Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-66.
With all due respect, I want to tell the minister right off the bat that we will be unable to support the bill. I do not want him to take it personally, but, as I will explain later, there is in this bill a potential for intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. This concerns us.
We are not against the fact that the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation will now be allowed to operate abroad. The minister wants to give CMHC a really commercial mandate. I believe we have already seem it a work in Chile, if I am not mistaken. A delegation headed by the minister travelled to that country. My colleague from Quebec was a member.
We understand CMHC, and builders, have a role to play in better promoting Quebec and Canadian housing know-how.
I will now sum up the proposed legislation for the benefit of those listeners who might have just joined us. Close to one million Canadians listen to the House of Commons debates.
The bill contains eight major elements. First, CMHC, the main representative of the federal government in housing, would be authorized to make housing loans to individuals, groups, organizations, municipalities, departments, federal or provincial agencies, a bit like a bank.
Some even compared CMHC to a bank.
CMHC will have new authority to set fees and charges for the products and services it provides.
There is also a third objective that we support: to allow CMHC to participate in research and development of housing internationally and to promote the export of Canadian expertise and products relating to housing.
This is, I believe, one truly important objective of this bill. Allow me to repeat that enabling CMHC to have a greater impact on international export markets is one of the positive aspects of the bill.
Another aspect is more problematic. I would ask the minister to take what I am about to say into consideration. CMHC will have the authority to make contributions relating to housing payments. Powers will also be given to CMHC, not to the minister. The Bloc Quebecois sees this as a legal problem. These powers will concern the provision of funds to individuals, organizations and municipalities. This is another point of concern for us.
The minister ought to have said in his speech that, when transfers to individuals are concerned, those amounts will not be subjected to the constraints of the social union the federal government has negotiated with all provinces except Quebec. When reference is made to transfers covered by the social union, if these are transfers to individuals, they are not covered by the agreement signed with the federal government.
Our main concern is the possibility that the federal government could transact directly with NGOs, and with municipalities, in matters relating to housing, without provincial agreement.
I respectfully submit to the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the bill is hard to follow because, in the throne speech, the federal government promised to decentralize a number of sectors of intervention. They are what we called the eight sisters. There is tourism, mines, recreation and housing, as well. Surely the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation remembers.
As an opposition party, we assumed the government would transfer the entire housing sector to the provinces. How does the minister explain to the House the claim the government made in the speech from the throne that it would transfer the entire housing sector to the provinces, and the increased powers this bill provides for the government?
If all of the prerogatives provided in this bill were implemented, the government could establish a housing allowance. Does the minister agree, or does he think we are not reading the bill properly?
From our reading of the powers accorded under Bill C-66 to the minister responsible for housing and more particularly to the CHMC, everything hints at the establishment of a national housing allowance. That is a source of some concern.
We have opened the door for the minister. We would have liked to support the government, because we are a constructive opposition. Whenever we are given the opportunity to do so, we are always pleased to support the government, provided Quebec's interests are respected. I moved an amendment asking that no loan, contribution or money be given to municipalities, non-profit organizations or individuals without the agreement of the Quebec government.
It is with regret that I inform this House that the government took advantage of its majority to reject the amendment. The minister will remember that he rose and, without blinking an eye, very comfortable in his role as minister, had the Bloc Quebecois' amendment rejected.
Except for this amendment, we were rather in agreement with the bill. If the minister wanted to reconsider his earlier decision and support—assuming there is unanimous consent—an amendment to the effect that no contribution can be made to individuals and intermediate bodies such as municipalities in the province of Quebec, we would be prepared to support this bill. Unfortunately, it is not the case and this is why we will oppose this legislation.
I am taking this opportunity to talk about the housing sector as a whole. As we know, and the minister made reference to this in his speech, there is a very tenuous but direct link between the whole issue of access to housing and the fight against poverty.
In a riding like Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the primary cause of poverty is that our fellow citizens must often spend 30%, 40% or 50% of their income on rent.
For this reason it is important for there to be state intervention, in the form of a housing allowance, access to ownership and low-cost housing construction, in order to give the least advantaged access to housing. However, we believe that the government that should be doing this is not the federal government but the Quebec government and the provincial governments.
The federal government has committed to transferring $1.9 billion to the provinces. If my information is up to date, there are now five provinces and two territories that have signed, for a grand total of seven.
I ask the minister to get negotiations moving with Quebec. I am familiar with his talents as a negotiator, and I know he is a man motivated by a great sense of fairness. I would, however, like to remind him of certain historical facts.
I would also like to take advantage of the distinguished presence of my colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa, to remind him that the share paid to Quebec by the federal government does not take into account either its demographic weight or the number of households in urgent need of accommodation.
I would remind the minister—whose roots in the Liberal family are deep and long-lasting, indeed I believe they are ever-lasting in his mind—that all of the governments in Quebec, one after another, have called for fair compensation from the federal government.
I might give the example of Claude Ryan, whom we all know is no sovereignist. Moreover, the Minister of Human Resources Development has worked for him. When he was responsible for the housing portfolio in the National Assembly, Claude Ryan called upon CMHC to hand over 29% of the available funds, but this did not happen.
I will provide some figures, which I believe you will find interesting. First of all, total federal expenditures for social housing are $362 million. That is not a trifle, but it is not sufficient either. This amount of $362 million represents 18.7% of the total. In other words, the federal government spends 18.7% of its social housing expenditures in Quebec.