Gilles Bernier

[National Housing Act, May 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to debate Bill C-66 at third reading. It is an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Act. It is also a sad day for Canadians. We all know that the bill will pass because the Liberals will use their majority to pass it, I suspect some time next week.

When the bill was introduced in committee we were allowed to submit amendments to it. We supplied a few. One of them was with reference to subclauses 18 (1) and (2) on page 7 of the bill. We requested the addition of a subsection (3) which would require the government to spend an amount equal to compensation paid by CMHC to the Receiver General for Canada in return for the federal government's backing of its loan insurance and guaranteed operations on social housing. It was defeated in committee.

Let me explain what the amendment was all about. If I lived in a rural area of Canada and had a seasonal job, in the wintertime I would have to rely on EI to feed my family. If I wanted to get ahead in life, I would try to obtain a loan to put a roof over the heads of my kids and my wife.

I would go to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and would be considered a high risk. There is not a bank in the country that would give me a mortgage; I would be told absolutely no. However, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation would assume this high risk so that I could build a house for my family. If something happened and I could not pay for the house, the government would guarantee CMHC 100% of the mortgage insurance.

When the bill goes through the government will not guarantee a penny to CMHC. Yet the governments wants the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation within the next three or four years to give it $198 million. The government wants to take $198 million out of the corporation and put it into its general account and waste it like it has been doing since 1993 when it came to power.

My amendment was defeated in committee. It was a shame, but that is the way it is. The money is lost to CMHC forever. It could have been used for social housing, but it will be put into the general revenues of the government.

It could be spent on something like the million dollar plastic dinosaur that the government is building in Alberta or the grant the Department of Canadian Heritage gave to publish a book of dumb blonde jokes.

We were sent to the House of Commons by Canadians to be their representatives. We have a mandate to fight for the concerns of Canadians, to make sure the economy moves well, and to create programs so that there will be prosperity in the country and the economy will be booming.

I do not think spending money to publish a book on dumb blonde jokes and creating a plastic dinosaur in Alberta is good for the economy. People are living in shacks. Families with young children are living, eating and sleeping in their cars. This is Canadian society today.

While the flexibility to offer new products is welcome—and I welcome that because we need new products—the changes eliminate the advantages of government underwriting. Forcing the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to cover any loss will decrease the willingness to finance high risk borrowers such as low income people. It may also make it more difficult for borrowers in more remote locations to qualify for mortgage loan insurance. I am not the one saying this; it has been reported.

Another of my party's amendments concerned clause 25. We would have liked it to be amended by deleting lines 19 to 24 on page 19 and line 35 on page 19 and replacing it with subclause 6(7). Again, for the record, that amendment was defeated.

CMHC has a board of directors with a good balance of five highly qualified professionals: a chairman, a president, a vice-president and two public servants. It also has five political appointees. Clause 25 in Bill C-66 proposes changing the composition of the board so that there would be a majority of eight political appointees, with only the chairman and the president remaining on the board.

I asked on a number of occasions how this change would benefit Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and/or the clients it serves. The only answer was that all other crown corporations were doing it. Is that a logical answer? To me it is not.

On three different occasions on the same amendment I asked Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials in briefings what problems existed that needed solutions. They gave no answer. I asked them how it would improve service to Canadians and they had no idea. I believe this change is totally unnecessary.

At least we have five highly qualified professionals on the board who know what they are talking about as far as the corporation is concerned and five political appointees. With the new bill some of these individuals will be pushed aside and eight political appointees and two highly qualified professionals will sit in their place. Does that make sense? To me it does not.

Under the new bill the changes would remove any reference to fair rents in providing RRAP assistance to private landlords. Any provisions for urgent repairs have been removed. Transfers from the governor in council to CMHC authority to determine amount of RRAP forgiveness, household incomes, household needs and attributing household incomes have been deleted. Specific reference to non-profit corporations has been removed.

I will now go to sections 78 to 83, the public housing section. The changes rationalize the flexibility of the 1996 social housing transfer agreement by eliminating the need for global agreements. They remove the restrictions on decent, safe and sanitary housing. They remove the low income restrictions. Consistent with the changes under other sections of the act, all references to low and modest incomes have been removed. Overall the bill is defining social housing out of existence.

In section 95 dealing with programs, the definition of eligible contribution recipients has been eliminated. The reference to section 27, non-profit status, has been removed. The social housing character of section 95 has been defined out of the legislation.

What is good in the bill? I do not see too much in it. From 1985 to 1993 under the previous Conservative government funding for social housing rose by 73%. That is how much money was put into social housing under this program. I even have the figures to show how much social housing was built by the previous government from 1985 to 1993. From 1993 to the end of 1998 when the government took power, the number of units in Canada declined by 3%.

We are not in 1993 any more. We are in 1999. There is a crisis out there. It is not a problem; it is a crisis. People do not have homes and the government is cutting social housing.

A couple of weeks ago a new minister for homelessness was appointed and was asked a question. She rose in the House and said she was not the minister for homelessness. Last week she gave a speech in the province of New Brunswick in which she told the audience she was the minister for homelessness.

I would ask the government or the minister responsible for homelessness what is her mandate in this new portfolio. She does not know. She does not know if she is the minister or if she is not.

She had a meeting with the mayor of Toronto not long ago. There were articles this morning in the National Post and the Toronto Sun in which she was quoted as saying “I went to bingos with you homeless people. I know your problems and I am going to make things happen”. The mayor of Toronto now calls her bingo mom. That is a shame.

I asked two questions in the House during question period. Some Liberals screamed that they were not good questions. I do not want to discredit the minister responsible for homelessness. I know her past. She is from New Brunswick and I am also from New Brunswick. For 25 or 30 years she was very good with the program she started. However I am not a person who lives in the past. What I did 20 years ago is irrelevant today. Now she has a job as a member of parliament and has been appointed minister to see what can be done to help homeless people and if there can be a better housing policy.

The minister should have come back a long time ago, it was 45 days ago. She was supposed to have something at the end of April. Now we are in the month of May and there is still nothing.

While the minister was in Toronto, she was to have a meeting with the mayor of Toronto. She was supposed to have that meeting within 30 days, on April 29. I am quoting the mayor of Toronto when he said “but the bingo mom did not show up and now I cannot get a date for another meeting”. What is the minister's mandate?

It is not something that needs to be fixed next year or in five years time. As I said a while ago, it is not a problem, it is a crisis in this country.

I am on a task force that was organized by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. I travel around Canada to meet with special groups. I have been to Vancouver. I have been to Edmonton. I have been to Calgary. I have been to Saskatoon. I have been to St. John's, Newfoundland. I have been all over. Next Monday I will be in Charlottetown. The stories told to us by people who have appeared before our committee are unreal.

I was in the United States about nine years ago. When I came back to Canada I was a proud Canadian. Many times we hear it said that Canada is the best little country in the world. Say that to those people who appeared before our committee and we will hear firsthand what those people have to say.

As a member of parliament representing Canadians and especially the constituents in my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac, I cannot believe that a country as rich in resources and minerals as Canada with the big population we have cannot afford a social housing policy.

Instead of helping those people, we are cutting social housing. This bill is taking everything out of social housing. This bill will pass. The Liberals will use their majority to pass it, and when the bill passes there will be no more social housing policy. It is the end of this country's social housing policy.

When the Liberals were first elected they were on a roller coaster ride for two years. In 1995 they finally realized there was a problem with social housing. Instead of tackling that problem, facing the problem and taking care of it then, they decided to download it to the provinces. They decided to give their problems to the provinces.

Now that we are in a crisis the same Liberal government will not accept the responsibility. It blames the provinces, like it did with health care and like it did with Mike Harris in Ontario. The Liberals cut health care. They cut the transfer payments by 40%. Then the provinces had to cut the hospitals. Then the Liberal government blamed the provinces for the crisis. Is that logical?

I do not care which party governs, we are here to represent all Canadians. We should throw partisan politics out the door. We should work together as one to make sure that all Canadians have a home. That is a basic need. I do not see that happening on the other side of the House at all.

This bill will take us into the international market. I am not against that, because it will create jobs here in Canada within that market. The problem is wider than that. My dad always told me that charity begins at home. We have a problem in Canada. Instead of running abroad, we should try to fix the problems here.

In closing, we will be opposing this bill because we believe in Canada and we believe in its people. It is time that members of this House got together.

Look at our party's record. I have a copy right here of the record of the last Progressive Conservative government from 1984 to 1993. It lists the number of units built and the amount of money that was put into the social housing of this country. We see a big difference between where we were and where we are. We are going backward in that regard but the years are going ahead. So are we backtracking here?

It has been an honour for me to speak about social housing and Bill C-66. Again, my party and I cannot support the bill because it has all the wording about social housing taken out of it. I cannot support a bill like that.

[Homelessness, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we do not live in the past. We live in the present. The minister responsible for homelessness said she is qualified to do her job because she went to bingos with the homeless. It has been three years since the government announced it was getting out of the social housing business.

When if ever will the minister responsible for homelessness have a strategy to announce on homelessness? Or is she too busy playing bingo?

[Homelessness, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 45 days since the government appointed a minister responsible for homelessness. We still have seen no plan, no strategy and no budget to tackle this problem. At the Toronto summit on homelessness the minister promised to have a plan in place by the end of April. We are now in the month of May.

When will the minister have a plan and budget in place, or was this appointment just an empty gesture?

[National Housing Act, May 4th, 1999]

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.

[Firearms Law Sunset Act, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to speak to Bill C-278.

The events that took place in Taber, Alberta, have shocked Canadians with the realization that brutal violence and killing is not limited to the United States. Even more shocking is the fact that the corrupting effects of an increasingly violent society have now forever altered our schools, once safe places of learning.

In the wake of this tragedy we must attempt to maintain reason. Horrific events such as the shooting in Taber often provoke the knee-jerk reaction of demanding stricter gun control laws. As a member of the Progressive Conservative Party I can state that we support gun control. However, tragedies such as the shooting in Taber provoke the government to act on emotion, not on logic. Emotional responses to tragic situations lead us to ineffective, irresponsible legislation like Bill C-68.

Bill C-68 was drafted in response to society's demand for a tougher stand on crime. Instead of dealing with the issue of crime in a meaningful way, the government took the easy way out in touting Bill C-68 as the answer to its concerns. Bill C-68 has done nothing to prevent crime and has only led to discriminatory practices toward law-abiding gun owners by the federal government.

The government should have committed to sensible gun control legislation that did not discriminate against long gun owners by forcing them into expensive, time consuming and fundamentally flawed gun registration. By doing this the government would not have need for an escape clause bill that would allow it to correct bad legislation every five years.

The PC Party supports Bill C-278 as we feel it provides for the expiry of Bill C-68 after five years. Yet it will be five years during which law-abiding responsible gun owners will suffer due to Bill C-68. Since the cause of gun owners is not a popular one among Liberals, it is easy for the government to ignore their concerns and produce regionally popular although universally ineffective gun control legislation like Bill C-68. This has been especially true since the crisis in Ottawa on April 6.

Since the Liberals came to power in 1993 they have tried to paint themselves as champions of justice and protectors of the public interest. In doing so they have promoted gun control legislation through basic simplistic terms which play on the fears of a public fearful for its own safety. For example, the Liberals will promote their anti-gun legislation by stating “guns kill people”, “guns make people fear for their safety”, and “if we get rid of guns our problem will be solved”.

The government seems to conveniently ignore the fact that guns do not kill people. Enraged individuals in need of counselling kill people. The government does not want people to know that handguns, not long guns, are the weapons of choice for most criminals. It has neglected to remember that the majority of long gun owners are responsible gun owners and law-abiding citizens. Thus upon looking at these Liberal champions of justice, it is abundantly clear that Liberal gun legislation does little to stop the real criminals and infringes upon the individual rights of responsible Canadians to own long guns.

The Liberals are already trying to amend the ineffective Bill C-68. Whether it is Bill C-278 or the old Bill C-68, the fact remains that the Liberal government's position on gun control is in constant flux. The most recent Liberal gun control legislation provides a great opportunity for Canadians to tell their elected representatives to get rid of Bill C-68 before the five year period has passed. Although Bill C-278 is a good idea, Canadians should not have to wait five years to get rid of ineffective legislation that does not take into account the opinions of constituents across the country.

The Liberal government seems only to be concerned with the opinions of its supporters who live primarily in urban Ontario. This only reaffirms the Progressive Conservative Party's consistent position concerning gun control. Whether it be the position taken by our former leader, the Hon. Jean Charest in the last parliament or during the last election; the position of our party throughout the debate on the old Bill C-68; or our position under our new leader, Mr. Clark, the unwavering opposition to any ill-conceived long gun registration is clear. The focus here should not waver.

The gun control debate is about long guns. It is about shotguns and rifles. It is against hunters and sportsmen. The Liberal government has continually failed to make legislative provisions for long gun owners. Thus I argue that Bill C-278 should be passed to allow for the removal of Bill C-68 in five year's time.

We would rather see the removal of Bill C-68 immediately. Yet, as they say, good things come to those who wait and thus we will be patient and place the PC Party's support behind Bill C-278.

One of the key commitments of the justice critic to the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough—and it was mine as well—was to continue to oppose repressive Liberal gun control legislation. Such legislation is ineffective and an unproven mandatory gun registration. The legislation concentrates on and targets law-abiding citizens as opposed to criminals who would be using firearms. Bill C-68 does not affect the root causes of crime. Thus it is hoped that Bill C-278 will eventually correct this problem.

Bill C-278 is very timely. We heard the cries of thousands and thousands of law-abiding gun owners that assembled on the Hill before Christmas. There appears to be some opposition to what the government is attempting with its repressive gun control legislation. Our justice critic had the opportunity to personally meet with a number of representatives from organizations in his province of Nova Scotia and in my province of New Brunswick, individuals such as Tony Rodgers of the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation, to review the negative impact which has already resulted from ineffective gun control legislation.

Businesses in the province of New Brunswick and like businesses in other provinces will be extremely and negatively affected by the implementation of continuing gun control legislation because, as we know, it will force businesses to subject themselves to an extremely bureaucratic, cumbersome registry system that will not impact on the criminal use of firearms.

We know, and it is a proven fact, that Canada already has one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. The Liberals have tried to further that by adding burdensome registration fees which amount to nothing more than a tax. I might add that the Liberal government and its well intentioned allies have attempted to sell their issues on gun control as a question of crime.

The Liberals have made it an issue of black and white: proponents of bills such as a Bill C-68 support gun control whereas opponents of such bills oppose gun control. That is completely untrue. Let us make that perfectly clear. I do not think there is anyone in the House, anyone in the opposition who opposes gun control per se. Gun registration is about ineffective Liberal legislation and its effect on law-abiding citizens.

Firearm owners and I meet on a regular basis. They are some of the most responsible in handling guns and the most responsible and supportive of effective measures when it comes to the handling of firearms. If we want to do something specifically aimed at those who use guns for criminal purposes, let us toughen up the code sections. Let us toughen up the response of the courts to those who use firearms in a criminal way.

It came to light last spring that the statistics used by the government to justify the mandatory registration of firearms were seriously flawed, according to the commissioner of the RCMP. Words like exaggeration and misuse of statistics were then met by the reply of the Minister of Justice that it was simply a difference of methodologies. This seems to me to be a convenient excuse for the government to dismiss the facts it does not like to hear.

Another fact the government conveniently ignores is that under a Conservative government Canada adopted tough gun control legislation through Bill C-17, which was passed through parliament in late 1991 and came into effect over subsequent years. In fact the government played a part in implementing some of those pieces of legislation.

Under the previous gun law applicants were required to obtain firearms application certificates which are called FAC licences. They were required to take a gun course, undergo police checks and wait up to 28 days. Handguns were considered restricted weapons and owners were required to have ownership permits.

Handgun permits were only issued to certified gun collectors and sport club members who were taking part in shooting competitions. Private ownership of most military assault weapons were banned or restricted. Those wanting to hunt were required to take mandatory hunting courses or required to take firearm handling safety courses. The previous laws also included stringent storage and transportation regulations, making it an offence to breach these regulations.

In conclusion, let us not continue to target law-abiding citizens with ineffective and indecisive legislation. Let us in fact target criminals. It will be a long and roundabout manner of doing so, but I suggest that by supporting Bill C-278 we can continue to point out the problems with Bill C-68. This continued debate will hopefully lead to the removal of Bill C-68 in the next five years.

[Youth, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, recreation facilities are good for our young people and good for our communities. They encourage involvement in our communities and they help to reduce social problems such as crime, suicide and substance abuse.

Will the government commit today to help young people in towns such as Plaster Rock and Florenceville by finding money for community development?

[Youth, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, healthy communities need strong support systems, especially when it comes to providing opportunities for young people and for involving them in our communities.

The municipalities of Florenceville and Plaster Rock in my riding have proposed building arenas for just that purpose. Both the province and the towns have each committed $1 million for this construction. Can this government find a few dollars to help young people in these two communities?

[National Housing Act, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will make some brief comments on the amendments in the second group. I will deal first with the amendments submitted by the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Motions Nos. 8, 10 and 20.

If my understanding of the amendments is correct, the intention is to restrict financial assistance to non-profit and co-op associations when it comes to encouraging the building of rental housing projects on reserves.

I firmly support and encourage the involvement of housing co-ops and other not for profit associations in the provision of rental housing, such as the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. It has been helping to supply Canadians of mixed income with affordable housing for over 30 years. The government should continue its commitment to co-op housing as a social policy instrument.

I should also mention that non-profit and co-ops are not the only forms of social housing. There are many innovative and successful private sector solutions for the provision of affordable housing; everything from large apartment buildings all the way down to single duplexes owned by small builders. These small business people should not be excluded from the bill. They are also important in supplying affordable housing to all Canadians.

I will now move on to Motions Nos. 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 23. My comments are relatively straightforward on these items. These motions would create a legislative requirement that cabinet advise Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on how to implement certain aspects of its mandate.

I have two thoughts on this. First, I am concerned that these amendments would place unnecessary restrictions on the CMHC that would require it to seek cabinet approval every single time the corporation wanted to assist an individual, group or company in setting up affordable housing projects.

Second, cabinet already provides policy direction to the CMHC on many issues. In some cases, cabinet will want to direct the corporation on how to proceed in certain instances. However, when and how cabinet should intervene should be at the discretion of cabinet and not be written inflexibly into the legislation.

On Motion No. 17, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton has suggested that we specify the type of housing projects in section 78 to be low rental housing projects. I have no trouble with this amendment as it spells out in clearer language the intent of the act with respect to the development and financing of public housing. I certainly see no great demand among Canadians that the government should be involved in financing upscale housing, so I would be pleased to support this amendment.

The next two motions I would like to speak to are Motions Nos. 17 and 35 put forward by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I understand the intention of the member with respect to the intrusion of the federal government into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

It was just last year that we had to deal with a senseless and unprecedented program called the millennium scholarship fund. This was a unilateral and unwarranted invasion of Canada's provincially-run education system. First, the government slashed educational transfers to the provinces by 40%, and then, to add insult to injury, it kept most of the money for itself and started a new program to solve the lack of money in education, a problem it created in the first place. However, the program was not universal for all students as were the educational transfers it replaced. Much of the budget for the program will be eaten up in new administrative costs. This program has set federal-provincial relations back several years. This is certainly not a nightmare that my party and I would like to see repeated. I think my hon. friend and I are in agreement on this.

Where I differ from him is whether or not a real threat exists in this bill that would allow the government to create another millennium scholarship fund but this time in housing, an area of provincial jurisdiction. I think the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is trying to kill a mosquito with a nuclear bomb when only a fly swatter is necessary.

In my reading of the bill, in both sections that the member would like to amend, there is a requirement that CMHC create a program working jointly with the provincial governments. That means that CMHC cannot proceed alone but must have the approval of the provincial government concerned and must work bilaterally with that province to produce a joint result.

This goes beyond consultation, beyond co-operation or collaboration. It requires CMHC to create a program that is the child of both the federal and the provincial governments. Just as it takes two hands to make a handshake, there is no way the federal government can create a new program on its own according to the bill. I am satisfied that the provisions in this bill provide sufficient protection against that happening.

Lack of decent affordable housing and the proliferation of homelessness in the country is reaching dramatic proportions. Just last month, the Prime Minister appointed the new Minister of Labour from Moncton, New Brunswick as the new minister for homelessness. Last Friday, during question period, a member of the Reform Party asked the new minister for homelessness a question and she denied being the new minister for homelessness. It is a shame that she has had the title for over a month now and does not even know what her job is.

That is why I am saying that CMHC must have the flexibility to act jointly with provinces to solve these problems in different areas and under different circumstances.

These two amendments, if passed, would prevent the provinces and CMHC from being able to implement solutions to housing problems, even if there is agreement between the provinces and CMHC, until a universal agreement on housing is signed covering all aspects of housing policy between the provinces and CMHC. In other words, the provinces and CMHC could not solve any problem until they solved all of their problems. This is too restrictive.

Bill C-66, as it stands now, will allow the provinces and CMHC to take action incrementally in areas where there is joint agreement without the requirement that they must agree on everything before moving forward.

[National Housing Act, April 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share a few brief thoughts on the group of amendments proposed by the member for Kelowna, for whom I have great respect.

Generally, I do not share the member's concern over the expansion of CMHC's insurance products. As a homeowner I can understand and appreciate the value of being able to buy insurance to protect my mortgage against any wild fluctuations in interest rates.

Yes, the financial institutions will benefit because the loan will be insured. More importantly, homeowners who hold mortgages will be protected against financial hardship. This is no different than any loan insurance. Car insurance, for example, protects the car owner as much or more than the bank that holds the car loan.

Regarding this group of amendments, I would specifically like to zero in on Motion No. 6, which proposes to amend the new section 18 of the National Housing Act. This section authorizes the CMHC to pay fees to the federal government in return for the crown backing of CMHC's loan insurance and guarantee operations. The principle of this change to the act is simple. GE Capital and any other private sector provider of mortgage insurance which may join the industry have to pay fees to have the crown back their insurance products, but the CMHC has not been required to do that. This meant that the CMHC had an unfair cost advantage to provide insurance products over private sector competitors. This provision in the bill changes all of that. Now the CMHC will have to pay fees equivalent to those paid by the private sector. That only makes sense and I agree with the intent of the bill on this matter.

Motion No. 6, if I understand the member for Kelowna correctly, deals with what we should call this payment; whether it should be called a fee or a dividend. I really do not care what the government calls this payment in the end, but I would point out that it is the intention to create a new expense for the corporation, just as the private sector companies have an expense involved in providing their insurance products. Therefore, the payment should be reflected on the government's accounts as such.

The Financial Administration Act recognizes payments to the government from crown corporations that are fees in exchange for services. To be consistent, these payments should be treated as a fee as opposed to a dividend.

If I may speak to this amendment more broadly, what the member is missing in his motion and what the government has missed in this section is the effect this change will have on the books of the corporation.

According to the CMHC corporate plan, between 1997 and 2002 the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will have paid $198 million to the receiver general in fees under this new section of the bill. This money will be paid out of the mortgage insurance fund and put into general government revenues. In other words, this money will be lost to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation forever and cannot be used by the corporation to increase its investment in the social housing portfolio.

Because this money will be dumped into general revenues, it could be used for any scheme the government might cook up. It could be used to redecorate the offices of the public works minister. It could be used to fly the finance minister across the country so that he can speak at fundraising dinners to pad his own leadership campaign fund. It could be put in some government slush fund to dole out grants to companies with devious connections to the Liberal Party, based on the flimsiest of criteria, not that we have ever seen that happen before.

Where the government has missed out and where the member for Kelowna has missed out with his amendment is that neither has addressed the concern about what to do with the money generated by this new fee.

I suggest to the member that we should take that money and put it back into social housing under the minister's account. This money will be generated by the commercial activities of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and should remain with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

As I stated earlier, I agree that there must be a fee paid in order to put the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on a level playing field with its private sector competitors. However, having said that, there is an opportunity here, which I am sure the hon. member will recognize, to put that money to good use.

The member proposed in his amendment that this payment be called a dividend. I say, let us give a dividend to the 1.2 million Canadians who lack affordable and adequate housing. Let us give a dividend to the tens of thousands of Canadians who are homeless in this country. To make this happen, all the government has to do is make a policy change in cabinet to return this money to the minister's account at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation so that we can increase and fund the supply of affordable housing for all Canadians.

I know that $198 million does not go as far as it used to when it comes to housing, but if the government is truly determined to make a dent in the problem of homelessness in this country, this would be a good place to start. I am sure the member for Kelowna would agree with me.

[Government Contracts, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that public works unfairly adjusted its bidding rules so that it could award an $8.5 million software contract to U.S. based Microsoft over Corel of Ottawa.

We already know the government does nothing to help Canadian high tech companies keep Canadian graduates working in Canada, but when will it stop its illegal bidding practices that discriminate against Canadian companies in favour of American ones?