteria for important Private Members' Business. It tells members how to get a bill approved, how to move it through the system and what kind of bill will be approved. When the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge brought that forward, jumped through all the hoops, made the case, got the approval of the House and did everything that the report demanded, what happened? It was sent off to committee, only to be seen again as a blank piece of paper. That is unbelievable.

The 70th report, as good as it might be, is no good to anyone because that is what happens to Private Members' Business.

The fourth point I would like to make as to why we need to debate this report from the committee is that we need to report this in the House at this time because no one else will ever see what the report is about. Reports are tabled routinely during Routine Proceedings day after day: the 50th report, the 60th report, the 70th report. I do not know what number we are up to today. The report is simply tabled, and that is the end of it. It is gone. It is worse than cyberspace. We cannot even press the undo button. It is gone, never to be seen again.

Most Canadians have no idea of the important work of committees. They are not televised. For some reason the Liberals will not allow them to be televised. They are not reported. We have to choose this type of venue to debate it because there is no other way of bringing this important committee work to the attention of the Canadian people. The House is televised and that is why we have to do it here.

Would it not be better to televise the committee hearings and let Canadians make their own judgment about what goes on in committees? They can watch their MPs at work. I am not simply talking about a big committee like finance, which will spend $600,000 or $700,000 touring the country on a prebudget propaganda tour. What about the other committees, the good committees which deal with agriculture, transport, public works, scrutiny of regulations and all of the things that go on behind the scenes? All of that is ignored because there is not a television camera allowed. That is bad.

This morning we had the privilege of listening to Mr. Václav Havel address parliament. He talked quite a bit about democracy. I sat in my seat to listen to his speech. One of the senators who was sitting in the middle aisle came over to the Reform House leader and I and said “Over in the Senate, over in the other place, we televise all of our committee hearings. You are the great bastion of democracy here, so why do you not televise your own committees?” He laughed and said “You guys give us the gears about the Senate, but we are more open and more public with our committee hearings than in the Commons”.

I hung my head low and I thought to myself “What do I say to an unelected senator, who is not accountable to anyone, who is there by the grace of the Prime Minister's blessing, who tells me about televised and democratic committee hearings that the public can catch any time they like?” They can turn on the television set and it is right there. Here we are, hanging our heads, saying “Unless it is in one particular room it will not be televised. I guess the Senate does it better than we do”. What a shameful comment.

I slunk back to my seat and listened to a pillar of democracy talk about openness, transparency and all of the things that we should have in our committee system, which we do not.

My fifth point is that at times when democracy reigns, when television cameras come into committee, it is a nice, refreshing breath of fresh air. Yesterday the major networks in the country fought for most of the day to have the defence hearing televised so they could attend, bring in their cameras and so on. They spent the day struggling with government authorities, asking why they could not televise the defence hearing.

We are in the middle of a war in Kosovo. Does the government not think the defence committee hearings might be of interest, not only to the media, but probably to several million Canadians who are worried about the future of our defence corps, our Canadian forces?

They fought for a day until they finally got in. What happened? Both the government and the opposition got a clip on the news. I thought it made the whole thing. It did not paint anybody in a bad light. It brought some light to the situation. It was a fine example of how it could be in years to come.

I will close by quoting Robert Hutchins, a former president of the University of Chicago, who edited the great books of western civilization. He said:

The death of democracy is not likely to be as assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.

In our attempts to make our committee work more democratic and more open, I urge the House to adopt both the 70th and 48th reports which deal with the televising of committees so that we can nourish those committees, make them more democratic, more open, more available to the Canadian people, and I ask that we do that without any delay.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to listen to my colleague who spoke about the issues surrounding what happens in committees. Having been one of three people from the Reform Party who sat on the procedure and House affairs committee which dealt with televised committees, I can only say that the frustration is growing more and more every day.

The problem is, when members from all parties in a committee agree on a concept, it comes into the House and it dies. I note that the government whip was there and he agreed to it. I presume that these folks are just as knowledgeable as we are as far as what has to take place. Now the question in the House and in committees as well is: Should we even be here? If we develop a report, put all of our ideas together and come to a unanimous consensus, only to have it die because someone in cabinet kills it, should we even bother?

I note that the recommendations coming from the report on televised committees were very good. This was to be a pilot project for the coverage of committees, with 24 hours' notice. There was a sunset clause that it would end this June. There were constraint criteria, such as those televising the committees would obey the rules. It would be gavel to gavel coverage of the whole committee meeting. It would be objective coverage.

The only recommendation which was made that put some negative light on it was that the committee did not want to renovate one particular room because of the cost and the fact that the House of Commons will soon be under renovation.

What happens? The government House leader says “I do not like this report. What we will do is renovate a room”. That was the very recommendation to which the committee said no. Not having been at any of the meetings, I suppose he could have read the report, but I doubt that he did.

Is this just an issue of televised committees, or is there something bigger at stake? I will leave it at that because that is the important question.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform House leader has cut right to the nub of the question, which is: What is the big issue about committees? Is it just that we need more television cameras? Is it an ego thing for parliamentarians? What is the issue?

It is not about televising committees, although that is critically important. It is very important that we at least keep up with the Senate in our ability to communicate with Canadians about the work of this place. That is important, but it is not just about televising committees, it is about the work of all committees.

Perhaps 10% of members of parliament are present now in the House. Why is that? Are they off having tea and crumpets at the Empress Hotel? No, they are off at committee, doing important work. They are having clause by clause discussions on bills. They are proposing amendments to legislation. Members are bringing forward proposals on policy initiatives. They are investigating the role of Canada in Kosovo. They are asking the defence minister to explain where the money is being spent and how we are protecting our soldiers. Members are doing all of this important work.

We will not know about most of it. Even if we had a television camera in front of us we could not watch the hearings. We cannot see the work, the hours, the money, the expertise and the witnesses that we fly here at great public expense, and the devotion to the subject matter which is shown by members from all parties in the House. Members bring different perspectives and often come to a unanimous conclusion after hearing witnesses and having a clause by clause debate. A lot of work is involved in coming to a unanimous conclusion.

Then what happens? The report is tabled in the House with much fanfare. Maybe there is a press conference downstairs. We all say that it was a satisfying bit of work. We came to parliament to help change the system and propose things to make Canada better. What happens? Nothing. The fact that nothing happens is the big issue.

Reports are prepared, work is done, effort is expended, dollars are expended and hours are wasted because the reports gather dust. That is a shame. What we should have is a vibrant discussion, under the full light of television cameras, so that members of parliament can be seen by their constituents back home.

Our constituents could see us deliberating, for example, an important agricultural issue. The member for Portage—Lisgar might be debating the future of the wheat board, the future of a farm subsidy program, the railway and so on. The member could say to his constituents “Watch tomorrow morning at noon because I will be going to work for you. You will be seeing me in action. Tomorrow I will represent our constituency on that important issue”.

The big issue is that no one knows about it. No one can see it. When a report is finally drafted, nothing happens. That is the big issue. That is why reports should be dealt with. They should at least merit a response from the government in a timely fashion.

There is a list, which is too long to go into, of dozens of reports that have been tabled in this place. The response from the government, at best, was: “We had a look at it and we are not going to do it”. That brings the work of parliamentarians into question. That is unfortunate. As I mentioned earlier, democracy does not die usually a violent death; it dies by apathy, neglect and undernourishment.

I say that the light of television cameras would do something to reverse that. It would nourish democracy. It would give strength and importance to the work of all members of parliament, so that it would not appear that we simply gather here for question period. The work we do would be noticed and would make a difference in the Government of Canada.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I go to schools and talk to children about the workings of parliament I tell them that very important work takes place in committees. I would like to be able to continue to tell them that. However, from what I have been hearing from my colleagues, committees are not always relevant. I believe the discussion today is about relevance.

Standing Order 109 states:

Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.

All too often what is deemed to be a comprehensive report turns out to be totally ignored or, as has been so eloquently expressed here, it is tossed in the dustbin. It speaks volumes to the relevance or irrelevance of the work of committees. I would like my colleague's comments on that.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that standing order, one of the rules we work under here in the House, is exactly as the member described. There is a requirement for the government to respond but often that response is “We are going to take a little more time to look at it” or “We appreciate the work you have done thank you very much, we are sure looking this over”. I would bet they are just sweating late at night over there in the Langevin building going over it clause by clause.

It reminds me of Standing Order 108, another rule that committee members can use to bring subject matters to the committee. We gather signatures from the opposition parties. We get a subject matter or a witness to come before the committee. That is supposed to give us some influence on this side but often what happens is the government will say “Thank you for that request. We know you have the right to do it”, but guess what? The committee goes in camera.

When a committee goes in camera that means not only are there no television cameras, there are no witnesses, there is no Hansard , there is nothing. At that time the committee makes a decision on whether we get to hear our witness or not, and guess what? There is always a majority of government members on a committee and guess what? They always turn it down. I should not say always, but 90% of the time.

Standing Orders 108 and 109 are examples of a government that says it wants to keep us busy, but when it comes to the nub of the issue or if we get too close to home and it looks like we are about to strike a political point, there is a dust gathering area that is sifting down as we speak on a layer of books as high as an elephant's eye.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I know my hon. colleague is most anxious to take part in the debate once more.

On the matter of the debate on the 70th report raised by my colleague the hon. whip of the official opposition, the 70th report of the procedure and House affairs committee is an excellent report, one that we collectively worked on very closely. There was some give and some take but ultimately I believe we have contributed to a report that enhances private members' business.

The chair of that subcommittee, the member for Waterloo—Wellington who is with us today, and other colleagues from all parties who work on that committee I think will find this contributes to the process in a very positive way.

While I wholeheartedly support the strong and sincere view of the member who spoke previously about the worthiness and importance of committee work—

[An hon. member]

What about report 48?

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

I am being asked to comment on another report. I know the Chair wants me to remain relevant to the report at hand, but I know he will allow me some flexibility in presenting my case and also to expand it to some other reports that in the end will ultimately contribute to this discussion.

The 70th report is an excellent report. I remain optimistic that this report will meet everyone's expectations and in fact will be concurred in. I have no doubt. I am quite optimistic. Having said that, I do not want to take up any more House time without diminishing the significance and importance of the 70th report. I do believe the government will respond within the 150 days in a favourable way.

Briefly on the 48th report, I am a member of that committee. I concurred and was part of that unanimous report. I can share some of the frustrations that my colleagues opposite have about that. We did not quite make it all the way that day.

Notwithstanding that we did not quite get it all done through that report, I think we have made a substantive contribution to ultimately in the end arrive at the objective. The ultimate objective is to have more televising of committees. We will get there. The fact that we did not get there right now does not discourage me one iota. Does it frustrate me a little bit? Oh yes, I wish we had it done, wrapped up and delivered, but we are not quite there. There is a little adversity.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The chief government whip is getting carried away with his rhetoric, but I remind him that the report we are debating is not on televising of committees, it is on private members' business and I know he will want to return to that. Perhaps he is building a foundation, but we are all looking forward to the superstructure.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I said everything that I could about the importance and the quality of the 70th report. I know that the House also anxiously wants to get back to the business of the House, Bill C-66, the very important National Housing Act. Therefore, I move:

That the House do now proceed to the orders of the day.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have had discussions with the government House leader who indicated that he is now prepared to negotiate even further and help this along on Monday. In view of that, we will not be standing for a vote this time, but we do expect some action on Monday.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from April 28, 1999 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

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-66 and specifically the proposed amendments to the bill as outlined in Group No. 1.

I would like to begin by raising the broad issue of housing in this country today. I do not think there is anyone in this House who will deny that there is a housing crisis in Canada. In fact, many would go beyond simply calling it a crisis. The mayors of capital cities right across the country have called it a national disaster and the facts bear that out.

More than 100,000 Canadians are homeless. We know the situation facing our aboriginal community both off reserve and on reserve. The backlog of houses in first nations communities in the north exceeds 4,500.

Communities right across the country especially in our inner cities and older neighbourhoods, have a major problem in terms of the housing stock.

In my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, we are faced with what can only be described as such a deplorable situation that a state of emergency should be declared. This is not unique to Winnipeg North Centre. My community represents the same kind of concerns we see from one end of the country to the other.

There are vacant and boarded up houses. Houses and buildings have become targets just waiting for arsonists. I do not need to tell the House that there is a very high incidence of arson in my community and in other communities across the country with the deplorable situation in terms of housing stock and the many boarded up vacant houses.

We are talking about absentee landlords. We are talking about lack of dollars being provided either by government or from an individual's own disposable income for renovations and upkeep. We are talking about drastically dropping market values for housing in some of our inner cities and older neighbourhoods. We are talking about red circling by insurance companies which makes it very difficult to purchase the necessary protection for one's house. We are talking about insurmountable barriers to home ownership.

All of those factors have to be noted in this debate because they are taking a devastating toll. It is so apparent through the bill before us today that this government pays no heed. At the precise moment when the need is the greatest our federal government is pursuing a policy of abandonment.

Let us not forget it is federal withdrawal from the areas of public housing, social housing, co-operative housing and non-profit housing that in very large measure has caused this crisis in the first place. Why then would the government do more of the same? Why at a time of crisis would the government do the opposite of what is required?

Why would this government retreat even further from its responsibilities as it is doing in Bill C-66? Why at precisely the moment when this country needs a national housing strategy and national housing standards would this government introduce measures to complete its policy of abandonment?

In my community, as I am sure is the case in other centres across the country, citizens and community organizations are trying to fight back. In the true spirit of Winnipeg's north end, citizens are banding together to find co-operative, collective, community based solutions.

Neighbourhood patrols are springing up. There are economic development initiatives. Housing renewal projects are developing in response to this critical situation. But the federal government is not participating, supporting, encouraging and ensuring that we can come up with realistic solutions to this very grave problem. Why will this government not support this spirit of community and pride of neighbourhood?

We are focusing in this debate on a government that refuses to see what is happening around it and refuses to recognize that it must be part of the solution. Bill C-66 is going in the wrong direction. It is absolutely the wrong remedy for the critical situation we are facing. The amendments being proposed by the Reform Party in this grouping do not make the situation any better. They will undoubtedly make the situation worse and will contribute even more to a government policy that is bound and determined to put everything in the context of the marketplace in terms of efficiency and competitiveness.

The government has a moral obligation, a political responsibility and a constitutional obligation to ensure that Canadians everywhere in the country have the right to adequate shelter. This bill and these amendments do not satisfy those requirements.

We are here to try to convince the government, although I know it seems far-fetched, to withdraw Bill C-66. The measure of good government and great leadership is in the government's ability to respond to needs. It is in the ability of a government to reverse its policies when it can see that the needs are growing, spreading and becoming critical right across the country.

It is not too much to ask the minister to reverse his policies, put this bill on ice and go back to the drawing board and start to look at some of the promises that were actually made to the people back in 1993.

It is useful to remind the Liberals about their policies in 1993 when they were still in opposition. I want to specifically mention a letter dated September 22, 1993 signed by the present Minister of Finance in which he said “Our platform document provides a framework for government in the 1990s. We believe the federal government has a positive, proactive role in national housing policy and the responsibility of accessibility and affordability to over one million Canadian households living in need of adequate shelter”.

What happened to that promise? What happened to that election platform? Why do we have Bill C-66 before us today? Instead of the amendments that we have before us today, which make the CMHC more of a competitive force in the marketplace, we should be seeing amendments to a bill today that reflect the needs in our communities and make mortgages more accessible to those who are having a hard time.

I specifically want to implore the government to look at the whole question of changing the rules and regulations to make it possible for people on low incomes or on social assistance to be eligible for home ownership and to be able to benefit from public policy.

I remind the government that it had promised earlier to consider changing the arrangements under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to address concerns about eligibility of social assistance recipients for CMHC underwriting. It had promised to look at the question of sweat equity as a means of satisfying down payment requirements. We have heard nothing on that front.

What we hear is CMHC becoming more competitive and putting housing out for export. While the government talks about exporting housing, people in this country are living in squalid and deplorable housing conditions.

We want to tell the government to stop and look at its priorities, look at the needs in the country and recognize that we absolutely must have leadership from our national government. We have to have a national housing policy. We are the only OECD country that does not have a national housing policy. It is deplorable, it is negligent and it must be addressed.

We urge the government to reconsider this bill and come back with a progressive, innovative policy to deal with the serious crisis in our country today.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to various motions presented by my hon. colleagues.

What we have before us are three visions of the relationship between the Government of Canada and the CMHC. At one extreme, we have the amendments being proposed by my colleague from Kelowna which in my view would seriously undermine the government's ability to carry out its public policy role in housing which it fulfils through the renewed mandate of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Allow me to explain. The Government of Canada is committed to playing a leadership role in housing. That is why the government renewed the mandate of its housing agency CMHC and has strengthened CMHC's ability to fulfill its mandate through amendments to Bill C-66.

The government understands the importance of helping Canadians meet their housing needs. We understand the importance of building a strong, competitive housing industry. We know that good housing creates sound communities and a strong country. We know that housing has a major impact on the economy of Canada.

Bill C-66 clearly sets out the public policy objectives of the CMHC. Permit me to read this extract from the bill:

The purpose of this Act, in relation to financing for housing, is to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate access to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of, housing finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding for housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.

I know we have already talked about this, but it is important to repeat it.

Surely nobody would dispute the importance of these objectives. Yet the hon. member proposes changes that would eliminate the government's ability to regulate CMHC should it be necessary to do so.

If we were to remove this section of the National Housing Act, as proposed, we would effectively be reducing the government's control, in other words the public's control, of CMHC.

I am certain that if my hon. friend thought for a minute about what he was proposing, he would realize how ridiculous it is to imply that the public should not have the right to ensure that CMHC is accountable to them. CMHC is a public institution with a public policy role, a role that has served Canadians so very well for over 50 years. To suggest that government control of a public institution should be reduced is somewhat bewildering.

Bill C-66 will give CMHC the means to carry out its public policy role more effectively and in a financially prudent manner. This is what the Government of Canada expects. This is what the people of Canada deserve. This is what Bill C-66 is all about.

At the other extreme, we have the member from Cape Breton who would have every decision made by CMHC approved by the governor in council. Perhaps the hon. member does not realize that to do so would involve great expense, both in terms of administrative costs and in the quality of services that the Government of Canada can offer to Canadians. Indeed, the hon. member would have the government return to the old days of red tape and heavy bureaucratic processes at the expense of efficient delivery of important government services for needy Canadians.

Finally, we have another member of the opposition presenting a scenario where every service provided by CMHC to individuals and communities would first have to be approved by the province concerned. This would limit the Government of Canada to such an extent that it could not provide Indian reserves with the services they require without provincial approval.

It could also prevent other Canadians from having access to federal government measures in areas that were not of interest to a province.

Let us be clear about it. The benefits arising out of programs administered by CMHC are, and will remain, subject to the decisions of this House.

Bill C-66 will modernize the relationship between CMHC and the Government of Canada. In fact, Bill C-66 requires yearly approval of the CMHC business plan. This will ensure that CMHC's actions are in keeping with the wishes and priorities of the government.

Moreover, every year the House is involved in approving the resources given to CMHC to reach out to needy Canadians to implement those programs that one member would rather see not regulated at all and that another member would regulate to the point of administrative paralysis.

Further, the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the Financial Administration Act clearly confer to the government oversight in all aspects of the corporation's activities. What more could the hon. member want? Why, for instance, would we go so far as to endorse a proposal from the member from Cape Breton to have potentially every project approved by the governor in council?

The vision that we are proposing in Bill C-66 is a modern vision, a vision which will result in government services that are more responsive to the needs of Canadians and the needs of their regions, a vision which will better equip CMHC to work co-operatively with provinces, a vision that at the end of the day will lead to a more efficient and effective government. That is a vision that I think every Canadian would support.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again we rise up in the House to debate another bill that came from the Liberal government. This is a piece of legislation that came from the south end of a north-bound cow. That is exactly where it came from.

The previous member spoke about the hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton. The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton sees through the government's plans and that is why it is so upset and is trying to discredit her in any way it can.

The government is again trying to download federal responsibility for the citizens of this country and load it onto the provinces. That is absolutely unbelievable.

In Nova Scotia, for example, the government downloaded the responsibility for social housing onto the backs of the provinces by saying, “No problem. We are done. We have done a good deed”. That is exactly what it is trying to do now, only in this particular case it is making it worse.

The government wants to merge with a company called General Electric Capital Corporation, a large, foreign-owned multinational company, so it can do the mortgage insurance part of it. Not only is the government downloading its responsibility to the provinces, it is also giving the financial responsibility away to a foreign multinational corporation. Where is the heart in the government? It is absolutely unbelievable that it can continue to do this.

The destruction of the federal role in housing began in the 1991 budget when the then federal Conservatives announced the end of federal funding for new social housing. As usual, the Liberals have reformed the Tory policies and have made them even worse. The Liberal government continued the abandonment of social housing in 1996 when it began to download social housing back to the provinces. It concluded downloading agreements with seven out of the ten provinces. B.C., Alberta and Ontario are currently the holdouts.

This is just another disguise, another masquerade by the government to download its responsibility for housing onto the backs of the provinces and tell the citizens of the country “Don't worry about it. The provinces will look after you”. That is absolutely unacceptable and shameful.

Let me put some personal perspectives on this. I come from the beautiful riding of Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore in beautiful Nova Scotia. Many people in my riding, as well as in all of Atlantic Canada, have been hurt by the downturn of the fishery. These people have lost their homes. There is probably nothing worse to a family than losing their home, the shelter, the peace, the security and the ability to bring up their children in their own home.

What happens when they look for assistance and help from the government? They go to the federal government and get slapped in the face one more time. The federal government, with its Ottawa-central attitude, is saying “Too bad, so sad, make it out on your own”.

I wonder where the heart is in the government. Whatever happened to the Pearson days? Whatever happened to those caring Liberals who cared about Canadian citizens, not just about the bottom line of foreign national corporations?

We hear the rhetoric from the government time and time again that it is on the right track; it knows what it is doing. It tells us not to worry, it can be trusted. It is absolutely despicable.

Allow me to reread what the current finance minister said while in opposition; “Dear friends”—I love that term—“Our platform documents provide a framework for government in the 1990s”. Let me make it abundantly clear that a Liberal government should be absolutely committed to stable and secure funding for the non-profit and co-operative housing sector, but it is not. It has completely abandoned its responsibility.

It gets to the point where we wonder why we even bother coming here. Are we relevant any more to the Canadian people, except the government's friends and the party? It goes on and on and on. Even the UN has discredited our policies when it came to that.

We have many reports we could speak about, but the abandonment of housing by the federal government comes at a time when the need for federal support is even greater. We need support from the federal government in resources and manpower more than ever.

The Golden report on homelessness stresses that all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, have to co-operate to put an end to homelessness. What the federal government wants to do is just abandon its responsibility and say to the provinces and municipalities “It is your problem, you look after it. We are just the federal government. We absolutely have no heart. We do not really care about you anymore”.

The government has proven that in many other industries. It has proven that in our defence capabilities, in the fishing industry, in agriculture with the farmers across the country, and small business. And when it comes to the most basic need of Canadian citizens from coast to coast to coast, affordable social housing, the government is abandoning that as well.

The Liberals talk about CMHC, that great corporation, and what they are going to do. In actuality the government is going to eliminate any power or control that we as members of parliament may have. The government is going to stack the CMHC board of directors full of its Liberal friends. Patronage. The pigs are at the trough again. They are going to feed at taxpayers' expense with absolutely no concern for Canadian citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable.

When I came to Ottawa, and I assume I speak for all 301 of us, in both official languages I might add, our goal and role in life was to help those who cannot help themselves. We certainly did not come here to abuse labour rights. We did not come here to abuse the environment. We certainly did not come here to neglect those who cannot help themselves.

Federal social housing is a policy that should be upgraded and maintained. There should be resources and manpower available in order to maintain that.

Other than that, what are we going to be telling our children? What in God's name are we doing here if we cannot help those who cannot help themselves?

The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the hon. member for Vancouver East are two women who have fought harder for social housing than anybody else in the country. I am very proud to be their colleague.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

April 29, 1999

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Peter deC. Cory, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 29th day April, 1999, at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,