Dennis Mills

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development.

I was quite taken by the member's remarks about looking out for the most disadvantaged. I have stated repeatedly in the House the essence of government. We in the Chamber should not be spending most of our time ignoring the advantaged because they form a very important part of the economic equation of the country. However, we in the House are supposed to be the people who speak for the most disadvantaged. That is the essence of why we are in the Chamber.

I was touched when I heard the member for Edmonton Southwest talk with caring, sensitivity and compassion about the most disadvantaged in the country. I should like to put a question to him and expand my thoughts that are driven by the set of core values of caring, compassion and approachability. I am sure the member believes the same set of principles should apply to young people who are out of work or anyone who is out of work in the country.

Could the hon. member consider building on that same traditional value system by saying that maybe as a government at this moment in time our focus has been too much on the right wing agenda, too much on the cutting, the slashing and the tight fiscal framework to a point where we have basically lost sight of the most disadvantaged? In this case I focus on people who do not have the dignity of getting up in the morning and going to a job, of having enough money in their pockets to pay for their kid's hockey stick or their daughter's clothes or food. Perhaps as a Chamber we should review our right wing agenda and go back to looking after the disadvantaged in a more aggressive way.

[Department Of Health Act, November 7th, 1995]

Say what you believe.

[Department Of Health Act, November 7th, 1995]

What are you going to do with the weaker provinces?

[Department Of Health Act, November 7th, 1995]

Scrap it.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief and to the point on the member's questions.

First, the member asked why the government was in this business. If the government were not in the business at this moment in time there would be a virtual monopoly. Is the member from the Reform Party promoting monopolies? I do not think so.

Second, he called it a subsidy. It is not a subsidy. The whole premise of the member's argument was based on the word subsidy. It is loan insurance. It is not the Government of Canada making direct loans. In the judgment of the officials it is a collaborative effort by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the banks and the private sector.

The third item has to do with why we are all in this room. This room is not a bus going down the street so that we can look out the window and see people crying out for our help, whether they be young people, middle aged people or older people. This room is not a bus that drives by and says that it only has time for those who can look after themselves.

In essence we are in this room so that when we look out the window of a bus driving down the street, stop the bus, get out and help people in need. There are many people who do not have financial resources either to own a home or have shelter over their heads without this lever or this instrument of national government. I am getting sick and tired of being in the House of Commons with the Reform Party encouraging the bus to go down the street and disregard the people who are crying out for help.

The bill before the House looks after disadvantaged people and the Reform Party should get behind it.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

It is called questions.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

This is a speech; this is debate. Where is the question?

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

It is not a subsidy.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

No, it is not. It is not against the will of the people. The people believe in a strong national government. They do not believe in this decentralizing system that is evolving right now. They do not believe in it. I am going to be very candid. I am not walking away from what got me elected. If it means I will even have, from time to time, some differences over here, so be it.

Today the Government of Canada, through the minister responsible for Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is returning to traditional Liberal values. It gives me a great deal of satisfaction to stand in the House today and pay tribute to this minister. They are few and far between these days who will go back to traditional Liberal values and say they are going to bring Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation out of mothballs and make sure it has the proper envelope to go out there and make sure the housing sector is given all the support it needs to get back on its feet.

The member for Capilano-Howe Sound, the senior economist and finance critic for the Reform Party, asks at whose expense. For two years I have been listening to members of the Reform Party. The thought process is cut, cut, cut, dismantle, give away. They have actually to their credit done so well in communicating that message that in fact we in the government have listened to the Reform Party too much.

We support eliminating waste and eliminating duplication, but we must also have growth in this country. The Reform Party cannot differentiate between those instruments of government that can accelerate and support growth and those areas where we support as well the elimination of waste and duplication.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is an instrument of the Government of Canada supported by the people of Canada that will help growth. That growth will generate jobs. It will generate an expansion of our economy.

When we talk about housing, we should not just focus on the craftsmen, craftswomen, and all of the trades related to the housing sector. We should also reflect on what other industries benefit from a strong, healthy, vibrant housing industry: landscapers, carpet manufacturers, stove and refrigerator manufacturers, people who make drapes. The list is endless. That is something the Reform Party is missing.

I am not trying to be partisan. I come from downtown Toronto. In my community if the housing industry is flat, if we have no growth in the housing industry, the ripple effect is almost catastrophic. It affects the entire confidence of the community.

The economist from Capilano-Howe Sound knows full well that when developing a sound economic equation you cannot ignore the confidence factor. The confidence factor is the biggest factor in that equation. If in a community like Toronto there is a housing industry that is absolutely flat, it affects all other sectors of the economy.

When members of the Reform Party came to this House they said they were not going to be here just to oppose for the sake of opposing. When a good idea came along that would not cost the treasury a lot of money they were going to support it.

There have been a couple of ideas that have come forward from the Reform Party that I have supported. In fact the government has become so right of centre in its actions that I think the Reform Party should back off a little. If we get so far to the right that we cut all of these instruments that can generate growth, we are all going to be in trouble.

Going back to this housing bill, it is so important that we do not just think of housing itself. These are not loans. We must think of all the spinoffs.

It is important for Canadians to realize that this home loan insurance is not a loan; it is an insurance on the loan. This insurance package is something most of the supporters of the Reform Party want. Most Canadians would agree that it tends to be larger businesses, like the financial institutions, which are so focused on deficit and debt, more so than I would be, that are actually encouraging us to get behind the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation loan insurance system. I know this for a fact.

There are big developers in my riding. The leaders of these organizations do not vote for me, although now and again I get a little contribution. I know a lot of their employees vote for me. Does the member for Capilano-Howe Sound know what these big developers say? The big developers say that when they go to their banks they are told that in order for them to get their development loan for their projects they need to produce a certificate of insurance from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In other words, the major banks are saying to bring in that insurance guarantee and they will get behind the great job creation project.

By the way, I know of a lot of projects in Toronto. To the credit of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, under the direction of the minister from Cape Breton, one of the few traditional Liberals left in the House, the insurance guarantee is critical for the homebuilding industry to get on its feet. But he is not just saying to accept any project. Many good projects in the

greater Toronto area have been turned down because the element of risk was just a little too high.

I say to the member for Capilano-Howe Sound that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has really become a much more efficient, more streamlined, more risk averse crown corporation. When we see that kind of behaviour in that crown corporation, it should give members of the Reform Party some confidence so that when the minister responsible says let us increase this envelope from $100 billion to $150 billion where the downside is negligible, in fairness the Reform Party should get behind us.

I want to make sure that some of the fundamentals of my argument are put on the table and the member agrees with them. First, I know the economist from Capilano-Howe Sound, the finance critic, would agree that a vibrant homebuilding sector is really a vital component in any economic equation. Second, he would agree with the spinoffs related to the housing sector. Third, he would also agree this is not a loan per se, it is a loan insurance plan.

He would also agree that this should be a national instrument, that this is an instrument we should not devolve to the provinces, an instrument the national government should continue to operate. We should not chop it into little pieces like a lot of other things we have done around here lately.

The last point I want to make concerns traditional values that all members in the House share, the values of caring and sharing, looking out for each other and family values. The member for Capilano-Howe Sound knows what a home, a roof over one's head and pride of ownership do in terms of strengthening the moral fabric of the country.

The Reform Party has been successful in the last two years in generating cuts, dismantling and offloading. Now that a good bill comes before the House that will accelerate growth in a most important sector of the economy, the housing sector, I appeal to the member for Capilano-Howe Sound to be fair and get behind it.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the National Housing Act.

This bill will enable Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to continue underwriting home mortgage loan insurance within the legislative limit. I put the stress on the words "loan insurance" because when I listen to my friends from the Reform Party it sounds as if they feel that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is essentially giving loans. This is loan insurance. As a result, that responsibility of the government to come in and cover when someone defaults is minimal.

I want to go back to 1987 when I was first nominated to be the Liberal candidate in my riding of Broadview-Greenwood. I said to my supporters in a room in the Slovenian Hall on Pape Avenue that one of the things I was going to try to work on was bringing Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation out of mothballs. We had just come through three and a half years when the Brian Mulroney Conservative government had effectively parked the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In some instances, they not only parked the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, put it in mothballs, but they also devolved a lot of responsibility for housing to the provinces.

I am one of those members in this House who believe the national government has a major role to play in the economy. I

never did share in the dismantling of the national government that Brian Mulroney and his colleagues engineered over 10 years. Even to this day, I have debates and differences with some of my own colleagues as we sell off, dismantle, and in some instances literally give away Government of Canada assets, Government of Canada instruments. I sincerely believe that by giving these instruments away or dismantling them we will lose our capacity to run this very large country.