Gilles Bernier

[Poverty, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, opposition parties such as the Reform Party can rant and rave against every idea that comes along, but unless a party is prepared to seek out and propose solutions to real problems, it can never hope to form a government.

It was in the spirit of finding workable solutions for real Canadians that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada established our national caucus task force on poverty and homelessness.

As an associate member of this important task force, I am pleased to say that today marks the launching of our cross-Canada consultations in Saint John, New Brunswick. The task force members will meet with several anti-poverty organizations in New Brunswick and with individuals who live in poverty.

The growing incidence of poverty is a national disgrace. Parliamentarians need to take a leadership role in developing concrete solutions to the problems facing low income and homeless Canadians. As Joe Clark said, the PC Party of Canada will provide that leadership. This task force will demonstrate to Canadians our desire to make Canada a better place to live for all of its citizens.

I wish the task force good luck.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from my party. He is a great colleague and a next door neighbour to my riding.

I will say it in French since my seatmate from the Bloc is telling me to speak French.

I am saying that rural communities will be affected because I believe the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is going commercial instead of answering the housing needs of Canadians in urban as well as rural areas.

When we look at the bill, we realize that the corporation would rather do business abroad. I understand substantial amounts will be invested outside Canada because the CMHC will have the power to sell new products.

My father taught me that charity starts at home. There are Canadians who are homeless. I know families of 15 living in one home, sharing a small room.

What is going to happen with the new CMHC insurance is that $200 million a year will have to be paid to the government of Canada. This will mean $200 million less for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If I wanted to buy a house, it would be easier for me to borrow the money from the CMHC than from the bank.

It is going to be harder for them to give me the money. I am going to be at a higher risk because I live in a rural area, maybe with seasonal work six months of the year. That is a big concern.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the NDP for his question. I have a great deal of respect for that gentleman, but it is too bad for his line of questions. When the member speaks he makes us feel as though the NDP is the only party that has ever said anything right in this House. Over the years the Conservative Party has said some good stuff, which was right, as well as the Liberals.

When we were in power between 1984 and 1993 we had our own record on housing. We had a lot of money attached to it. When I open this to the second page I see that under the National Housing Act from September 1984 to November 1988 some $4.8 billion went toward social housing in this country. Today there is $1.9 billion going toward social housing. Therefore I wonder why he criticizes the previous Conservative government.

He also said that my party has changed its mind. The money was there and we did great stuff to make sure that every Canadian had affordable housing.

I will go even further than that. In 1986 we put money upfront to help persons with disabilities. In 1986 we increased assistance to renovate housing for persons with disabilities from $1,500 to $5,000. That was done under the previous Conservative government. The NDP was never in power.

I will go even further. Today the budget of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is $1.9 billion for 656,000 homes. In 1992-93 we had a $2 billion cap on social housing for 652,000 homes. Today we have 4,000 more homes, but less money. That is where the gap is.

In our 1993 budget we said that we would continue to fund all existing social housing stocks, which included co-ops.

In December 1991, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation rural and native housing programs were to receive $33 million in additional funding over what they were already receiving. This followed discussions with interest groups in meetings across Canada. From 1986 to that time the program had helped over 96,500 rural households across Canada. It said that it would spend $108.4 million in 1993-94 for on reserve social housing.

I was listening to the national news last night. Peter Mansbridge was saying that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or Public Works would contribute an extra $20 million to help natives on reserve.

Today a contractor who purchases land and builds a house will have to put in a sewer system and dig a well. A well would have to be dug especially in rural areas where the reserves are because they do not have city water. This adds to the construction costs of the house. Building a house today with all those incentives, $80,000 a house, there will not be much luxury. By the same token, using the price of $80,000 for a house, $20 million will only build 250 houses to help the natives of this country.

The same report last night said that over 100,000 new houses were needed on reserves to help families. Pictures of the inside of some of those houses were shown last night. I was very disgusted to see that in as rich a country as Canada is. Aboriginals are Canadians too.

I live four kilometres away from the second biggest reserve in New Brunswick. I own a little business and 85% of my business is with those people. They are good people. I am also associated with the Knights of Columbus on that same reserve. I am not saying they do not have any problems, but problems can be fixed. People should see the number of people who live in a small house or a small room. They should see the condition of some of those houses. I cannot describe it.

We have to work together. I am not trying to bash anyone. I say to members on the government side and to all parties on the opposition side, let us all work together so that we can have a good housing bill so that we can put money up front. It is money that is not going to be wasted. The money will go to Canadians who need a good and decent home to raise the kids of today.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on Bill C-66 which proposes amendments to the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Act.

I have divided my speech into two portions. I would first like to speak about the bill as proposed. There are a few things in the bill that are good and I would like to talk about some of those areas. However, our party also has some serious concerns with some of the provisions in the bill. I would like to walk members through some of the proposed changes and explain exactly our concerns.

Specifically I would like to deal with the proposal to commercialize mortgage insurance and the effects this would have on the risk aversion of corporations and the $200 million payment to the federal government from CMHC for the crown backing of its insurance and loan guarantee operations. I would also like to discuss the changes to the structure of CMHC's board.

In the second part of my speech I want to talk about the social housing sections of the bill or, more specifically, what has been left out of the bill and how the government has missed a prime opportunity to address some of the problems involving affordable housing and homelessness.

CMHC is mandated to deliver federal housing programs in four general areas. First, under housing finances, CMHC promotes the availability, accessibility and choice of housing funding. For many home buyers this takes the form of mortgage insurance.

Second, CMHC strives to encourage competitiveness in and the health of the housing market by conducting research, by improving housing, by supporting the housing market and by the dissemination of information.

Third, CMHC has an ongoing responsibility for federal assisted housing initiatives, including support for aboriginal communities in their efforts to become self-sufficient in developing and maintaining their housing.

The federal government provides the corporation with $1.9 billion of funding each year. The lion's share of these funds goes to meet the long term financial obligations arising from subsidies for 656,000 social housing units such as non-profit housing, public housing and housing co-operatives.

Early in its first mandate the government announced that it would withdraw from funding further social housing units. Since then the government has signed agreements with seven provinces and territories to offload social housing on to them. Finally, CMHC supports the export of Canadian housing products and expertise.

Bill C-66 contains the most extensive changes to the National Housing Act and the CMHC Act since 1985. Among other things, the government is proposing changes to CMHC's mortgage insurance activities.

In essence, the government wants to commercialize the corporation's mortgage insurance functions. Any losses as a result of mortgage insurance underwriting must come out of CMHC rather than general government revenues. This removes any competitive edge the government agency has in the marketplace and puts CMHC's mortgage insurance on a level playing field with private insurance.

CMHC would be able to introduce new mortgage products such as reverse equity mortgages. These mortgages enable older residents to use the equity in their homes to obtain funds to supplement their income while allowing them to continue to live there.

The changes will also allow CMHC to accelerate the growth of the secondary market by providing a wider range of secondary mortgage market products through mortgage backed securities guaranteed funds.

The pooling of individual mortgages provides lenders with a lower cost source of funding and ensures an adequate supply of mortgage funds. These commercialization measures are a response to potential challenges under the North American Free Trade Agreement. While these changes would give Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation the flexibility to offer new products, they also eliminate the advantages of government underwriting.

For example, forcing CMHC to cover any losses will decrease its willingness to finance high risk borrowers such as low income people. If it also makes it more difficult for borrowers in rural Canada to qualify for mortgage loan insurance, speaking as someone who grew up and lives in rural New Brunswick it would not go too well in my riding.

The second problem we have with the proposed change to CMHC's mortgage insurance activities involves the payment to the federal government in compensation for the crown's backing of its insurance products retroactive to January 1, 1997.

I understand the objective of the new section 18 in that the government wants to create a level playing field with the private sector sellers of mortgage insurance. It has to pay compensation for the backing of its insurance operations. To be fair, CMHC should have the same obligations. I agree with that.

The problem arises when it is realized that over the next few years the government will pull $200 million out of the corporation. According to CMHC's summary of the corporate plan for 1998 to 2002, by the year 2002 the government will have starved Canada's social housing programs by $197.9 million to pay this fee.

How can the government possibly justify taking $200 million out of CMHC that is charged with helping house Canadians while thousands of Canadians are forced to sleep in shelters each night?

The government needs to find a way to reinvest this money into social housing programs so that no Canadian who is in need of housing suffers because of this measure. It seems the government has not completely thought this issue through.

Another problem that concerns my party and should concern all Canadians involves one proposed change to the CMHC Act with respect to the composition of CMHC's board of directors. Presently the board consists of the chairman of the corporation, the president, a vice-president, two public servants and five political appointees, for a total of 10. All in all this is not a bad balance. We would have a board of five highly qualified housing professionals and five people appointed by the Liberal cabinet.

I would not want to speak against the Liberals, but the government has developed a reputation, deservedly so, of appointing Liberals to government boards, qualified or otherwise. The minister is proposing in the bill that we should reduce the number of qualified professionals on the board by three and replace them with Liberal appointees.

Under the legislation the requirement to have a vice-president and two public servants sit on the board would be removed. Only the chairman and the president would remain and the Liberal patronage appointees would have a healthy majority of eight of the ten director positions.

Aside from the distasteful nature of this change that could put three more Liberals on the CMHC board, it would also threaten the independence that CMHC enjoys as a crown corporation. Just think, right now CMHC management has to answer to a board that at least has some balance between five highly qualified professionals and five Liberals. However, under the new board CMHC management will be under the direction of a board comprised of a majority of Liberal appointees.

Just as important as what is proposed by the government in this bill is what was conveniently left out of it. I will take a few minutes to talk about social housing policy in general and how it relates to this bill.

In the past month the government missed two prime opportunities to deal with the problem of the lack of affordable housing in Canada and its impact on homelessness in particular. The first opportunity occurred on February 11 of this year when the bill was introduced and the second was when the budget was brought down on February 16.

It is ironic that the person who introduced the budget, the finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was once the champion of social housing. In 1990 he and his colleague, the MP for London North Centre, published the report of the national Liberal caucus task force on housing. In that document the current finance minister set out a manifesto on how a Liberal government would provide affordable housing for all Canadians and eradicate homelessness.

Alas, like so many other broken Liberal promises, like the GST and free trade, the finance minister's promises on social housing were relegated to the dustbin just as fast as the Liberals took power in 1993. That may suit the finance minister just fine, but he and his government have done nothing to provide affordable housing for Canadians and to eliminate homelessness. It is exactly the opposite.

If the government is looking for some good ideas on what should be included in Bill C-66 to deal with these problems, I will quote liberally from both its party's task force document as well as a report that was released in January of this year by the Toronto task force on homelessness, chaired by Dr. Anne Golden, entitled “Taking Responsibility for Homelessness.”

In his report, the finance minister promised that a Liberal government would recognize in the Constitution the right to adequate shelter. It never happened. He said that housing is a fundamental human right and that a Liberal prime minister would discuss housing rights at a first ministers' conference. We are still waiting.

He told Canadians that he would provide more money for housing in provincial transfers, but instead he cut provincial cash transfers by 40%.

He promised a new federal-provincial social program to assist the working poor with housing costs, but none ever materialized. He told anyone who would listen that his government would increase funding for housing co-operatives and look for new ways to use housing co-ops to provide affordable housing. Instead it froze and then decreased funding for co-ops. Now it is trying to offload housing co-ops to the provinces and cut off funding entirely.

This is my favourite. The finance minister promised that he would eliminate all substandard aboriginal housing by the year 2000. I guess he has missed that target.

According to the Assembly of First Nations, almost 50,000 or 60% of the 83,000 housing units on reserves are inadequate. More than 10,000 of those units have deficient or non-existent water and sewer services and 16,000 units are overcrowded. So much for the word of the finance minister.

With respect to this bill, there are some concrete steps the government could take to deal effectively with the problems of inadequate housing. As I have already mentioned, many of these proposals were outlined by Dr. Anne Golden in her report released in January. In her report she refers to four causes of homelessness: increased poverty, lack of affordable housing, deinstitutionalization and a lack of discharge planning, and social factors such as domestic violence and physical or sexual abuse.

Because the scope of Bill C-66 deals only with housing issues I will limit my discussion to how the government could increase the supply of low cost rental units and rooming houses, and the need for increased support for social housing.

The federal government has been a key player in social housing development for over 50 years, since the founding of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation after the second world war. The decision by the Liberal government to offload social housing on to the provinces has contributed to the growing shortage of affordable housing.

Indeed, the Golden report notes that among major western industrialized countries only Canada has no policy on homelessness. It recommends that the federal government provide capital assistance for the construction of new affordable housing and the rehabilitation of existing affordable housing. Because the federal government is largely responsible for aboriginal people, immigrants and refugees, it also suggests that Canada should fund projects to prevent and reduce homelessness among these groups at risk.

The report also recommends that the federal government should change the mortgage and valuation rules so that in addition to commercial transactions through the CMHC mortgage insurance fund the government could introduce policies that encourage not for profit rental construction. Right now CMHC permits lower debt coverage ratios for certain special purpose projects and it could do the same for non-profit rental projects, including innovative housing forms that may have uncertain market values such as single room occupancy units.

The Golden report suggests that CMHC get into direct mortgage lending. Direct lending is the cheapest source of financing and could generate revenues for the corporation. Additional mortgage funding could be piggybacked on to the mortgage backed securities that now fund social housing mortgage renewals. It also recommends that the federal government provide land at less than market value from its holdings of surplus land and buildings through Public Works, CMHC and the Canada Land Corporation.

The report also calls for an investment of up to $300 million in capital support for new low income housing and for CMHC to reinvest the savings realized each year for the devolution of social housing to the provinces. Unfortunately, as I noted previously, the Liberals have instead decided to take $200 million out of social housing, which is disgraceful by any measure. Perhaps we can persuade the government to change its mind.

Another recommendation of the report calls on the government to channel federal capital to new affordable housing by way of an infrastructure program for housing or set up local foundations for affordable housing and/or a tax incentive for contributions to eligible foundations or projects. The residential rehabilitation assistance program should also be expanded to include rental apartment buildings, rooming houses and second suites.

Finally, it is very difficult for the operators of rooming houses to obtain mortgage financing or insurance. When they are successful it almost always at a premium rate, reflecting the higher perceived risk by lenders. Since CMHC has expertise in mediating lending rates, the report suggests that CMHC assist rooming house owners in accessing mortgage financing.

These are all simple steps the government could take in part through Bill C-66 to alleviate homelessness and to increase the supply of affordable housing for all Canadians. The Liberals, through the finance minister, promised they would deal with this problem. They have recently had two opportunities, through this bill and in the budget, but they have not.

There could be no more potent reminder of the need to find solutions to the housing problems in Canada than we saw a week after this bill was tabled and a few days after the budget. A few blocks from Parliament Hill, Lynn Maureen Bluecloud, a 33 year old homeless, five-month pregnant aboriginal women was found dead in a park at the corner of Nicholas Street and Laurier. She died from hypothermia.

We need action on homelessness now. The government must live up to its promises and use the means available to it to increase the supply of affordable housing for all Canadians.

There is much room for improvement in the bill. I look forward to dealing with this bill in committee so that we can propose ways of doing just that.

[Government Expenditures, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I paid $79 for the phone I have at home and I would be more than happy to give the minister the name and address of the store where I bought it.

Not only public works but foreign affairs too has paid $1.1 million for new phones and satellite time. They expect the phone system to fail on January 1, 2000 because of the Y2K bug. The only problem is that these phones are not Y2K compliant.

What is the minister going to do now that he has paid for hundreds of phones at $5,000 apiece when he may not be able to use them because they might not work?

[Government Expenditures, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that nowadays it is impossible to conduct business without a telephone. But I was astonished to learn recently that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services had bought satellite telephones for various departments at a cost of $5,000 each. It was such a good deal that he decided to buy over 200 sets, at a cost to taxpayers of over $1 million.

I wonder whether the minister could tell Canadians why the government needs to buy new telephones at $5,000 each?

[Code Of Ethics, February 12th, 1999]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Duhaime added that the location of the inn in the Prime Minister's Saint-Maurice riding undoubtedly helped him to get the loans for the expansion and get them fast. He further claimed that he applied for federal loans after his local caisse populaire credit union even declined to finance the expansion.

Duhaime's company already had a heavy debtload from building a previous addition to the hotel that included a large banquet hall.

The money flow from the Prime Minister's former property did not stop with Industry Canada or Canada Economic Development. According to internal Human Resources Development documents Duhaime also received $188,799 from five grant programs during the 1997-98 fiscal year. These grants included $164,000 from the transitional jobs fund program, $10,350 from local labour market partnerships, $9,293 from youth internships, $4,356 from the targeted wage subsidies program and $800 from summer career placements.

Who is Yvon Duhaime and what qualified his company to obtain so much cash? He failed to follow the Business Development Bank rules by not disclosing some of his personal records on the BDC's application form which clearly states that applicants list information about those same personal records on which his application could have been denied.

I am not saying that we should not forgive those who have made mistakes in the past. I am not saying that they should be excluded from government programs to which they are legitimately entitled. However Duhaime's past problems certainly point to someone less than credible in seeking financial support. Duhaime has since claimed the expansion to be a profitable success.

From my own professional experience I know how useful it is to check with contractors to determine a project's success. One local contractor on the Auberge Grand-Mere expansion filed a business lien against the property in July 1998, claiming that he was owed $172,000 by Duhaime's company for work completed in the spring of 1998. While Duhaime has since reduced the debt to $47,953, according to recent land registry documents the contractor filed legal notice on January 7, 1999. The contractor states that if he is not paid within 60 days he will ask the sheriff to seize the Auberge Grand-Mere property and to sell it at an auction to recover his own debt.

Mr. Duhaime, a man who does not follow application requirements, is assisted by the Prime Minister's riding office and then gets over $840,000 in loans and grants. Will the Prime Minister answer questions on this matter? No, he will not. Can the ethics counsellor investigate? Yes, he can but he reports in secret to the very person he potentially investigates. This must change.

Thankfully my colleague from Markham was successful yesterday in getting the industry committee to summon the ethics counsellor for questioning. He did so after much difficulty from the government members and indifference from Reform, NDP and Bloc members. We should not have to fight tooth and nail to get information from the ethics counsellor. He should be an independent officer of parliament, accountable to all. He should have a public code of ethics for the Prime Minister and all cabinet ministers.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I support Motion No. P-31 and I urge all hon. member to do likewise.

[Code Of Ethics, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion for the production of papers, sponsored by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

As has been mentioned previously, the Motion No. P-31 reads as follows:

That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.

I would be remiss in commenting on the motion without quoting from a great work of fiction called Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan For Canada . The Liberal's red book in the 1993 election stated:

A Liberal government will appoint an ethics counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application of the code of conduct for public officials. The ethics counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

The Liberal government in fact appointed an ethics counsellor back in June 1994. Howard Wilson was assigned to take the job but his office was not independent. It was not developed in consultation with the other political parties. It was not legislated as accountable to parliament.

While the ethics counsellor reports to parliament on matters related to lobbying, he reports to one and only one person on matters related to ethics, the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister makes the decisions about the enforcement of ethics.

The question then arises, if the Prime Minister is the final judge of the ethics of his cabinet ministers, who judges the Prime Minister's ethics? That is why we need to have full transparency with respect to government ethics.

Motion No. P-31 is extremely timely in light of the efforts put forward by my caucus colleague from Markham to get answers from the Prime Minister in the Yvon Duhaime affair. I would like to review the troubling revelations that have recently come to light.

In April 1993 Les Entreprises Yvon Duhaime purchased the inventory, furnishings and ongoing business of the Auberge Grand-Mère located in the Prime Minister's riding of Saint-Maurice from 161341 Canada Inc. At the time the opposition leader of the day, now the Prime Minister, held a 25% stake in the numbered company.

In September 1997 Duhaime's company received a $615,000 loan from the Business Development Bank of Canada Tourism Investment Fund. At the same time he also received a $50,000 loan from the Canada Economic Development Fund for the Quebec regions. These loans were to be applied to a 24 room addition to the hotel. The expansion plans were expected to total $1.2 million. Duhaime said he discussed the proposed expansion with Chrétien's special riding representative and was told where to apply—

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I respect my colleague from the Reform Party and thank him for his nice comments. I had hoped to hear some of the same comments from his other colleagues this morning.

We are talking about poverty. I am a person who knows about poverty. I understand my colleague was born and raised in the thirties during the great depression. I was born and raised in later years. I was born in 1955. Today we have been talking about how we differ, how to establish where poverty starts and ends. When I was first married I had to go on welfare. I know what it is like to be on welfare and to be on EI. I also know how it feels to have small kids and not have enough money to buy a loaf of bread or a quart of milk. I went through that. That is poverty. One Reform member mentioned those starving to death in Sudan. I would give my shirt to somebody who needed it because I was one of them before.

Last summer we in the House of Commons gave ourselves a salary increase. I took my salary increase and gave it to charity. Is the hon. member willing to do the same?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance talks about what poverty has to do with homelessness. To be poor means people cannot afford housing.

The member does not have to go far because he works for the minister responsible for the task force report he produced back in 1990. At that time the finance minister promised to make affordable housing accessible to all Canadians. That was part of the task force of 1990.

I do not know what the parliamentary secretary is talking about. Before he refers to me he should refer to the finance minister in that regard.