Werner Schmidt

[Division No. 686, February 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I noticed that the member for Trinity—Spadina and I came into the House at about the same time. He was allowed to vote and I was not. If I had been here at the same time, I would have voted with my party.

[Petitions, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, finally I present a petition with 1,500 names. It deals with a very significant subject already introduced in the earlier part of my presentation of petitions, but this one comes to the fore in a very strong motion from a number of people.

The petitioners pray that parliament ensure that present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada be redefined to bring increased clarity as to what constitutes child pornography and that parliament make changes to any law which might be used to endorse the possession of child pornography.

These petitions have my support.

[Petitions, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the second petition calls upon parliament to priorize funding for the national highway system in the 2000 budget to reduce fatalities and injuries on the roadways, to alleviate congestion, to lower vehicle operating costs, to reduce emissions, and to improve Canada's competitiveness, economic development and overall economic prosperity.

[Petitions, February 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and distinct honour to present three petitions to the House this morning.

In the first petition the petitioners pray that parliament take all the necessary measures, up to an including the use of the notwithstanding provision of the charter of rights and freedoms, to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence, and that police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of children.

[Housing, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member who is presenting this motion to the House and, in particular, her appeal for the compassion in the hearts of Canadians for the plight that exists on some of our streets with the homeless people. I really think that is noble.

To ask for a strategy is also a good idea, but it assumes that there is a policy which determines the overall focus and direction of the government. Unfortunately, a strategy without a policy to determine the focus really ends up being nothing more than a program to throw money at a problem. Unfortunately, that is precisely what the Liberal government is doing all the time. It does not have a a focused program to deal with problems. Whenever something happens that is a bit of a problem, the government just throws money at it and thinks it will go away.

We have to look a bit deeper. What should a national housing strategy really be achieving? I want to commend the hon. member for bringing this forward. She has indicated very clearly that Canada does not have a national housing policy. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not have a national housing policy. The government does not have a housing policy.

There are all kinds of patchwork programs. Probably the most blatant of these was the one announced on December 17. It was a joint announcement made by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for homelessness.

The motion suggests a national housing strategy. It suggests a housing supply program. It suggests that housing is a human right—and I agree that everybody has the right to shelter—and it suggests that an additional 1% be added to the federal budget to meet basic housing needs.

There is nothing wrong with looking at these things and saying “This is what we should have”. The difficulty is that we do not have anything that pulls all of this together. I would like to suggest that the hon. member do that. Had she done that, we might have come to a conclusion that would mean more than simply throwing money at the problem. We might have actually come to grips with what is at the heart of the issue and what needs to be done.

We have a majority government. It can run anything it wants. It has a surplus and it has the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with all of its talents, abilities and research. Why does the government not have a policy? It seems so obvious that there should be a policy.

With the difficulty that the HRD minister finds herself in today, I now know for sure what the problem is. The problem is that if the government has a policy, a direction, an objective and a focus, then it also can be held to account for achieving that focus and that objective.

If it does not want to be held accountable, if it does not want to be held responsible, if it does not want people to say “See, you did not do it”, all it has to do is say that it does not have a policy and throw a few dollars at the problem so the people will be quiet and go home.

I think that is what is happening. We really have to be careful.

Let me give a few examples. Look at the leaky condo situation in the lower mainland of British Columbia. It is absolutely unbelievable what is happening. We have had many conversations about this. The buildings are rotting from the inside out because there is a failure in the exterior envelope. It is pretty obvious from all the discussions that have taken place that errors were made by the builders, the inspectors and the architects. Errors have been made virtually all along. The one thing that is being avoided is placing the blame on the building code.

Probably there is fault in all four areas. The building code is at fault, the inspectors are at fault, the builder is at fault and the architects are at fault. One of the insurance companies that insures architects for errors and omissions has declined any further renewal of policies for architects because it feels there will be so many claims on the leaky condo issue.

Canada Mortgage and Housing, which has guaranteed these mortgages through financial institutions, says it is not responsible for anything that happens in these leaky condos, that all it is insuring is the mortgage. In other words, it is saying that its only legal obligation to the financial institution is the repayment of the mortgage.

I know that there are a lot of people who believe, perhaps incorrectly, that when the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation grants them the assurance that it will repay the loan, there is an understanding that the building which is being mortgaged is sound and that they can depend on this. Obviously the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not think that is right. Therefore, it feels it has no obligation. We will find out if in fact there is no obligation.

There is another issue. The only person who is not protected is the poor consumer.

We have to look at a lot of other areas to see why it is that people are found on the streets. Why are there so many who are homeless? There are many reasons for this. We could argue that some of the social policies, both at the provincial and federal levels, have failed and have thrown people on to the streets who are unable to look after themselves. They have been told “Mind your own business. Find your own food. Find your own shelter. Find your own clothing”, when it was known fully well that they could not do that.

We have to look at this very carefully. It is not a simple matter of throwing money at the problem. We have to look at what is the policy we should have.

What is the government policy that we should have? This is the way the minister approached it. On December 17 he said:

I am pleased to provide you with the details of the contributions of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation...to the Government of Canada's strategy to address homelessness which was announced by the Honourable Claudette Bradshaw and myself on December 17, 1999. Funding for existing housing renovation programs for low-income households will be increased substantially and there will also be several policy enhancements aimed at focusing some of the additional spending more directly on homelessness.

In total, a further $311 million will be spent over four years on these initiatives. This is in addition to the $300 million over five years that I announced in 1998 for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program...the Emergency Repair Program...and Home Adaptations for Seniors' Independence....The $311 million in total funding is broken down as follows:

$200 million to double the current annual budget for RRAP...

$40 million over four years for a new component of RRAP to facilitate the conversion of non-residential buildings to residential use...

$28 million to double the current budget for On-Reserve RRAP over four years...

$43 million in additional funding for the Shelter Enhancement Initiative over four years (...$12 million per year for the following three years) and an expansion of the program to include shelters and second stage housing for youth.

By April 1st of next year, nearly $138 million per year will be spent on CMHC housing renovation programs, compared to approximately $60 million annually prior to this announcement. This represents more than twice the amount that CMHC invested in these programs in previous years.

Note the $138 million on CMHC housing renovation programs. It was $60 million prior to this and now it is $138 million. How many different ways does the government count the same dollars?

The hon. Minister of Labour, the federal co-ordinator for homelessness, on December 17 announced $753 million to alleviate and prevent homelessness. A cornerstone of that program is the new supporting communities partnership initiative which will amount to $305 million over three years. The total is $753 million. Of that total $305 million is new money. That is all. The minister is saying she is doing all of these things, but in reality about $400 million is simply being moved around. She is doing something all right. She is moving money from one hand to the other. That solves nothing. This is an insult to Canadians.

The national housing policy is a major issue for Canadians. The government should be held to account and asked when it is going to come up with a national housing policy that will work and solve the problems. It should not just throw money at it. It has done that for years and it has not solved anything.

[Municipal Grants Act, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated during debate on the first group of amendments, this bill has a lot of merit and a lot of support from the municipalities in Canada, and we want to register that support. However, there are improvements that can be made to the bill.

We are now addressing the motions in Group No. 2 and I wish to address my remarks specifically to Motion No. 33, which is the motion dealing with the advisory panel. I would like the folks watching the debate this afternoon to be aware of exactly what this section provides. I will read clause 11.1(2) of the proposed bill. Clause 11.1(1) establishes an advisory panel and 11.1(2) deals with the mandate of the advisory panel. It reads:

The advisory panel shall give advice to the Minister in the event that a taxing authority disagrees with a property value, property dimension or effective rate applicable to any federal property, or claims that a payment should be supplemented under subsection 3(1.1).

The creation of an advisory panel of this type is a commendable move. It brings into existence a mechanism which would allow the minister to test his particular orientation and also that of his officials so they could look at the assessment being proposed and the amount of taxation being levelled against particular properties and make sure that the advice has the benefit of consultation and expertise. There are some very good reasons for that.

I will give an example. I referred earlier to the case dealing with the Halifax Citadel. In this case Public Works and Government Services Canada agreed to pay for part of the building, that part which was designated as shelter, but it was not prepared to pay the other part. I commend the department for recognizing that there is a difference, but we get into some difficulty in interpreting exactly how we go about making the determination as to where the shelter begins and ends.

The suggestion was made by departmental officials that this interpretation, which is essentially a civil one, should be done through the civil courts. That is not a bad suggestion, as I said earlier this morning. However, there is a better and a much less costly suggestion, which is the advisory panel. It could come to grips with this very nicely. Its members would be business people. There are some suggestions that there would be professional assessors on the panel and some legal people, so this could all be done with competence, by people who are well versed in this area. Let them do the work rather than going through the legal channels of the court system.

The Citadel is an immediate case that could come to the attention of this panel.

The other example is Sable Island. In this controversy the department has stopped payment altogether. It has simply said that it is not paying any taxes until it knows to whom it is supposed to pay the taxes. Who has jurisdiction in this area? Is it the province? Is it the federal government? To what degree are the respective groups responsible?

That of course would not be a problem for HRDC. It would simply pay, but that is not the case here.

I commend the minister for taking responsible action, but what I would like to do, and what the Reform Party wants to do, is to make sure that there are precautionary measures which would allow the minister to be sure that he is accountable and that these kinds of things do not disappear.

I want to refer to the amendment because I think it is important. What we would really like to do is add a section which would follow immediately after the provision for the establishment of the panel to ensure that the panel provides advice to the minister. The way the act reads now, the minister may accept that advice, he may reject it, he may simply ignore it, or he may amend it. What we are suggesting in the amendment is that where the advisory panel gives advice to the minister under subsection (2) and the minister decides not to accept that advice in exercising any power under this act in respect of the subject matter of that advice, the minister shall without delay provide the advisory panel and the taxing authority in respect of whom the advice was given with written reasons for that decision.

Why do we believe that written reasons are so important? I think there is a very good example that came out of the audit of HRDC.

I will refer to two lines of that report, which say that the original dollar value of the agreement was amended in one-third of the projects. That is one in three. These are agreements that came out of HRDC and money was given to these projects. The amount of money was reviewed, and in most cases it was revised upward. In 36% of these cases there were no reasons given for the change in dollars awarded. The people asked for an amount of money, they got more, and there is no documentation as to why those amendments were made.

There is another example. I will read directly from the auditor's report. When it comes to the monitoring or the overseeing of projects, “some program officers expressed the opinion that financial monitoring was not required if the results were achieved within the agreed budget”.

What that really means, or could mean, is that there is absolutely no accounting. As long as they did not spend any more money than they were given on a particular project everything would be okay. Whether the results actually were achieved is another issue. Whether they actually did not have to spend all the money on that project was not important either. If they provided an inflated budget and the HRDC people, or whoever was doing this, granted the full amount, and they actually achieved the results and only needed half of the money, or a portion of that money, then that was perfectly all right. That is irresponsible.

When people in a business have a budget for certain expenditures for equipment, installation or services that are provided for that business, and it will cost roughly $10,000 to do it, and then they discover as they go along that it really will cost only $8,000, what do they do with the $2,000? Do they automatically take that $2,000 and let it disappear, or do they apply it in another way and let it come back to be disposed of in a way that is most beneficial to the business?

There is no doubt in my mind that a private entrepreneur would take that money and reapply it and not automatically inflate the expenditures in that area to meet the allocated budgetary provision.

That is precisely what we are looking at here. That is one area.

The other thing we are looking at is to make sure that the minister, while having tremendous discretionary power given to him by the constitution, the law of this land, which is to protect the interests of the people of Canada, is accountable and transparent, and that the processes are such that they are fair and equitable to all concerned.

That would be good for the municipalities. That would be good for the provinces. That would be good for the minister. That would be good for the government. It is time we brought about some fairness and equity in all of these cases. Where a minister is not required to take a particular and specific requirement that he must pay, he at least must provide reasons for what he did or did not do.

[Municipal Grants Act, February 11th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-10, in Clause 14, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 13 the following:

“(2.1) Where the advisory panel gives advice to the Minister under subsection (2) and the Minister decides not to accept that advice in exercising any power under this Act in respect of the subject-matter of that advice, the Minister shall, without delay, provide the advisory panel and the taxing authority in respect of whom the advice was given, with written reasons for that decision.”

[Human Resources Development, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think I could have given a better answer than that one. The Prime Minister has been likened to the godfather of grants and contracts. Donate to his campaign and one has a 33% chance of getting a grant or a contract, so the bureaucrats and the managers of HRDC have to bend the rules.

How else can the minister explain that one-third of the projects got upward amendments to the original dollar amount requested?

[Municipal Grants Act, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, actually Bill C-10 is not that bad. It is a reasonable bill because it changes the title of the bill to refer to payments in lieu of taxes rather than grants in lieu of taxes. That is a pretty reasonable thing to do.

Another thing we need to recognize is that the bill provides a certain element of fairness and equity to municipalities so that they can actually predict what will be happening and they can make projections in terms of budgeting.

The bill is supported by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It is certainly consistent with Reform Party policy, which is that governments should be paying the same property taxes that other citizens of Canada pay. It is very important that we have fairness, equality and equity in the whole business of property taxes as far as the government is concerned.

However some very significant amendments need to take place at this time. In particular, we need to recognize the accountability factor in this bill.

The bill provides discretionary power to the minister. It gives the minister the discretionary power to do a number of things. He may pay the taxes; he may not pay the taxes. He may make those payments or he may not. He may pay those taxes late. If they are paid late, he may decide whether or not they are in fact late. He also may decide whether he should pay supplementary payments, such as interest payments, on those particular late payments of taxes. All of that is at the discretion of the minister. The same discretion also applies to the corporations. While the constitution provides that the Government of Canada cannot be forced to pay property taxes or make payments in lieu of taxes, the coercion element cannot be done unless there is a constitutional amendment.

Another factor could be introduced here. That factor is to ensure that the minister, when he decides to change the assessment, the time of payment or the supplementary payments in lieu of interest or a late payment, in all of those cases the minister should be required to provide a reason for his particular delay or his change or amendment of the amount that he should be paying to the respective municipalities. That should be a requirement of the minister. It does not ensure that the minister does not have discretion; he does have discretion, but he must account for that discretion.

I think that is a reasonable amendment. It is one which I think we should all expect. Why is that so important? In lieu of what has just happened to one of the minister's colleagues in Human Resources Development Canada, I would think that the minister would welcome that kind of accountability. Then the municipalities could not say, “He is just doing this for his friends. His friends, if he has some in municipal government, get paid right away and they get paid the exact amount. Others who are not his friends get paid later or they do not get paid interest or whatever”. There could be no accusation of favouritism. I think the minister would welcome that sort of thing. The same argument applies to the crown corporations.

I want to refer to how serious this can become. There are some things that happened in that audit which was done recently. I want to read a couple of those things into the record.

One of the findings of that audit was on 13 signatures that were selected during the file review. It was revealed that in three cases out of the 13, that is almost 25%, the delegation instrument, that is, giving somebody the delegated authority to sign something, in three instances out of 13 files, which is 25%, the signing officer, that authority, could not be produced. In 25% of the cases the guy had delegated power but he could not actually say who had delegated that power to him. This is serious.

In six cases, almost half, the delegation was only valid upon notification of acting and for a limited period of time. No such notification had been received for the period the document was signed. Even if the delegation had taken place, it was for a very specific time, a time in which the person with the delegated power exercised signature authority that was outside the parameters originally delegated to him. That is pretty serious.

There is another one case under contracting. In four contribution agreements out of every ten reviewed, irrelevant clauses in standard agreements were not crossed out or blanks were not filled in to specify conditions such as the periodicity of the submission of claims or the period of notification if it were necessary for HRDC to terminate the project before completion.

Listen to this one. In one-third of the projects reviewed, the original dollar value of the agreement was upward in most cases. In 36% of these cases the reason for the amendment was not documented. It requested one amount, the amount was reviewed and it increased in 36% of the cases. This is the kind of thing that should never happen. This has to be revealed through an audit as an indictment of the process.

What we are trying to introduce in this legislation is a clause that would protect and help the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. It would be amended in such a way that it would make it easier for him to have an administration that is sound, honest, trustworthy and transparent and where the processes will bear examination. It will make it clear to all and sundry that the minister is doing his job uprightly, honestly, fairly and in the best interests of all Canadians.

That is what the amendments in group one are all about. We specifically suggest Motion No. 4. The bill currently reads that “the minister may make payments”. It is not possible, as I indicated before, that he be forced to make those payments. We would suggest, however, that if he does not want to make those payments, then he must justify that particular situation.

Are there such cases? Yes, there are. There is a dispute right now involving the Halifax Citadel with regard to who should pay the taxes on the property. The Department of Public Works and Government Services has agreed to pay for the part that is a shelter but not for the entire structure. The argument is that this has to be interpreted. The department is suggesting that the interpretation be done by a court, which is not unreasonable.

On the other hand, should the assessment be left to professional assessment people? I think this is an argument that clearly shows that Public Works and Government Services has done something right. It is asking some good questions. However, the point remains that there has to be a reason given whenever these payments are stopped. In this case the payments were stopped. The minister should be required by law to give a reason for his particular noncompliance.

The other case has to do with the advisory panel that falls under Group No. 2, which I will not deal with here.

I will now deal with Motion No. 7. Motion No. 7 would amend the ministerial discretion which says “in the opinion of the minister” as pertaining to the period that the payment has been unreasonably delayed. The municipality sends out a notice of taxation indicating that the bill is due at a particular time. The dates are very clear and very specific. If the payment is not made at that time but made at a later date—let us say it is due on July 1 and the payment is not made until July 31—according to the act, if in the opinion of the minister that payment is late, he may recognize it. This is not a matter of opinion. It is very clear that if the taxes are due on July 1, they are due on that date, not on July 31. If the taxes have not been paid on July 1, then they are late.

This amendment makes it clear that the minister should have a clear explanation of what it is he is doing when he opines a shift in date like this.

What this really does is it puts the payment in lieu of taxes on a more solid footing and moves in the direction of making the minister accountable. It is in the interest of all Canadians, and I think in the interest of the minister, to have that kind of protection in law. The minister would now be able to withstand any audit that might cast aspersions that he has not administered his department well.

[Municipal Grants Act, February 11th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-10, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 12 with the following:

“authority.

10.1 Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where a corporation included in Schedule III or IV is authorized to make a payment to a taxing authority in lieu of a real property tax, a frontage or area tax or a business occupancy tax, as the case may be, pursuant to regulations made under subsection 9(1), and decides not to make that payment, the corporation shall, without delay, provide the authority with written reasons for that decision.”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-10, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing line 39 on page 12 with the following:

“authority.

10.1 Notwithstanding anything in this Act, where the Royal Canadian Mint, Canada Post Corporation or Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is authorized to make a payment to a taxing authority in lieu of a business occupancy tax and the corporation decides not to make that payment, the corporation shall, without delay, provide the authority with written reasons for that decision.”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-10, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 13 with the following:

“(b) the Royal Canadian Mint, Canada Post Corporation and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and every corporation included in Schedule”