Debates of May 4th, 1999

National Housing Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to 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.

I spoke in the debate on the motions in Group No. 1 and I said then that the Bloc Quebecois did not support this bill. My friend from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve focussed particularly on social housing.

I listened earlier to the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, who spoke in the debate before this one. He read us statistics that indicated some people in the national capital region were spending over 50% of their income on accommodation. This is appalling, especially when this country has had since 1946 an organization to make it easier to acquire residential property.

We could say that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has failed thoroughly in meeting its objectives. The public housing crisis is not just here in the national capital, in Ottawa, it is pretty well everywhere. There are people who, for reasons it is not up to us to judge, are now needy and must have help from others and society to get housing.

The government did not take the opportunity provided by this bill to acknowledge a reality. While I do not know every major Canadian city, I am nonetheless aware that homelessness is a growing Canadian issue. Even Toronto is not immune to this problem, which affects increasingly younger people.

We now find entire families—father, mother and two or three kids—sleeping wherever they can, under bridges, or over subway air outlets, in Montreal or Toronto. Yet, this legislation has been very helpful to Canadians in the past. I cannot understand the attitude of this minister who introduces a legislative amendment but totally ignores the whole emerging issue of homelessness in Canada.

This bill amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, which was meant to make it easier for Canadians have access to real estate property, by requiring smaller downpayments from them. Since Bill C-66 amends a number of acts, I cannot understand why the minister did not take this opportunity to also amend the Interest Act. I read about 10 articles on this issue. I tried, through a private member's bill, to have a limit of three months' interest set as the penalty charged by lending institutions to get out of an existing mortgage.

The Reformers, whose generosity and magnanimity are legendary, are opposed to such a measure. I was quite surprised by that. After all, western farmers are not all millionaires or billionaires. Some have mortgages or liens on their farm equipment, which is getting bigger all the time, but costlier as well.

When after a good harvest or a stroke of luck a farmer wants to change vehicle, as some couples change houses, and goes to pay back his loan, the lenders, who are all faithful contributors to the Liberal Party coffers, hit him with a huge penalty for cancelling the loan.

I wish the minister, who is sensitive to the plight of prospective home owners, had taken this opportunity to bring penalties back to a more reasonable level. I believe a three month penalty is adequate, especially in view of the mobility of capital and the speed with which one can reinvest. It is instantaneous through the Internet and other electronic means.

When I was a notary in Longueuil, especially during the worst years of the interest crisis, in 1982, I knew someone who was forced to sell two small income properties. A bank I will not name, out of kindness, even though it showed none to others, charged this individual a $28,500 to $29,000 penalty to cancel the mortgage. It squeezed something like $58,000 out of a person who was already in dire straits and had to sell his income property at a loss because he could no longer pay the interest. It stomped on someone who was already down.

I would have liked the minister to be a bit more aware of what is going on in the housing industry and to put a stop to what his friends who contribute to his campaign funds are doing.

The NDP member who spoke before me also talked about—and it is worth mentioning—the way people are appointed to the board of directors of the CMHC. It will be another patronage haven, and this Liberal government has become a master at making appointments. It is one of its specialties.

Every day, as critic for Public Works Canada, I receive a list of appointments to Atomic Energy Canada, Canada Post Corporation or some other agency. I checked in the book I had ordered from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. The first 10 names I found were the names of individuals who had contributed to the election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada. Granted, these were not always large contributions. We are talking about $150, $200, $250, $300. Contributions from companies are always a bit larger.

Still, one can wonder whether having contributed to the Liberal Party's election fund is a requirement to get appointed to the CMHCs board of directors.

Soon we will have a new board in charge of managing the $30 billion in misappropriated funds from public employees pension programs. Those who will sit on that board will also be friends of the government. The same goes for the millennium scholarship foundation. The Liberals have become masters at this. Mind you, I do not envy them.

Pork barrelling has taken unprecedented proportions with the Liberal Party. There is no holding back. The Liberals are in office. They criticized the Progressive Conservatives for being too generous in that regard, but the Conservatives look like boy scouts compared to the Liberals, who have been in office for nearly six years now. They sure know how to make patronage appointments. They have it down to an art. It is often subtle, but it is well done.

What interest is there for the taxpayer? In introducing a bill such as this, at least the Interest Act could have been modified. The big banks could have been told “We are not still in the last century; speedy investments are the way things are done now”.

There is no great interest in supporting this bill, particularly since it is responding to the new criteria of universality. As the hon. member for Trois-Rivières has already remarked, the federal government is the one that will call the shots, the one who is boss, because CMHC is heading into the international forum, and it is the one setting standards. There is quite simply nothing doing as far as social housing and negotiations with the provinces are concerned.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there have been further consultations and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its examination of tax equity for Canadian families, the eight members of the Subcommittee on Tax Equity for Canadian Families with Dependent Children of the Standing Committee on Finance, be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Halifax and Montreal during the period May 10 to May 14, 1999 to hold public hearings and that the necessary staff do accompany the subcommittee.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there have been further consultations and I think you will also find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the 10 members and the necessary staff of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations travel to British Columbia (Vancouver, Williams Lake and Bella Coola) from May 11 to 14, 1999 in order to examine Canadian forest management practices and to hold public hearings with respect to this matter as an international trade issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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 Group No. 2.

National Housing Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the questions on the motions in Group No. 2 are deemed to have been put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deferred.

The House will now proceed to debate the motions in Group No. 3.

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motions in Group No. 3 are deemed moved and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 11, 12, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-66, in Clause 29, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 20 with the following:

“branches in any part of Canada and employ agents in any part of Canada.”

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-66, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 37 on page 21 with the following:

“or a province.”

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-66, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 29 on page 22 with the following:

“pealed by this Act.”

Madam Speaker, in the last few months we have heard two very conflicting messages from the government. The government has talked a good line on housing. Last month, finally recognizing the seriousness of the homelessness crisis, a federal coordinator on homelessness was appointed and sent off to speak to housing activists.

When Liberal members stand up to speak on Bill C-66, they talk about the need for the Government of Canada to play a leadership role in housing. Unfortunately, with Bill C-66, it is not just a case of the government's actions not matching its words. The Liberal government's actions actually contradict what it says it is trying to do.

At the same time as the government's homelessness coordinator talks about a national housing program, Bill C-66 is changing the National Housing Act to allow existing social housing to be sold off by this government or provincial governments.

National standards for public housing are being eliminated. Future social housing programs may end up as little more than subsidies for private, for profit landlords. The government is surrendering the power to make decisions about housing programs to an appointed board of directors.

I am not surprised at the Liberal government's decision to turn its back on the homeless at the same time as it pretends to befriend them, but I can not help but be disappointed. One would hope the need to act on something as serious as homelessness would cut across party lines. Instead, with Bill C-66 there is every indication the government will make this situation worse.

One area of concern is the changes to the sections of the National Housing Act dealing with programs to assist with the repair or renovation of housing. The way these programs work is currently spelled out in the act and in regulations. Among the conditions for receiving assistance in the National Housing Act is the requirement that landlords who receive assistance limit rent increases for a set period after the work is completed. In addition, the CMHC is given the power to impose financial penalties when this or other conditions are not met.

In Bill C-66 this wording has been significantly weakened. Instead of requiring that landlords who receive grants or loans for repairs to rental property limit rent increases, there is a vaguely worded provision limiting the financial return which may be made from a project.

According to the government, we should support this change because CMHC needs flexibility. I ask, flexibility for what? Why does the CMHC need the flexibility to allow landlords who receive assistance to raise rents through the roof?

Programs to assist with housing repairs are meant to preserve the supply of affordable housing. Without restrictions on how much landlords can raise rent after receiving assistance rents, in areas with a low vacancy rate, could easily be increased to the point that current tenants would no longer be able to afford them.

Without restrictions on rent increases, federal programs intended to ensure affordable housing is safe and well maintained could actually reduce the supply of affordable housing.

While New Democrats share the government's view that programs to assist with repairs to affordable housing should include grants as well as loans, we disagree with the government's assertion that we need to change the National Housing Act for this to be possible. Currently the act allows loans to be forgiven. This has the effect of allowing the CMHC to make contributions.

In case members opposite do not accept my interpretation, I would like to draw their attention to a media release sent out in January of last year by the minister of public works with regard to the repair and rehabilitation assistance program, one of the programs authorized by the sections of the National Housing Act dealing with assistance for housing repairs. In its release, the minister described this program as providing both loans and grants.

I am also concerned about the impact of Bill C-66 on programs to assist Canadians with home ownership. Currently, assistance in buying a home or paying expenses related to owning a home is only available for houses costing less than a set amount. Grants, as opposed to loans, are only available when a person's financial circumstances make it difficult for the person to repay a loan. The intention is clear: to ensure assistance with home ownership goes to those who need it. These specific requirements are removed by Bill C-66 and the power to set eligibility requirements is handed over to the CMHC.

The usual justification is given, the need for flexibility. Again, one is forced to ask why flexibility is required. There is nothing unreasonable about requiring that government assistance to buy or maintain a house go to those who really need help. This is what the NDP amendment restores.

However, it is not just about what housing programs will look like in the future that should worry us. Clause 34 of the bill gives CMHC the ability to enter into joint ventures with other organizations, including for-profit corporations. What is of particular concern are provisions allowing other levels of government or corporations to assume the powers of the CMHC under these agreements.

Questions have been raised about whether, in provinces where the federal government has downloaded responsibility for housing, provincial governments could now privatize existing social housing units. What has added to the fears of housing activists is clause 38 of the legislation which allows the CMHC to waive provisions of existing agreements. Under this section an agreement between the CMHC and a housing co-op or non-profit corporation could be ripped up, leaving residents to see their homes sold out from underneath them.

What the NDP Motions Nos. 34 and 36 do is remove provisions that allow existing social housing to be privatized.

I would also like to take this opportunity to address the amendments to Bill C-66 which deal with the other major concern the NDP has about the bill; the lack of accountability. It is one thing to give the board of directors of a crown corporation the power they need to do their job. What this bill does, however, is hand most of the decision making power for federal housing policy over to the CMHC's board of directors.

As with other amendments we have moved, Motion No. 32 seeks to restore the degree of accountability present in the existing CMHC Act and National Housing Act. These acts require ministerial approval for housing research programs run by CMHC.

This does not mean the minister must approve every single research project CMHC supports. That power rests with the CMHC which has the authority to decide which projects get funding. What it does do is ensure accountability by requiring that decisions about how housing research programs work must be approved by the minister.

New Democrats are also pleased to support the amendments put forward in this group by the member for Kelowna. As with amendments we have moved, his proposal helps to restore accountability to federal housing policies.

Motions Nos. 31 and 33 both improve the accountability of the CMHC. The existing section 16 of the CMHC Act sets the capital of the corporation at $25 billion and requires that parliament approve any increase. As the CMHC is a crown corporation, there is no question that any change to its capital is a decision that belongs to elected representatives. It is a basic principle of parliamentary democracy that budgetary decisions be made by parliament. Giving the governor in council the power to set the capital of the CMHC, as Bill C-66 would do, is a clear violation of that principle.

Motion No. 33 also restores a provision of the CMHC Act which Bill C-66 is attempting to remove. In this case it is the power of the Minister of Finance to place conditions and restrictions on the type of investment and financial transaction the CMHC can enter into. Again, if crown corporations are to be accountable to citizens through their government it seems only reasonable that the Minister of Finance continue to have this authority.

These motions approve the accountability of the CMHC and are in the spirit as the NDP amendments to require the governor in council to approve the terms and conditions of housing programs under the National House Act. For this reason, New Democrats will support these amendments.

What has made accountability even more of a concern in this debate are the changes the government proposes to make to the composition of the CMHC board of directors.

Under the existing provisions of the CMHC Act, the CMHC board of directors consists of the chair, the president, a vice-president, two members selected from the public service and five from outside the public service. Bill C-66 will change the board from five civil servants and five people appointed from outside to two civil servants and eight others. Giving the government more freedom of action in appointing the board will, based on the government's track record, result in more patronage.

The government had a choice when it decided to change the National Housing Act. It could have chosen to strengthen the federal role in housing and approve programs for people with limited means. This is what the Liberal government would have done if its expressions of concern and compassion for the homelessness were the slightest bit sincere.

Instead, with Bill C-66 the Liberal government is reducing the ability of the federal government to provide safe, affordable housing. It is helping to ensure the fine words—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mississauga Centre.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the motions presented by my hon. colleagues from Cape Breton and Kelowna pertaining to Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.

My hon. colleague from Cape Breton has presented amendments to Bill C-66 that would reduce her own constituents' access to renovations and home ownership assistance programs. I can only presume she does fully understand the implications of her suggested amendments. On some of the comments she just made I would like to address a few at the end of my speech.

Few regions in the country have benefited more from the residential rehabilitation assistance program than Cape Breton has. Yet the member from the region is proposing amendments that would prevent CMHC from ensuring that this vital program is as responsive as possible to the needs of Cape Bretoners and to all Canadians. I do not understand her position.

As they stand, CMHC's renovation assistance programs are in a straitjacket. They need to be able to respond more effectively to the needs of the very Canadians for whom these programs are intended, low income Canadians who need to make repairs to their homes to bring them up to minimum health and safety standards.

Would the hon. member from Cape Breton deny this to her constituents? I would like to think not. Yet the changes she is proposing would do exactly that. They would seriously undermine the government's ability to modernize its provision of services to its clients.

The member from Cape Breton is proposing changes that would effectively entrench the administrative red tape that hampers the CMHC from offering improved forms of assistance that Canadians, and Cape Bretoners in particular, need and they need it now. They would also prevent CMHC from working co-operatively and effectively with the other provinces. Again, what would be the motivation behind such a proposal?

In the same fashion, the member's proposed changes would prevent the CMHC from introducing measures to make home ownership more affordable for all Canadians.

I must conclude that the member does not fully understand the consequences of her suggested changes. There would be consequences, serious consequences for many Canadians, Cape Bretoners included, who would not be able to gain access to decent, affordable, safe housing for themselves and for their families. The government has no intention of denying such important benefits to Canadians. Bill C-66 is intended to ensure that the CMHC has the ability to continue to provide renovation and home ownership assistance to Canadians who are in need.

I would also like to comment on the suggested changes to the bill which were made by my colleague from Kelowna, which he brought forward in committee. What the hon. member is proposing would impede the government's ability to create jobs for Canadians through export promotion. My hon. colleague has proposed that Bill C-66 be amended to restrict CMHC's ability to carry out its export promotion mandate.

I cannot agree with this amendment either because it would seriously jeopardize the government's job creation efforts. The expansion of CMHC's export promotion activities is a fundamental element of the government's ability to create jobs for Canadians in Canada. We all know that export plays a key role in the development of our economy. CMHC's export promotion role works to strengthen our economy.

The CMHC must have the mechanisms it needs to continue to help the Canadian housing industry to take advantage of international trade opportunities. Several members opposite have taken advantage of going on some of these missions and have seen how successful they have been.

Bill C-66, as presented by the government, will enable the CMHC to continue to lead the way in housing export trade promotion and to better promote Canadian housing products and services abroad. This activity will result in job opportunities for Canadians here and for our trade partners abroad. Canada's housing industry has excellent prospects of expanding its exports of housing systems, technologies, products and services, while contributing to the federal objectives of job creation and economic growth.

This legislation will ensure that Canadian entrepreneurs will be able to use the CMHC for marketing support for projects overseas and access CMHC's 55 years of expertise in the housing industry. The CMHC will also be able to help Canadians sell their expertise to foreign countries. This will open the door to further opportunities for Canadian entrepreneurs.

The CMHC has a good track record in helping the industry achieve success in export markets. Last September a group of over 30 companies, provincial governments and industry representatives travelled to Chile with the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, who is also responsible for the CMHC, to take part in one of the biggest trade shows in South America. We expect that within one year following that mission these exporters will generate over $35 million in new business. This will have a major impact on job growth in Canada. I might add that the delegation to Chile also included the member for Kelowna, who now proposes to limit CMHC's ability to undertake such important export promotion functions such as organizing and leading trade missions to foreign countries. What are we to make of this?

The CMHC has also recently returned from a trade mission to Poland and is developing with the housing industry other trade missions to Korea, Germany, Japan and others later this year. Given the significant impact of export on the domestic economy it is obvious the CMHC must be able to continue to support the housing industry in its efforts to improve its export capabilities.

While I thank the hon. members for their interest in the bill, I believe that Bill C-66, as it stands, is the best possible solution to ensure that the Government of Canada, through the CMHC, has the ability to provide appropriate, essential renovation and home ownership assistance to Canadians, to generate economic growth and job creation in Canada, and to ensure that Canadians remain among the best housed people in the world.

I would also like to add that the whole discussion this afternoon seems to be revolving around homelessness. That is not the subject of this bill. This bill is about the renovation of the National Housing Act.

The other thing I find quite fascinating is that the CMHC has been in existence for 55 years. It has been there to help the Canadian public and it has a fabulous track record. I do not understand why members of the opposition assume that there is some sinister plan afoot in this bill to actually do some harm to Canadians.

I also find it interesting that the hon. member who spoke previously talked about accountability to citizens and then went forward to object to the board of directors having a reduced number of bureaucrats and more individuals from every walk of life in Canada.

Rent controls, which were also mentioned by the hon. member who spoke previously, are under provincial jurisdiction. If one reads the bill carefully, all interests that the CMHC has in partnerships with the private sector and provincial governments also give it the ability to supervise such things as rent increases.

I believe that the bill, as it stands, is in perfect shape. It is upgrading old legislation that has to come into the 21st century. It is here for the Canadian public. It is an excellent bill and it requires no amendment.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but respond to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I think this is absolutely the first bill that the Liberal government has introduced which is perfect.

I have noticed that the feeling of arrogance, the feeling of completeness and the feeling of superiority to everyone else is beginning to grow and develop on that side of the House. That is the first sign that there is something wrong. If there was nothing wrong, then they would not have to say they were perfect. Everybody would know it. I believe one has to take issue with that.

I was also struck by the comment the hon. parliamentary secretary made about the mission to Chile. I certainly concur. I was a participant in that particular mission. It was an excellent mission, which was extremely well organized and very well done. I think it will produce jobs in Canada and it will move the housing market forward in Chile. However, I submit that was done under the existing Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act. It was very successful. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can indeed and has entered into those particular activities.

I would like to draw to the hon. member's attention the particular clause that would be amended by the proposed amendment. Clause 29 on page 20 would replace section 14 with the following:

The Corporation may establish branches and employ agents.

It is a carte blanche to establish branches and employ agents anywhere, wherever the CMHC wishes to do so.

The mandate of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to implement and to make operational, to administer if you will, the National Housing Act. That is the purpose of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The mandate of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to implement and to put into operation the housing policy of the federal government.

If this corporation can establish branches and agents, and an agent can act as if it were the government or the corporation, and in this case it would be an agent of the corporation, it means that the agent is the corporation wherever that branch or agent sets up office. That is the issue.

The amendment is not intended in any way, shape or form to restrict the operation of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to do the kind of thing that it did in Chile or in other parts of the world. However, it definitely is the intention to restrict the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to insure mortgages in Canada, not in Germany or Japan or Chile or anywhere else in the world. That is a totally different issue. The hon. member should review that.

There may be an honest disagreement in opinion and perhaps legal counsel ought to be sought. However, it is abundantly clear to me that the intent and purpose of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to serve Canadians first and foremost. That is its purpose. If that purpose is going to be jeopardized by diverting its attention to other countries in the world, then it has lost its primary function. Let us keep that very clearly in mind.

The other issue that appears in this bill with the amendments and the new proposals is that there is absolutely no transparency in the financial dealings of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There is no indication of where the profits will go. It simply says that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation shall pay, for example, from the mortgage insurance fund to the consolidated revenues of Canada a fee, or moneys. It does not even call it a fee. The clause states that these shall be considered expenses. At the moment there is a $602 million surplus in the mortgage insurance fund.

Can money be paid to the consolidated revenue fund? Under the current provisions of the act, no. When we asked the officials of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation how much it had paid to the consolidated revenue fund, they said there had been no payment. We asked if that would change under the provisions of the new act and they said that, yes, it would. Then we asked them what the guidelines would be and what the policies and principles would be that would determine how much money would be taken from the surplus either in the mortgage insurance fund or from any other operation that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation would get into. The president began to speak and immediately the minister interrupted and said that would be determined at some later time and they did not know. That is not transparent, nor is it responsible and accountable.

There are no provisions in this bill. It simply says that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation may invest. It does not say where, it does not say how much, it does not say from what sources, but it may invest money somewhere, somehow, in land, buildings, stocks, bonds or other mortgages. It is not clear at all.

Neither is there a provision that these investments, whatever they might be, have to be guided by the same kind of guidelines that exist for the insurance companies under the Insurance Companies Act. Neither are there any guidelines as to what it has to do in terms of maintaining a prudential portfolio. All of this is left wide open and the administration of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can do whatever it wants to do.

I believe that is an inherent flaw in the bill. As a minimum the bill ought to subject the financial operations of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the same restrictions that are there for insurance companies and other financial institutions in Canada. That is the minimum.

In the final analysis, if the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation invests its money improperly and loses money, who is going to pay? The taxpayer is going to pay and that is a terrible intrusion. If a bank or an insurance company acts in a fiduciary and responsible manner and must abide by the rules and regulations of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, then surely a crown corporation should be no less concerned about the security of the money it invests. That is one provision that is not in the bill which I think should be included.

I will speak briefly about capitalization. It is interesting that the corporation has capitalization of $25 million. There is a new provision in the proposed bill that capitalization may be increased by the governor in council. There are two problems here. First, why should the governor in council determine the capitalization of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation? If it is going to be changed, then it ought to be done by parliament and not by the governor in council.

Second, it seems almost a nonsensical kind of provision in the first place because the capitalization of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is simply a paper entry. Behind Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation are all the resources and the financial clout of the federal government. To capitalize the corporation at $25 million or any other number is simply a book entry. We need to be very careful in that regard. Let us face it. The corporation has huge investments and exposure in the marketplace. It has insured something like $280 billion worth of mortgages.

Another point we need to look at is the way in which CMHC can actually intrude into and become an intermediary in the financial marketplace. Why should a crown corporation enter into the financial marketplace and intrude directly with all the clout of the federal government and thereby virtually override and bully every other financial institution simply because it has all the resources of the nation at its disposal and the other companies do not?

If the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to be on a fair and equal playing field with the others on a commercial basis, it ought to have the same operational principles and guidelines governing its operations as other institutions, and it does not. Therefore I believe CHMC has an unfair advantage and it should not have that advantage.

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments following those of the parliamentary secretary. She wondered why we could not trust the government with this bill. We could provide a long list of why we cannot trust the government.

We could look at what the Prime Minister said when he came to Beauséjour to get elected in the riding that I represent, which was once the safest Liberal seat in the country. He promised seasonal workers that he would make the UI program better for them, to better reflect their needs. When he came back to Ottawa he actually said everybody was drunk in taverns collecting UI.

Then they were to scrap the GST. We all remember that. What happened was that in New Brunswick we ended up with an extra 8% on the electric bill, on the oil bill, on children's clothing, and it goes on and on. Now we have a 15% tax on everything.

Then we have the national child care program. That was also a great promise in 1993, that we would have a national child care program, and we are still waiting for it. Yet she wonders why we cannot trust the government.

How about pay equity? There were signed letters by the Prime Minister to women who have actually passed away due to illnesses since his promise to them. They kept his letter in their desks, hoping that the Prime Minister would keep his promise and give them what was rightly theirs.

The tribunal said that these women and men, federal public servants, deserved equal pay for work of equal value. We have a Liberal government that condemned the Conservative government for not wanting to recognize that. The Liberals made promise after promise to get elected and were elected, but again they did not honour the promises.

I have no problem justifying to the parliamentary secretary why we cannot trust the government. We just cannot trust it. It will say anything to get elected, and that is what it did.

Also the parliamentary secretary mentioned decent affordable housing. What is the real definition of decent affordable housing when there are 200,000 homeless people in the country? Single parents are using 50% or more of their income to pay their rent. Low income families are doing the same. Low income seniors are using 50% of their income on housing.

The budget was brought forward in February and it showed a surplus. What did the government do with the surplus? It did not put it in health care. The government pretended to put it in health care, but it really put it on the debt. It had all the chance in the world to address the homeless situation and first nations across the country that desperately need housing. Does the government really care? It comes up with a bill, but do we really have a housing act?

I look at 200,000 people with no roofs over their heads. I look at the first nations across the country living in desperate situations. I look at poor families outside reservations living in desperate situations.

In February the Liberal government had a chance to do something about these things. What happened? It actually implemented the Reform Party's position: cut tax, reduce the debt; cut tax, reduce the debt; cut tax, reduce the debt. That is what we saw and to hell with social programs. This is what is happening. Again the poorest people in the country are suffering, and that is not right.

It is clear that the bill will not improve anything. Technically we have heard everything that is wrong with the bill. I think it is important to talk about the real issues such as what is really happening in our areas.

Every day we receive phone calls from people looking for a place to live. We have to make phone calls all over the riding trying to find places for people to live in order to be able to work. If one does not have a home, how can one hold a job? That is a serious problem.

New Brunswick is paying the lowest social assistance payments in the country to its recipients. Two single moms cannot share a house or an apartment in order to try to make life better for their kids because it is not allowed. It is not allowed because it might make their life a little easier. It is sad. These people are smart enough to get together and do something that is especially good for their children. Then they could go to school with food in their stomachs and wearing proper clothing, but the provincial government says it is not allowed.

I think everything we could say on the bill has been said. It is clear it is something we cannot support. Hopefully the government will find a conscience some day.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to speak earlier to the motions in Group No. 2, and now, like the other members, I will move on to the motions in Group No. 3.

I wonder where the government is headed with Bill C-66. It has decided to go into business abroad. It wants to build low cost housing abroad and probably wants to get into housing development abroad. But is this the role of a government? Must the government not first and foremost defend the interests of Canadians and look after their welfare?

The government, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is getting involved in a commercial operation it has no business in. The structure was not designed for that. This was not the intent of Canadians in establishing the CHMC; rather, it was to help Canadians who wanted to acquire a house.

Earlier, when I finished my last intervention, I spoke of the context of the negotiation of world trade agreements, the WTO and all that. My colleague from Trois-Rivières spoke of the government's new mentality with respect to its foreign partners, the famous negotiation with the other provinces on the social union framework agreement. It is proof the federal government is literally going over the provinces' heads and leaving them off to one side in all aspects of the daily lives of Canadians. It is now positioning itself as the only real government for Canadians, and the provinces are being left out in the cold.

That can be seen in Bill C-66, when my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve proposed amendments to the text of it to permit agreements with the provinces on public housing.

They were, of course, rejected by the committee, and the parliamentary secretary followed the party line on this issue. I wonder if she listened to us. In any case, it does not change anything, because the decisions are made long before anything happens in committee.

I remember when the committee heard witnesses, including GE Capital, on the eve of the clause by clause review of the bill. A document was given to us in English only. I asked that it be translated, because I wanted to read it and make comments. The committee, with the support of the government majority, had already decided which amendments, which changes to the bill would be acceptable or unacceptable, this before even having heard the last witnesses. The hon. member to my left can attest to that, because he was sitting on that committee.

So, this bill was rammed through. We were not given an opportunity to assess its impact on Canadians as regards social housing and housing development. The bill was rammed through.

The member for Kelowna, who spoke before me, alluded to the issue of accountability. With this bill, who is responsible for what? The regulations will no longer be made through an order to the governor in council and notice will no longer be given in part II or III of the Canada Gazette .

Now, everything will be done in secret. This legislation is similar to Bill C-47, Bill C-48 and Bill C-49, in the previous parliament. Former Bill C-84 changed the whole procedure and the responsibility concerning the making of regulations. Now, the government wants to run things informally. This is often a cause for concern. It becomes a real maze. Even the experts will get lost.

Without strict rules, no one will be accountable. Not all ministers will operate the same way. There will come a time when one will overturn another's decision. The reason there were stringent rules for passing regulations was so that the procedure would be clear. Now, all that has gone by the board.

In the name of efficiency, the rules of the game are going to be changed by means of a mere notice on behalf of the minister in the Canada Gazette . A few days later, the regulation will take effect, but no one will comply because it is no longer announced. This is one of the biggest problems with Bill C-66 and as responsible members of this House we cannot go along with it.

Appointments to the board of directors are also a farce. The parliamentary secretary did not go into any detail. I know she is an honest women and I suspect she is quite uncomfortable with this bill, with this way of appointing friends of the regime to the head of a crown corporation. Will the CMHC be audited in future, given that it will be independent of the government per se? It will pay dividends and therefore becomes a crown corporation.

Will it be subject to audit by the Auditor General of Canada? I do not know, but Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is not, nor are a number of crown corporations. Canada Post Corporation is no longer audited by the Auditor General of Canada.

Crown corporations are all exempted from auditing by the Auditor General of Canada. The government says nothing about this. We end up with corporations here and there, as Nav Canada, etc. There are large ones, small ones, corporations of all sizes, but they all have one thing in common: they no longer have a boss.

They are no longer managed by parliament. It does not make decisions for them. Crown corporations make their own decisions and from time to time the minister makes decisions, when relations are good. If things are not going well, the minister does not seem to have much more authority because parliament no longer decides.

This is what is tragic in the current Liberal approach. Literally, they push parliament to the sidelines when the time comes to make decisions and they do so in the name of efficient management. However, efficiency does not justify everything. We cannot bypass parliament in the name of efficiency. We cannot work around parliament in the name of efficiency and cost effectiveness.

This bill reassures no one. For various reasons, Reformers, Bloquists, New Democrats and Progressive Conservatives are against this bill. Not for the same reasons, but it still proves that this bill is flawed. This is what happens when a bill is rammed through and amendments are drafted even before the last witnesses have been heard in committee. This is steamroller democracy.

I cannot support such a bill. It has become a real joke. I see the government member laughing because he knows this bill has become a real joke, but he is paid to do that.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to speak on the amendments proposed to Bill C-66, this time on Group No. 3.

I would first of all like to speak in support of some of the motions presented by the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the member for Kelowna. I will then have some general comments.

It has been proposed in Motions Nos. 25, 27, 28 and 29 by the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton that the board of directors of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation remains as it is currently structured rather than change it as has been proposed in the bill. These are amendments with which I wholeheartedly agree. Section 25 of Bill C-66 would alter the structure of the CMHC board, a structure that was put in place and has remained unchanged since December 18, 1945.

Subsection 6(1) of the CMHC Act states: “The board of directors shall consist of the chairman, the president, a vice-president who shall be designated by the governor in council, and seven other members, two of whom shall be selected from the Public Service of Canada and five of whom shall be selected from outside the Public Service of Canada”.

In other words the board of CMHC as it currently exists consists of five highly qualified housing professionals from CMHC and the public service, and five people who are appointed by the Liberal cabinet who may or may not be qualified or even have any knowledge of the housing industry. Although it concerns me that nowhere in the act does it stipulate the qualifications these Liberal appointees must have in order to sit on that board, at least the legislation strikes a balance between housing professionals and the Liberal appointees.

What the government is suggesting we do with Bill C-66 is to throw out the structure of the board that has worked so well for the last 54 years and appoint three more Liberals to the board. If we allow this bill to pass unamended, the Liberals will remove the vice-president of CMHC and two public servants from the board and replace them with three Liberal patronage appointees. Presently the board has a good balance among its 10 members, being one-half housing professionals and one-half political appointees.

There are two problems with the changes to the board as proposed in the bill. First, the balance will be upset in favour of the government. Second, there is no way to guarantee that the politically appointed Liberals will have any qualifications whatsoever to be able to make important decisions affecting Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

I would not want to speak disparagingly about the Liberals, but the government has developed a reputation, deservedly so, of appointing Liberals to government boards, qualified or otherwise. Aside from the distasteful nature of this change that could put three more Liberals on the CMHC board, it could also threaten the independence that CMHC enjoys as a crown corporation. Just think, now CMHC management has to answer to a board that at least has some balance between five highly qualified professionals and five Liberals. But under the new board, CMHC management will be under the direction of a board comprised of a majority of Liberal appointees.

I had an opportunity to question the minister responsible for CMHC on this bill. When I asked him what necessitated this change, he had no answer. When I asked him what problem existed with the present board that required this solution, he could not offer an explanation.

The Liberals want to have a board composed of eight patronage appointees and two housing professionals. This is entirely unacceptable to our party, as are the accompanying changes in clauses 26, 27 and 28. I am also pleased to support the amendment by the member for Kelowna that would delete clause 30.

At present, CMHC cannot unilaterally raise the capital limit of the corporation without coming back to the House of Commons and getting the approval of the members of the House. The bill proposes that this change can be made by cabinet without the input of Canadians or their elected representatives. This should stay as it is.

Just a note on Motion No. 30 that was moved by the member for Kelowna. Clause 29 of the bill broadens the mandate of CMHC to allow it to establish branches and appoint agents outside Canada to better serve customers. This is particularly important when it comes to fulfilling the corporation's mandate to promote Canadian housing products and services outside Canada. I believe this proposed change in the bill would be of benefit to the Canadian housing industry and I must therefore oppose this amendment.

There is another point I want to talk about. I heard the parliamentary secretary on the government side when she said that this bill was not about homelessness. I am part of a task force organized by the PC Party of Canada. I travel across the country, not that I like to do it. Mr. Speaker, you know I do not like to travel, I do not like to fly. Hon. members cannot imagine the Canadians we meet on a daily basis while we travel who do not have a roof over their heads.

What disturbs me is that this bill will take $197 million out of the corporation and hand it over to the government, whereas that money should be used for social housing. The budget that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has right now should be increased substantially to deal with the problem of homelessness in this country. It is not being increased. It is being downgraded and $197 million will be given to the government so that it can waste it somewhere else. That is what the government has been doing since 1993, wasting taxpayers' money. It is a real shame.

The other week a Reform Party member asked a question of the new minister responsible for homelessness, who was supposedly appointed by the Prime Minister about a month ago. In her answer she told the member that she was not the minister responsible for homelessness. Last week in New Brunswick in a meeting she claimed that she was the new minister responsible for homelessness. Can she make up her mind? We have a minister who does not have a mandate, who does not know her mandate, who does not know she is minister and who all of a sudden knows that she is minister, yet people out there are hurting.

We need a better housing policy. We need to help those people. We need to put more money into different programs. I am not saying that the existing programs are all that bad. RRAP is a program which helps senior citizens and disabled people stay in their houses. It is a good program. We need to put more emphasis on and more money into that program so that we can help those people stay in their houses.

We have to find some money somewhere to put into social housing so that we can help people who do not have homes. In New Brunswick in my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac I know some really nice people with young children who literally live, eat and sleep in their car. Is that a house? It is not a house to me.

What is the government doing about it? The Liberals are half asleep over there right now. It is time to get to work. We were elected as members of parliament to represent our people and it is time we did the job. Put the partisan politics aside. Let us all work together because this is not a problem we have, it is a crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, you will have heard me speak in the House many times about the smoke and mirror tactics of the government.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to begin my speech today by saying it is in the area of housing, specifically when it comes to Bill C-66, that we have probably the best example yet of a government that is prepared to trick Canadians into believing it is providing a great service on housing, while in fact it does the reverse and does as little as possible.

The parliamentary secretary tried to suggest that we have a bill before us with the great noble intention of reducing red tape. If that were the case, in the context of good public policy on housing, I would say bravo. But when we are left with a choice between reduced red tape and not having any good public social housing, then I would rather take the red tape, as would all Canadians.

Canadians want to see this government assume responsibility for an issue in society today of fundamental human rights, which is adequate shelter for all Canadians regardless of where they may live. This bill is about fundamental differences in viewpoints and philosophical approaches. Behind it all is absolutely without question a deliberate policy, a deliberate approach on the part of the Liberal government to abdicate responsibility for meeting its obligations of adequate shelter for all Canadians and offloading as quickly as possible onto other levels of government and onto Canadian individuals.

Bill C-66 complements the government's agenda of completely abdicating the field of social housing, of transferring responsibility for co-operative housing to the provinces. The government is clearly on record as stating it is not prepared to increase by one cent in the area of meeting the necessary housing requirements of Canadians.

The amendments before the House are designed specifically to require the government to get back into the housing picture, to resume its responsibilities, to restore federal involvement in such a vital social policy area.

There are many connections to be made today between this bill and the Liberal government's illusory politics. It is smoke and mirror tactics.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must interrupt the hon. member. She will have approximately seven minutes left when the bill is brought back to the House.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Access To Information Act

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the parliament and crown agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to propose this very straightforward and simple motion. It is not votable but I believe that does not detract from the importance of this subject.

Since I have come to this place I have put forward several bills on access to information. I have been told by several ministers that it is a matter of a very short time and there will be some major reforms to the Access to Information Act.

In doing the research for my motion today I found a number of agencies that are not subject to access to information. For the benefit of the House it is fair to note that all new crown corporations being created are not subject to access to information.

This is not the first time I have spoken on this subject and I assume it probably will not be the last. I will continue to put forward private members' motions which try to address this problem.

Five times in the past six years individual members of the House have put forward motions which tried to address different parts of the deficiencies of the current legislation. My caucus colleagues from Wild Rose and Dauphin—Swan River, just to name a couple, have also put forward motions on this subject.

It is well known that on the opposition side of the House there are a great many people who feel the current legislation needs to be improved. In my case this motion simply carries on with some of the other areas I have identified as problems.

In 1982 the Access to Information Act was passed and the following year it was given royal assent. Some 17 years ago that piece of legislation was brought forward. At that time it was based on “the principle that government information should be available to the public”. It is a very straightforward and simple premise with which most Canadians and most parliamentarians hopefully would agree.

It is a very important principle and it is very important that we do not forget it. I do not think any one in opposition in the House could put up much of an argument in opposition to access to information. I do not think anyone in the House would not basically agree with an open style of government.

We have had many political documents over the course of the years which have bragged about the open style of government that was coming. Those who might be tempted to reject this kind of principle would probably be running the risk of a great deal of public rebuke in this regard.

All of this should be a non-partisan issue. The fact that we are spending taxpayers money and doing things in this place should be open totally to the scrutiny of people who pay the bills.

In a democracy such as ours government accountability is essential to the preservation of our freedoms and to the protection of the public interest as defined in many different ways.

Some might ask why this issue is so important and why I should be spending so much time and effort in questioning access to information. After all we have an information commissioner and the bureaucracy in place. Most Canadians probably assume that the main people who benefit are parliamentarians and journalists. That is not true. A growing number of Canadians are using access to information. It is certainly true that the media and parliamentarians use it as much as possible, but using this act can force the government to reveal information which parliament and other places cannot get hold of.

Members of the House, regardless of on which side of the aisle they sit, can use the act to discover, to unearth or to reveal what the government and the bureaucracy are doing behind the scenes.

In a recent speech the information commissioner noted that members of parliament are increasingly relying upon the current access law to help them with their responsibilities and parliamentary duties.

That seems to me perfectly understandable as the House is overwhelmed by the amount of business that it must conduct. The ability of its members to fulfil their duty to scrutinize legislation requires new tools. Debate and questions are simply no longer adequate.

Over the past 17 years access to information has become a crucial part of our democratic system. It has become an essential means of guaranteeing government accountability. A recent report released by Queen's University school of political studies has noted the tremendous increase in the requests targeting government ministries and agencies.

I do not want to list all these results but let me list a few examples. According to this study, between 1993 and 1998 the number of access requests directed at Health Canada increased by 72%; at national defence, by 74%; and at correctional service, by 79%.

These requests are not the work of crackpots who are simply trying to make the public service look bad. They do not represent a concerted effort to reveal dirt about government officials, corruption and such things. Instead the vast increase in requests simply reflects the growing complexity of government and the growing awareness among Canadians of the breadth and range of ongoing government activities.

The concept of ministerial accountability, a concept the government seems not always to like, has been supplemented by the Access to Information Act. What question period and ministerial inquiries cannot reveal might very well be discovered through an access to information request. That is an important addition to the system of government.

Recently on a television program a statement was made that Canada had one of the most secretive democracies in the world. I do not believe that comment should be used in a country like Canada and the reform of the Access to Information Act therefore becomes even more important.

Sir Francis Bacon once said that knowledge itself was power. That may be an old adage but not all wisdom is new wisdom. Access to information, to knowledge about government activities, is a means of preventing too great a concentration of power in the hands of anonymous and unaccountable public servants. It also means devolving power back to those from whom it is derived, the common people.

The Access to Information Act is currently inadequate. It does not meet the standards of open government which the Canadian people expect and deserve. The 1982 Access to Information Act states that “necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific”. This seems to be a relatively straightforward aim of this act.

I invite all hon. members to take time to read through the legislation to refresh their memories. Without going into detail, the current legislation permits exceptions to access in three basic areas: first, where national security might be threatened by the release of information; second, where the fairness of a judicial process might be prejudiced; and, third, where the release of information might reveal trade secrets or place Canadian business in an unfair situation vis-à-vis foreign firms.

These seem to be very reasonable restrictions. I think all of us would agree with them. They cannot be used as an argument against changing the access to information for crown corporations. There is an existing appeal process should someone disagree with the assessment by a department or government agency that access must be denied.

I could quote a number of legal representations but I am not a lawyer by training so I will forgo that. The 1984 decision of the federal court seems to make crystal clear how this should work and how exceptions and exemptions should be handled.

The people have a right to know and those who would deny it must explain themselves before the most appropriate authority. In other words, open government is more than a privilege. It is a basic principle of our political system in a modern Canada going into the 21st century.

This principle is not being properly respected by those whose duty it is to uphold it. According to one report, only about one-half of the 12,000 access to information requests filed annually are replied to within the statutory time limit of 30 days. This tardiness increases when the request comes from an opposition member of the House, and again statistics back that up.

I personally know that government departments seek to discover the identity of many of the people who file requests. That is also a violation of the existing law. I believe some of the ministers responsible for that should be held accountable in the House.

A few moments ago I cited some figures from a very recent Queen's University study on access to information. I will now cite others.

According to the study, the number of full disclosure responses provided by government ministries and agencies has shown an alarming decline in recent years. Despite all the controversy surrounding it and the current minister's micromanaging of access to information requests, the Department of National Defence has seen a decline of only 8.8% in full disclosures between 1993 and 1998. A decline in meeting access requests is not good, but 9% is not at all bad when compared with the worst offenders.

In the same period the privy council saw a decline of 40% in its disclosures. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency saw a decline of 39.4% and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a decline of 22%. All these are declines in willingness to respond to access claims. At a time when we are asking for more accountability and more open government, obviously none of these should be declining in terms of responses to access to information claims.

The information commissioner recently stated that “many public servants have simply decided that when it comes to the access law illegal behaviour is the norm”. Make no mistake, refusing access is quite clearly against the spirit and the letter of the law of the land.

Perhaps some day we will learn why the Minister of National Defence needs to supervise the response to each access to information request of his department. He personally must approve every one of them that comes into his office before access is given. Does he think we will find out that the troops are not combat capable? Does he think that the Canadian people might be shocked at the information about the decline that has occurred?

I suppose the wheat board is one thing I will not have time to talk about, but many of my constituents are upset that they, the shareholders, cannot have access to the board, the salaries and the information. They would be happy to get it even from last year or the year before.

A lot of reforms are needed to the Access to Information Act. Canadians are asking for them and I do not understand why the government has not brought forward the reforms it promised in 1994.