Christian Simard

[Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative, June 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 135 agencies throughout Quebec working with the homeless, I want to address the Prime Minister, since his Minister of Housing does not seem to listen to their demands or understand the urgent need to act.

It is imperative that the government to officially announce, this very day, the renewal of the supporting communities partnership initiative, better known as SCPI.

If nothing is done right now, shelters, collective kitchens, drop-in centres, soup kitchens, and homelessness prevention services will close their doors. The poorest of the poor will be driven further into misery.

I am calling on the government to extend and improve the SCPI program immediately until such time as the full responsibility of housing is transferred to the Government of Quebec with the corresponding envelopes.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 8th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, when we say that the money is in Ottawa, that the needs are in Quebec and that the money is being misspent, we should specify that the money is being mismanaged in Ottawa. We have seen it. These surpluses do not help in the effective management of public funds.

There is a great temptation to interfere, to create a homogeneous country instead of individual communities. A nation is being held back because of the state and its programs. That may in fact be the point of the operation. We denounce the fact that the government is spending the money of the least fortunate just to stifle a people.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 8th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I have already had this debate with environmental organizations protesting on Parliament Hill. Generally, they supported the NDP, even with regard to legislation on environmental protection. Apparently, Ottawa knows best. How can we change this mindset? I have heard some horrible stories. For example, people told me that, since Ottawa is far away, it was far from the lobbies and, therefore, insensitive to the business lobby. They thought that, as a result, the federal government would be more objective than the provincial governments when it came to adopting national standards, since it was not involved in business. To be fair, this was before the sponsorship scandal.

If it was not so sad it would be funny. But it is sad, because imposing national standards and having endless discussions in order to impose its dictates diverts funds from those who are able to provide public services.

Certain things must be fixed. The Charest government in Quebec has renewed the housing program. Pressure is being exerted. We are holding debates and ensuring integrated policies. We do not need our big brother in Ottawa, who usually leans far to the right, as we know.

The budget, otherwise known as Bill C-43, which we also oppose, provides $13 billion for national defence and nothing for social housing. Of course, the federal government has managed to postpone its own end, thanks to a party that unfortunately traded its morals and integrity for promises and commitments that respect neither the provinces nor the unemployed. Unfortunately, the public will punish that party for having lent or tried to lend credibility to a government that had none.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 8th, 2005]

I think that this is something that we have to examine. The NDP member will explain to the unemployed and to his colleague from Acadie—Bathurst how these sweet deals work, these arrangements made with a government that never paid any attention to social programs while it had the means to do something, in the housing area for example, given the huge surplus.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 8th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I will seize this opportunity. I do not know how the NDP member can explain to the unemployed that he has abandoned them. I do not know either how he can think that the fiscal imbalance is of no importance when it is directly responsible for poverty. It also creates shortfalls in the health system. In fact, it prevents the provinces from having an integrated social system.

The NDP had the opportunity to do it. Negotiations took place between the Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP on some budgetary amendments. The NDP chose to go its own way, to support a corrupt government and to give it some sort of political virginity based on future promises. It is a choice that this party made and people will judge it according to this choice.

We cannot say--

[Department of Social Development Act, June 8th, 2005]

The former Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, even if she lost her department, should allow me to continue. We listen when she speaks, so I would appreciate it if she would do the same for me. I will be happy to answer her questions in due time.

What matters is not to seek visibility through one small-scale initiative after another. I have worked in the community sector. I have also worked with community organizations, particularly cooperative housing corporations. Applying for every program under the sun and trying to please everyone, one can lose sight of what matters and, in community organizations, what matters is to provide services to the public. An inordinate amount of time could be wasted wondering whether this little federal program with this little goal requirement or that little provincial program with that little goal requirement should be applied for, when the agreement is only for one, two or three years, after which there will be a new fad.

My experience of these applications is that what the federal government requires makes you feel like saying never mind. They are very complicated, take a very long time to fill out and, more often than not, are rejected. That is a huge waste of time. And the public is not well served by that. This is true for community organizations as well as for those working with persons with disabilities and even child care centres and agencies dealing with parental leave. This kind of duplication wastes a great deal of energy. It may give government employees work, but that is not the objective. The objective is to use the allocated money properly.

Initially, this megadepartment with 12,000 employees will basically be responsible for managing seniors programs; 97% of its budget is earmarked for that. Unfortunately, straightforwardness and clarity are not this government's strong suit, and neither is administrative efficiency.

There is something on file about that. According to the Auditor General, the department's data did not provide an accurate picture because certain programs are netted, which makes it difficult to know what exactly the expenditures and the tax revenues were. Netting diminishes actual program expenditures. The Auditor General offered many comments and suggestions to remedy the situation. So, we do not have an accurate picture.

According to the available picture, however, the budget is essentially allocated to seniors. On the other hand, there is always this will to re-create, through this structure, little visibility programs, which I call future social sponsorship scandals. These scandals will not necessarily flow from kickbacks to the Liberal Party, this time around, at least I hope so, nor from small gifts given to the ad companies. The source of those scandals will rather be that money is being spent uselessly, without an integrated policy, through small one-year, two-year or three-year programs which, generally speaking, are set up based on the front pages of newspapers and on the flavour of the month, rather than being based on an integrated approach to fight child poverty.

We know that the federal government is far from the objectives in that area. It will not fight in an integrated fashion against poverty, or social inequities. It will design small, high-visibility programs, which is very costly for society. We cannot afford such duplication.

I am saddened by the creation of these megadepartments of national encroachment, these social propaganda machines. They have no social purpose. The responsibility for social development and related issues related has been handed over, and rightly so, to governments which are closer to the people. These governments have acquitted themselves quite well. I feel that the Quebec government is really an outstanding example. Over the last 20 or 30 years, it has been a trailblazer.

Every time Quebec does something, it is penalized in a way because it has funded its excellence on its own. Then the Canadian government comes along far later and tries to copy the program nationally. The Government of Quebec says it already has this program and asks for money, for full compensation. This is our money, from our tax dollars. This is nothing laughable. We want nothing more than our own tax dollars. We are not looking for charity.

We are hearing things here that are disdainful and shameful. We hear laughter when we say we want money. What we do not want is intrusion and imposed standards. We do not want just any old money. This is our money. We would not like to have to go begging for it, nor to have to negotiate for 10 years to obtain something so very obvious.

We have a program that does what it is intended for perfectly. For example, Quebec's child care services are a source of pride, and we are known for it elsewhere to some extent. Even within a capitalist framework, our society has been able to help its children, to help women get into the work force, to do things for society, without letting families suffer. Our accomplishments have earned a proud reputation both nationally and internationally.

But how is that, every time we do something like this, we have to do it totally in Quebec and at the expense of the Government of Quebec, without all the needed funding because it has gone to the federal level? When the federal government tries to do something that is not under its jurisdiction, it tries to impose standards on us, when we are the ones who have been innovative and creative, and have set the standard of excellence.

Then we get short-changed. I idolized the Minister of Social Development when I was a boy. He was an excellent goalie. One might say he is not so good at offence, where Quebec is concerned. He ought to be able to defend the federal jurisdictions without going over the blue line. That is out of bounds for him. When he crosses the blue line, when he is ragging the puck, he pulls some plays a hockey referee would not allow. He tells us that we will be compensated with no strings attached and then he says the negotiations are still going on.

How can it take months to negotiate financial compensation with no conditions? That is really something. Perhaps in the new position he is playing, he has decided, or imagines, that slower is better. I do not know. It seems to me that, if this were hockey, we would be in never-ending overtime.

What is very important is to be efficient in operations and to avoid encroaching on provincial jurisdiction and creating programs that nobody needs but are deliberately enticing to make a big impression on people who do not closely follow politics.

Yesterday, motions for the creation of a national cancer strategy and a national handicapped persons strategy were introduced. There already is one in Quebec. Provinces do have those strategies. They have jurisdiction over health. If we corrected the fiscal imbalance and gave resources proportionate to their responsibilities to those in charge of education, health and social services, do you not think that we would serve people better than by federalist chest thumping?

They come up with bite-sized programs that last only a few years, that are ill adapted, poorly conceived and whose only objective is to confuse people and waste energy.

The worst thing is that we are talking about social development. While we are talking, child poverty does not diminish and the services we would like to provide for our population in Quebec remain in the planning stage. All issues of social solidarity, women's rights promotion and the integrated fight against diseases stall. Tobacco control measures do not move ahead either. Why? Because the central government has a pathological need to prove its usefulness when responsibilities rest at the local level, at the provincial, community and day care levels. The federal government has a pathological need to interfere and it does so at the expense of the most disadvantaged.

That is all I have to say about that topic.

What is just as outrageous is that, in establishing this Department of Social Development as a new flagship or tool for intrusion, the government can use money it has taken away from the most disadvantaged for that purpose.

It is safe to say that the money is in Ottawa, while the needs are in the provinces and in Quebec. Sadly, this money was taken out of the EI fund.

My colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain mentioned that this money was taken away by denying full retroactivity to those seniors who were entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, which is directly under the purview of this department. More than $45 billion was taken out of the EI fund, tens of billions at a time. This money taken away from the most disadvantaged is used to finance programs supposedly designed to help them, help them by duplicating provincial programs with programs that are a bit of a fad, implementing national strategies for the sake of it, and expanding Health Canada, which controls hardly any hospitals except in Aboriginal communities. So, what does the government do? It generates revenues on the backs of the most disadvantaged.

In my field, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has generated a $3.5 billion surplus, while 1.7 million households in Canada and Quebec are continuing to pay too much for bad housing. This means that this surplus has been created by not meeting needs. In this instance, the government had every opportunity to meet these needs, but did not. The Bloc Québécois even had to introduce a private member's bill to try to remedy the situation. I hope that Bill C-333 will have the support of the House. The government has been generating surpluses on the backs of the most disadvantaged. It dreams up very expensive departments and inefficient programs, and then comes out with its little announcements.

There is something immoral here. Discipline and morality seem to be lacking. There is a lack of discipline in management because of all the duplication, and there is a lack of morality when you knowingly take social measures that are inefficient, redundant and outside your jurisdiction. All of that raises the level of cynicism towards politics: What are these guys doing in Ottawa? Are they supposed to help people? Are they supposed to manage the public finances efficiently? Are they supposed to support local communities and provinces in their main roles? Or is it just bluffing, political one-upmanship, and flag waving? Are they just looking for personal political capital or grand ministerial tours, a bit like the recent one, when they spent $22 billion in ten days not for good reasons based on principles, but because they feared an election?

The Prime Minister said as much to the business community. This was not a matter of principle but of cold calculation. They decided to invest this money or promise to invest it. There were some cases of recycling. Just about the only thing that is green with this government is its constant recycling of programs. That is the kind of thing they do.

Out of cold calculations, this increasingly centralist government creates structures, departments, programs and envelopes to the point where we cannot understand anything anymore.

I was listening to a journalist who said Parliament Hill felt like Alice in Wonderland. I might change the word “Wonderland”, but we are truly living in the surreal. Just look at the government's social programs or the CMHC. Although on the Internet the programs might look wonderful, often, in reality, they are no longer being funded. All the money has been allocated. The government creates programs with catchy titles using a piecemeal approach, but they never last long and are never integrated with the responsibilities of Quebec and the provinces, never in support of those working in the field. There are people in our ridings who tell us that when it comes to problems with social assistance or employment insurance, the government is the government.

They do not come asking for a pan-Canadian program, but they come asking for help for their children, for jobs to be created or the EI program to be fixed. We tell them our hands are tied because the Canadian government is withholding the money. The government announces artificial programs and creates departments instead of supporting the work of the provinces. That is what we are forced to tell our constituents, who are not asking for a pan-Canadian child care system, but for services from their government.

[Department of Social Development Act, June 8th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to talk about Bill C-22, to establish the Department of Social Development. With all the questions and odd things heard recently, I believe it is very important to put certain elements back in their proper context.

When we say we are interested in obtaining the money we pay in taxes in order to develop the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, we are not begging or asking for something that does not belong to us. It is about delivering services to the people policies are designed for, and not about duplication, encroachment, petty politics or the development of very complex, piecemeal programs within huge departments that duplicate public services. That does not help anybody.

I understand the NDP is having considerable difficulty with these data, because it thinks Ottawa knows best. It is not surprising that often, despite its sometimes noble objectives, it is so far removed from the heart of Canadians and so misunderstood by the public.

The New Democratic Party has the sort of vision that whatever comes from Parliament Hill and flows toward the provinces is a good thing. Rather than debate things where they have to be debated, they think that in the case of whatever is called local development, whatever comes out of the communities or whatever is done in the provinces, a short cut, a national standard, a national program, the great department will replace an integrated approach, proximity of services and provincial accountability. However, they are mistaken, and this is not the way to get support from people.

Maybe it is the way it is done in certain ridings on the west island, I do not know, but I have a hard time imagining someone in my riding saying: “I am suffering from my missing pan-Canadian program. It is hurting me. I have a big problem. You know, I never got my pan-Canadian cheque. I do not have my pan-Canadian day care. I have a fine Quebec day care. The people are nice, but it is not pan-Canadian. It does not have a Canadian flag, and my children are suffering. Public services are suffering too”.

I do not think so and I cannot imagine people asking me for a pan-Canadian system, duplication or Canadian day care over Quebec day care. I do not know how they do that. Do they want a Tim Hortons beside a Dunkin' Donuts? What are they trying to do?

If they are trying to help people in need, to undertake real social development, really increase resource efficiency, do they need to create department after department? Do they need to create little program after little program? Do they have to create things that already exist? Do they need to negotiate 10 years each time over financial compensation for day care and parental leave? Is that serving the public? I do not think so. Really, it is doing the public no service.

And what about the creation of the Department of Social Development? With respect to programs for people with a disability, yes, everyone supports virtue and opposes vice. We all like apple pie. However, we do not agree with having a number of cooks making different apple pies in different ways for the same person. In the end, it does not work. It produces bad results. It is expensive and cumbersome. So, the government wants to create Canadian departments, especially to promote its importance and not with a view to efficiency in areas of respective jurisdiction.

So, there is a fundamental problem because the federal government has spent more—the Comité Léonard proved this—in areas under the jurisdiction of the provinces and of Quebec then in its own areas of jurisdiction.

Given what happened with the HMCS Chicoutimi , the Halifax class frigates or the HMCS Toronto , would it not have been better to what it has to do instead of trying to do what others do very well? Why not apply this to post-secondary education?

I had hoped that this would be clear to the NDP as well in terms of Bill C-48. There is no need to duplicate departments responsible for education and standards. Why duplicate, why redo what is being done well? For the pleasure of saying, “I am in education too; I am in social development too” or for the pleasure of seeing the Canadian flag everywhere?

There was the sponsorship scandal; will there be a social sponsorship scandal? More money will be spent, less and less effectively, on regional development simply to show that it too can spend, even if it makes no sense, even if it has nothing to do with integrated management policies, even if it is removed from the public, and even if it causes both systems to fail. There is a will to centralize.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, negotiations, which began in 1997, are under way. We know that whenever we ask for something in Quebec, it generally takes ten years to get it, and sometimes longer. In this case, it will likely be more than 10 years.

We are talking about the transfer of the administration of social housing to the province, with full financial compensation. All co-op groups and non-profit organizations are demanding this transfer. And because it has not been done, there are consequences.

There has been no transfer, but at the same time, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation directs municipalities not to subsidize housing cooperatives because it says they already benefit from its subsidies. I will be very brief on this topic.

Thus, the social housing stock should be transferred with full financial compensation. One day, it will be interesting to see provinces take back all their responsibilities. But that day has yet to come. We think that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can continue to operate, but on a smaller budget. It cannot continue piling up immoral surpluses without any action for housing. This is the goal of the bill.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his question. In fact, the government could have done that.

When the current Prime Minister was finance minister, he stopped all new funding for social housing, instead merely allocating the budgets in keeping with previous commitments. As a result, until 2002, no new money was allocated. Even in 2002, when the federal government started to reinvest, it was no longer under the responsibility of the finance minister, now Prime Minister. His insensitivity to social and cooperative housing is legendary to those in the field.

At the same time these commitments were being fulfilled, the surpluses were accumulating. So, the essential needs of the public are not being met, which has a direct impact on people's daily lives. There are housing cooperatives in Quebec City and Montreal that had to sell housing units to the private sector or even abandon them because they did not have the money to renovate them and the conditions CMHC was offering were impossible. People were living in social housing that had turned into slums. I could even give the addresses. I could invite the minister and the members of the party opposite to come and see these housing units.

At the same time that social housing projects were abandoned, people were left living in unacceptable conditions. I saw dwellings where water was leaking through light fixtures, which was extremely dangerous. Quebec City had to recommend that a housing coop be closed down not because it was badly run, but because the CMHC had not invested enough to begin with.

So, in response to the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier's question, it is clear that the government could have used these surpluses to respect the CMHC's mission. It did not. Now, they are engaging in electoral blackmail with Bill C-48: if you want money, you will have to vote for the bill, when we know that $3.24 billion is hidden in the CMHC's coffers. We are asking the government to withdraw that money from those coffers with Bill C-363 and to give it to provinces, which will do the work and better respond to people's needs. It the federal government cannot stand the heat, it should get out of the kitchen.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the cart was put before the horse in explaining why Bill C-363 did not require a royal recommendation. Allow me to take a moment to go over the background, content and purpose of this bill.

First and foremost, members should know that, in recent years, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has accumulated a huge surplus, which is not part of its mission per se. This surplus is so huge that something has to be done about it. The fact is that CMHC's mission is not being respected. No effort is being made to house Canadians and Quebeckers through home ownership incentives. Accumulating in excess of $3.4 billion in surplus does nothing to help them.

It is important that hon. members be aware of the figures that I am about to quote concerning CMHC. In 1997, as I recall, CMHC had an accumulated surplus of $32 million. In 2001, its assets already totalled $1.265 billion; in 2002, $1.809 billion; in 2003, $2.476 billion; in 2004, $3.342 billion. It is also important to note that, unless something is done, by 2008, the CMHC surplus will have increased to $7 billion. That is an annual increase of more than $1 billion.

We are talking about a huge surplus. It is also important to know what the current $3.4 billion surplus represents. To give it concrete meaning, let us say that, with that amount, 60,000 new housing units could have been built to house 60,000 families. This is based on a $50,000 per unit subsidy.

Instead, a surplus was accumulated. There have been no program changes and no cost reductions to Canadians as whole. CMHC has accumulated a surplus which we feel is immoral and outrageous.

Huge surpluses have been hidden in foundations and in reserves, and in the government's general operating budget, and that was contrary to the spirit, the letter and even the ideal of natural justice that created this Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, whose purpose was to provide help to all Canadians.

This bill mainly seeks a debate on the surpluses hidden all over by the government. Those surpluses are being raked in while people's essential needs are not being met.

What could the government and Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation have done with such surpluses over the years? They could have done a lot of things.

I used to live in the world of housing co-ops. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under-invested in that field for a very long period of time. In fact, it stopped investing between 1993 and 2002. Before 1993, in some places, it also applied modesty criteria, which is how a significant housing stock could be renovated with very little money being spent.

In Quebec alone, there was a shortfall of $555 million in investments made. The housing stock currently being financed by CMHC would need renovations in this amount. No investment was made in this project.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has generated this $3.4 billion by all kinds of means, for instance, by overcharging people who take out mortgage insurance when purchasing a house. I believe people know that when someone is purchasing a house for $100,000 and cannot come up with a $25,000 down payment, that person must have CMHC guarantee the loan. These fees are high and extremely profitable for CMHC.

CMHC is basically acting as a bank, not a cooperative or a social bank, but a real bank.

It is important to note that CMHC generated surpluses of some $3.4 billion even in its social program management. The government had given CMHC money for social housing programs, and when the interest rates went down, it pocketed the difference between the agreed and the actual rates. CMHC thus made a lot of money in social program management.

It is all the more odious that when a housing cooperative has problems, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation strips it of its autonomy. CMHC only guarantees second mortgage loans at high interest rates, with conditions that take away all its autonomy. To reach that point, the housing cooperative really has to be on the brink of bankruptcy. It is forced to readjust all its rents according to market prices, and it systematically loses the second stage of assistance, rent supplements.

We can therefore say that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is an inhumane bank in the way it applies its programs. This is evidenced by the way it treats the cooperatives and the not for profit organizations that do not have enough money to help the poorest of their members. If these organizations need to invest to renovate their housing units because of underfunding, they are faced with foul and appalling conditions that profit Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Unfortunately, CMHC has failed in its mission. It chose to build up exorbitant surpluses now reaching $3.4 billion. If we do not do anything, these surpluses will reach $7 billion in 2008. There is no sign that CMHC will use this money to improve the housing situation for all Canadians and all Quebeckers.

An important signal has been given. Bill C-363 would transform into assets any amount exceeding a reasonable limit set at about $1 billion. This is an important measure. In fact, is exactly 0.5% of CMHC's assets. Today, according to the available information, that would be a little bit more than $1 billion. Bill C-363 would allow CMHC to keep a $100 million annual reserve. Let us be clear: out of its $3.4 billion, it could keep $1 billion for contingencies, such as major losses.

In fact, nothing forces the CMHC to produce a surplus. For years, CMHC did not produce any surplus but only did what it was intended to do. However, during that period, it was allowed to keep a $1 billion reserve fund or 0.5% of its assets, which is quite enough. Moreover, CMHC pays fees to the government each and every year to have its losses guaranteed. Last year it paid $21 million to the government. So, in fact, CMHC had two insurance policies: it kept a huge reserve fund for contingencies although it was impossible to lose that much, and it paid the government $21 million to be insured against possible losses. That was double insurance and double payments too, and the situation allowed CMHC to accumulate a completely outrageous surplus.

With Bill C-363 we are sending a message to CMHC to suggest that it retain $1 billion. Any other unspent money proves CMHC does not have the ability to spend it. CMHC must therefore pass it on to the provinces on a pro-rated basis. By the way, at the suggestion of my colleague, the leader of the NDP, I will be making an amendment to the bill, so that it will read “provinces and territories”. This we will do in committee if the bill is passed at second reading. I encourage all hon. members to vote accordingly, so that we may debate the bill thoroughly in committee and make improvements to it. We will also be able to make another little technical correction to the English, where the word “provide” is missing.

The signal is clear. CMHC can maintain a reserve that is more than reasonable at $1 billion. It cannot, however, accumulate profits to detriment of its mission. The needs in the provinces and territories are huge. Housing is their primary responsibility.

If it has not been true to its mission, then, right now, everything in excess of that $1 billion figure—we are talking about some $2.4 billion, which would mean $500 million for Quebec, more for Ontario and the rest on a pro-rated basis according to the population of the provinces or territories—should be handed over to the jurisdiction of those provinces and territories. This money is needed. These jurisdictions know what to do with it, and will. This does not prevent CMHC from correcting the situation subsequently and presenting balanced budgets.

The planned $1 billion per year for 2006 and 2007, plus another nearly $1 billion for 2005, could be used by CMHC to invest in social housing and to help cooperative housing.

Yesterday, the Minister of Labour and Housing was asked a question—I nearly called it a planted question—by one of his colleagues. He said that he, unlike the Bloc Québécois, was looking after cooperative housing. That was what we call a cheap shot, intended to denigrate me, when I have been involved in cooperative housing all my life.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation could very well use the money that will be left to balance its budget. It should invest in housing cooperatives and in not-for-profit organizations, and it should also reduce the interest rates that it imposes on owners. It could also invest for the homeless. The SCPI program, which helps the homeless, will end in 2006. CMHC could easily use the money that it has left to renew this program, if the government is strapped for money.

This is very important: if after agreeing to go along with the New Democratic Party with Bill C-48, the Prime Minister—and this is from him—following some cold calculations, not because of convictions or principles, or because this was part of the initial budget, were to decide, in the next year or two, to invest $1.6 billion in social housing, then, perhaps it could be said that, because of convictions or principles, he could, over the past few years, have used the CMHC surpluses to fulfill its mandate and provide appropriate housing.

Currently, there are 1.7 million Canadians in Quebec and in all the provinces who do not have good housing conditions. They are spending too much money on housing. This phenomenon has been on the increase since the current minister of Labour published his report, in 1990, along with the current Prime Minister. Indeed, there are now 400,000 additional households experiencing that problem. At the time, there were 1.3 million, but there are now 1.7 million.

We are being told that something will be done later, because the government was forced to act following some cold calculations. Something can be done now. With this bill, I am proposing that something be done now.

If this government is not capable of doing it, if it does not have the integrity or the morals to spend money properly, if it prefers to accumulate billions of dollars at the expense of the poor, when it could have built 60,000 new housing units, if it does not know how to manage, if it cannot stand the heat, then it should get out of the kitchen. It should give those surpluses, or a good chunk of that money, to the provinces. They will know how to use it.

The bill states that this money would be used for social housing, to help all Canadians and Quebeckers find lodging and to improve their housing conditions. That is what the bill says and that is what will be done. It is an important political message. We cannot accumulate immoral surpluses without public debate, without talking about it in the House and without doing anything about it. We cannot get away with keeping people in poor housing conditions.

I also invite the Conservative Party to support this bill. In a way, it is also a Conservative bill, in that it tells the government to manage this money better and not to spend it. When there is a $3.4 billion surplus, internally there is a tendency to spend less carefully.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was used as a screen in the sponsorship scandal. CMHC did not manage the $2 million advertising contracts, but the money came from CMHC and they had no say in the matter. On the inside they have a tendency to manage things poorly and to forget what their primary role is. It is inefficient and ineffective to allow a crown corporation to accumulate outrageous surpluses that go beyond its mandate.

I invite the Conservative members who have spoken out against the fiscal imbalance to support this important bill that respects provincial jurisdictions. Together we could improve it in committee, if necessary. As I said to the leader of the NDP and to the Conservative Party critic, I am prepared to improve the bill after second reading.

Let us debate, in this country, the importance of surpluses. That is what I invite my colleagues to do.