Michelle Dockrill

[Division No. 393, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will be voting no on this motion.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will be voting no.

[National Housing Act, May 4th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-66, in Clause 34, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 37 on page 21 with the following:

“or a province.”

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-66, in Clause 38, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 29 on page 22 with the following:

“pealed by this Act.”

Madam Speaker, in the last few months we have heard two very conflicting messages from the government. The government has talked a good line on housing. Last month, finally recognizing the seriousness of the homelessness crisis, a federal coordinator on homelessness was appointed and sent off to speak to housing activists.

When Liberal members stand up to speak on Bill C-66, they talk about the need for the Government of Canada to play a leadership role in housing. Unfortunately, with Bill C-66, it is not just a case of the government's actions not matching its words. The Liberal government's actions actually contradict what it says it is trying to do.

At the same time as the government's homelessness coordinator talks about a national housing program, Bill C-66 is changing the National Housing Act to allow existing social housing to be sold off by this government or provincial governments.

National standards for public housing are being eliminated. Future social housing programs may end up as little more than subsidies for private, for profit landlords. The government is surrendering the power to make decisions about housing programs to an appointed board of directors.

I am not surprised at the Liberal government's decision to turn its back on the homeless at the same time as it pretends to befriend them, but I can not help but be disappointed. One would hope the need to act on something as serious as homelessness would cut across party lines. Instead, with Bill C-66 there is every indication the government will make this situation worse.

One area of concern is the changes to the sections of the National Housing Act dealing with programs to assist with the repair or renovation of housing. The way these programs work is currently spelled out in the act and in regulations. Among the conditions for receiving assistance in the National Housing Act is the requirement that landlords who receive assistance limit rent increases for a set period after the work is completed. In addition, the CMHC is given the power to impose financial penalties when this or other conditions are not met.

In Bill C-66 this wording has been significantly weakened. Instead of requiring that landlords who receive grants or loans for repairs to rental property limit rent increases, there is a vaguely worded provision limiting the financial return which may be made from a project.

According to the government, we should support this change because CMHC needs flexibility. I ask, flexibility for what? Why does the CMHC need the flexibility to allow landlords who receive assistance to raise rents through the roof?

Programs to assist with housing repairs are meant to preserve the supply of affordable housing. Without restrictions on how much landlords can raise rent after receiving assistance rents, in areas with a low vacancy rate, could easily be increased to the point that current tenants would no longer be able to afford them.

Without restrictions on rent increases, federal programs intended to ensure affordable housing is safe and well maintained could actually reduce the supply of affordable housing.

While New Democrats share the government's view that programs to assist with repairs to affordable housing should include grants as well as loans, we disagree with the government's assertion that we need to change the National Housing Act for this to be possible. Currently the act allows loans to be forgiven. This has the effect of allowing the CMHC to make contributions.

In case members opposite do not accept my interpretation, I would like to draw their attention to a media release sent out in January of last year by the minister of public works with regard to the repair and rehabilitation assistance program, one of the programs authorized by the sections of the National Housing Act dealing with assistance for housing repairs. In its release, the minister described this program as providing both loans and grants.

I am also concerned about the impact of Bill C-66 on programs to assist Canadians with home ownership. Currently, assistance in buying a home or paying expenses related to owning a home is only available for houses costing less than a set amount. Grants, as opposed to loans, are only available when a person's financial circumstances make it difficult for the person to repay a loan. The intention is clear: to ensure assistance with home ownership goes to those who need it. These specific requirements are removed by Bill C-66 and the power to set eligibility requirements is handed over to the CMHC.

The usual justification is given, the need for flexibility. Again, one is forced to ask why flexibility is required. There is nothing unreasonable about requiring that government assistance to buy or maintain a house go to those who really need help. This is what the NDP amendment restores.

However, it is not just about what housing programs will look like in the future that should worry us. Clause 34 of the bill gives CMHC the ability to enter into joint ventures with other organizations, including for-profit corporations. What is of particular concern are provisions allowing other levels of government or corporations to assume the powers of the CMHC under these agreements.

Questions have been raised about whether, in provinces where the federal government has downloaded responsibility for housing, provincial governments could now privatize existing social housing units. What has added to the fears of housing activists is clause 38 of the legislation which allows the CMHC to waive provisions of existing agreements. Under this section an agreement between the CMHC and a housing co-op or non-profit corporation could be ripped up, leaving residents to see their homes sold out from underneath them.

What the NDP Motions Nos. 34 and 36 do is remove provisions that allow existing social housing to be privatized.

I would also like to take this opportunity to address the amendments to Bill C-66 which deal with the other major concern the NDP has about the bill; the lack of accountability. It is one thing to give the board of directors of a crown corporation the power they need to do their job. What this bill does, however, is hand most of the decision making power for federal housing policy over to the CMHC's board of directors.

As with other amendments we have moved, Motion No. 32 seeks to restore the degree of accountability present in the existing CMHC Act and National Housing Act. These acts require ministerial approval for housing research programs run by CMHC.

This does not mean the minister must approve every single research project CMHC supports. That power rests with the CMHC which has the authority to decide which projects get funding. What it does do is ensure accountability by requiring that decisions about how housing research programs work must be approved by the minister.

New Democrats are also pleased to support the amendments put forward in this group by the member for Kelowna. As with amendments we have moved, his proposal helps to restore accountability to federal housing policies.

Motions Nos. 31 and 33 both improve the accountability of the CMHC. The existing section 16 of the CMHC Act sets the capital of the corporation at $25 billion and requires that parliament approve any increase. As the CMHC is a crown corporation, there is no question that any change to its capital is a decision that belongs to elected representatives. It is a basic principle of parliamentary democracy that budgetary decisions be made by parliament. Giving the governor in council the power to set the capital of the CMHC, as Bill C-66 would do, is a clear violation of that principle.

Motion No. 33 also restores a provision of the CMHC Act which Bill C-66 is attempting to remove. In this case it is the power of the Minister of Finance to place conditions and restrictions on the type of investment and financial transaction the CMHC can enter into. Again, if crown corporations are to be accountable to citizens through their government it seems only reasonable that the Minister of Finance continue to have this authority.

These motions approve the accountability of the CMHC and are in the spirit as the NDP amendments to require the governor in council to approve the terms and conditions of housing programs under the National House Act. For this reason, New Democrats will support these amendments.

What has made accountability even more of a concern in this debate are the changes the government proposes to make to the composition of the CMHC board of directors.

Under the existing provisions of the CMHC Act, the CMHC board of directors consists of the chair, the president, a vice-president, two members selected from the public service and five from outside the public service. Bill C-66 will change the board from five civil servants and five people appointed from outside to two civil servants and eight others. Giving the government more freedom of action in appointing the board will, based on the government's track record, result in more patronage.

The government had a choice when it decided to change the National Housing Act. It could have chosen to strengthen the federal role in housing and approve programs for people with limited means. This is what the Liberal government would have done if its expressions of concern and compassion for the homelessness were the slightest bit sincere.

Instead, with Bill C-66 the Liberal government is reducing the ability of the federal government to provide safe, affordable housing. It is helping to ensure the fine words—

[National Housing Act, May 4th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

[National Housing Act, May 4th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

[National Housing Act, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, last month the government finally recognized the seriousness of the housing crisis.

I think everyone in the House applauds the appointment of the Minister of Labour as the federal co-ordinator on homelessness. Her personal commitment to housing issues is well known and no one doubts that if she was given the tools to do the job she could make a real difference.

This bill is a clear indication that the government does not intend to allow its co-ordinator on homelessness to do more than attend conferences on homelessness. All the way through this bill are provisions that remove direct government involvement in providing housing for those in need.

Instead of parliament or the cabinet making decisions about how to best provide affordable housing, authority has been delegated to an appointed CMHC board of directors. A basic democratic principle is that decisions should be made by elected officials. This bill ignores that principle. Once we have voted to allocate money for housing, the only means this bill gives us for reviewing decisions made on social housing is when the House of Commons receives CMHC's five year corporate plan.

That is why I am a little curious about the wording of the amendment of my Reform Party colleague from Kelowna to remove section 101. This is the only section left in the National Housing Act allowing for the regulation of the CMHC. I have heard the hon. member express concern about the need to make the CMHC more accountable and I hope he will reconsider his motion.

All through this bill are provisions allowing the CMHC to set terms and conditions for programs that provide loans or contributions for housing. If we pass this bill, decisions about how these programs will work will not be made by parliament. They will not even be made by cabinet. Instead, they will be made by an unelected board of directors.

It does not take much of an imagination to picture the response of the government when an unpopular decision is made by the CMHC board. “Oh, that has nothing to do with us,” it will say. “It is all the fault of CMHC”.

When they were in opposition, the Liberals would have found this unacceptable. My colleagues who have been here more years than I have can remember Liberal MPs condemning legislation as undemocratic because it transferred decision making power from parliament to cabinet. Of course, this was when they were in opposition and it was the Conservatives who were introducing the legislation. Today with this legislation they are going even further than the Conservatives could have imagined.

It should also be made clear that the government is not just turning over the power to make decisions about mortgage insurance to CMHC. Under this legislation the government is abandoning its decision making role in almost all parts of the National Housing Act. Whether it is the eligibility criteria for housing renewal programs or setting national standards for public housing, this government is abandoning its responsibilities.

The amendments the NDP will introduce require approval by the governor in council for terms and conditions for housing programs set by CMHC. This does not mean that the cabinet has to approve every last project the CMHC assists. Given this government's record on patronage, there is no way we would suggest that. What it will do, however, is to ensure that the conditions under which projects receive support are approved by the governor in council. This is already happening.

Currently the National Housing Act sets out the terms and conditions for loans, grants and other forms of assistance. The goal of the amendment is to restore the principle that rules about how taxpayers' money is spent should be approved by parliament or by regulations approved by those who are accountable to parliament.

I would also like to touch on some of the specific problems with the bill and what they mean for the federal housing policy now and in the future.

As it stands, the National Housing Act has a number of provisions stating how programs to provide housing should be run. These measures ensure dollars spent on housing do what they are meant to do: help those in need of affordable accommodation find it.

The current restrictions in the National Housing Act seem nothing more than basic common sense. These restrictions include provisions to restrict rent increases for housing projects which have been built or repaired using federal dollars, a reasonable measure if the goal of federal housing programs is to increase the supply of decent, affordable housing.

It includes restrictions saying that only housing projects sponsored by non-profit or co-operative associations qualify for full funding, another measure that seems necessary if the goal of the housing program is to provide affordable housing and not line private developers' pockets.

Under this bill, these provisions are gone. This bill paves the way for the privatization of social housing in Canada. Current statutes contain very clear definitions of what a public housing project is and what an eligible contribution recipient is. These definitions have ensured that funding for housing goes to the groups best able to build and operate affordable housing: non-profit groups and co-operative associations.

This bill eliminates these definitions and others from the National Housing Act and puts them at the discretion of CMHC. This opens the door for private for profit corporations to be recognized as social housing providers. With social housing this can be a very expensive proposition. Building housing units is only part of the cost. The other part of the cost is subsidies for rent.

For non-profit and co-operative housing, all we are subsidizing is the operating and capital costs. If we allow private for profit corporations to provide social housing, we will pay for their profit margin as well as for the cost of the housing. Instead of housing dollars assisting Canadians looking for decent, affordable accommodation, we will be subsidizing for profit developers. In case there is any doubt about this, I would like to touch on what happened in Ontario in the late eighties in cases where private for profit developers received social housing funds. For private developers it was the equivalent of a blank cheque.

Under the Liberal government the subsidy paid for the difference between what the tenant could afford and the market rent for the apartment. The rent review guidelines made it easy for landlords to raise rents and every time the rent went up, so did the subsidy the government was having to pay. In some cases the rents being subsidized in private for profit developments were over $2,000.

In contrast, co-operative and non-profit housing have not seen such dramatic increases in the cost of rent subsidies. There, rent covers the cost of the mortgage and maintenance, not a landlord's profit margin.

The amendments that the NDP has put forward ensure federal funding for housing goes to those with a proven track record: non-profit corporations and co-operatives. In other words these amendments ensure any federal funding for housing goes to where we know it will be used for its intended purpose and where we can keep track of how it is used.

The NDP is also concerned about the elimination of national standards for public housing. In section 78 of the existing National Housing Act, there is a requirement that public housing provide decent, safe and sanitary housing accommodation. Bill C-66 removes this provision. The explanation given was that flexibility is required. There are some things where I do not think we should be flexible. Ensuring that public housing in this country is decent, safe and sanitary is one of them.

It also has been suggested that standards are not required in the section of the National Housing Act dealing with public housing because they are present in the definition of low rental housing project. I am not a lawyer but as far as I know a definition has to be stated to have any effect. Under this bill low rental housing project is defined in section 1 of the National Housing Act but will not appear anywhere else in the legislation.

Like the Minister of Labour in her role as federal co-ordinator on homelessness, the definition sounds good, wants to do something and is not being allowed to do it by this government. What our amendment in Motion No. 16 seeks to do is to restore standards for public housing.

In closing, I emphasize that New Democrats recognize the housing problems in Canada are serious enough that there must be a federal role. We are also concerned about the restrictions the amendments moved by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve would place on this role. I would hope it is not his intention but the effect of his motions is to give provincial governments ideologically opposed to social housing a veto over the construction of new housing projects. Given the seriousness of the housing crisis we face, this is not something the NDP is prepared to do.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 3rd, 1999]

Which corporations, individuals, or consortiums have expressed an interest in purchasing the Prince Mine owned by the Cape Breton Development Corporation?

[National Housing Act, April 29th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 9 with the following:

“(3) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 10 with the following:

“person who is a builder of rental housing projects on reserves, as defined in the Indian Act or that is a non-profit corporation or a cooperative association is unable to obtain a loan described in”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 10 with the following:

“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 44 on page 10 the following:

“(3) The Corporation may only make a loan, contribution or forgive an amount under subsection (1) for rental housing projects being built or owned by a non-profit corporation or cooperative association or for housing projects on reserves, as defined in the Indian Act.”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-66, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 13 with the following:

“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-66, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 36 on page 13 with the following:

“(2) Paragraph 75(2)( a ) of the Act is replaced by the following: a ) pursuant to any of paragraphs (1)( a ) to ( f ) or paragraph (1)( h ) or ( j ), except with the approval of the Minister; or”

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-66, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 14 with the following:

“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-66, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 7 on page 15 with the following:

“and develop land for a low-rental housing project or to construct or acquire and operate a low-rental housing”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-66, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 15 with the following:

“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-66, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 16 with the following:

“(4) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-66, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 17 with the following:

“projects owned by public housing agencies, as defined in section 78, non-profit corporations or cooperative associations, and may forgive amounts owing on”

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-66, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 17 with the following:

“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-66, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 18 with the following:

“99.2 The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

[Devco, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.

The minister is aware that a community partnership is being put together to try to prevent the complete devastation of our island's economy. This initiative seeks to ensure miners and their families are simply not tossed on the scrap heap.

Will the government look at allowing miners to obtain pensionable credits through this community partnership?

[Devco, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister met with representatives of the United Families about the shutdown and privatization of Devco.

I am very pleased he met with them and was delighted to hear he will be discussing with the Minister of Natural Resources how the miners are being treated.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources take a small step today to reassure these women and the House, and let us know whether or not his discussions with the Prime Minister will be favourable to Cape Breton miners and their families?