Geoff Regan

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-83.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development took on the task of examining the government's commitment to establish an environmental equivalent of the auditor general. This was in fact a key red book commitment. It is an idea that has been discussed and debated for many years. It is also an idea the government is making a reality in short order.

The committee heard from many stakeholders representing a wide range of interests and opinions. Their testimony provided important insights into what must be done for Canada to achieve sustainable development.

The committee in preparing its report and the government in proposing Bill C-83 have paid careful attention to the message of stakeholders. The committee submitted its report in May of last year and the government responded just over a year ago. Its response was aimed at integrating economic, environmental and social factors in federal planning and decision making across all departments, just what the stakeholders had asked for.

Key aspects of that response include the amendments to the Auditor General Act with which we are involved today. The amendments would provide openness, transparency and leadership by government on sustainable development and continued action to make sustainable development a real practice throughout the federal government. Bill C-83 is central to integrating the environmental and sustainable development in government planning decisions across all federal government departments.

Last year I had the pleasure of being part of the Special Joint Committee for the Review of Canada's Foreign Policy. For the first time as part of a review of foreign policy one of the areas we looked at was sustainable development and the environment. We can see more and more these days how much environmental issues are international matters.

The hon. member for Peace River is here today. He was also a part of that review. It was a very interesting process. I was pleased that for the first time as a committee we recognized in our report that the federal government should include as a major plank of its foreign policy the promotion of sustainable development around the world.

Why is it important for us to make environmental matters and sustainable development more of a priority in government? One reason is that we live in a world of limited measurable natural resources.

I asked a friend of mine, a professor of geography in Halifax, if we could measure the atmosphere, the amount of air around the world. He checked with a friend in a specialized area who was more knowledgeable on the particular topic and told me there were approximately five quadrillion tonnes of atmosphere around the world. That is about one one-millionth of the total mass of the earth. Twenty-one per cent of the atmosphere is oxygen.

It is measurable and finite which means that it is limited. There is not always lots more where that came from. We have to recognize therefore that if we can measure it and if we can limit it, we can also destroy it. We can damage it. That is a very important point to realize in thinking about the environment and the world we live in.

This is the only planet we know of that will sustain and support life. That is an important point too. If we damage this one we do not have another one to go to. It is unrealistic to think we can choose some other world or that we will have some way to transport billions of people to some other planet where we can survive if we damage this one.

There is a very narrow range of conditions in which life can exist, particularly human life. Is it possible for us as human beings to actually alter or change the conditions which sustain human life? It seems to me the answer to that question is yes. We now have solid evidence that we actually have changed the conditions. We are having an impact on the conditions.

This year 2,000 leading world experts on climate change came to the conclusion and agreed, after years of debating it and not being ready to agree, that human activity contributes to global warming. We are affecting climate change. We are moving in the narrow range within which we can actually sustain human life. We should be aware of that very important point.

The planet has a limited ability to support human life. Researchers at Cornell University in the U.S. determined in a study that the earth's biosphere could only produce enough renewable resources, food, fresh water and fish, to sustain about two billion people at European standards. That is not North American standards and we should know the difference. If members know much about how Europeans live, they will know they are less wasteful of resources. They tend to follow the three r s of reducing, reusing and recycling a little more than we do. They have done it for quite a while. They have a head start on the three r s that are so important for the environment. I hope we can follow their example and catch up quickly.

Not only in Europe but in North America we have to change our practices to try to follow the three r s of reducing our consumption; reusing our receptacles for pop, bottles of various kinds and other containers; and reducing the amount of packaging of products. Often we buy products with a lot more packaging than is required. I understand marketing problems but somehow marketers have to take into account environmental issues and find ways to market with less packaging.

The whole issue of sustainable development is a new issue in foreign policy and newer one in domestic policy. Today it must be a core issue in our domestic as well as foreign policy. Sustainable development is about integrating environmental, economic and social values into decision making. That is very important for our future. If we do not include all three in deciding what will be sustainable for us in the future, how we will live in a sustainable manner and how we will support social and other programs in a sustainable manner, we have big problems. We need to think about how much we value the environment, society and the people in it and the economy. We must consider all these points and not one at the exclusion of others.

When thinking of the environment we must think about how much are interests are endangered. If we realize that we live in a very narrow range of conditions that can support human life and that we can actually affect those conditions, change them and move them outside that range, we realize our interests are in danger.

One great problem for us is to determine how to move toward goals of greater employment that are so important and at the same time deal with tremendous challenges in the environment. That is a major challenge of the next 50 years but I hope we manage to deal with it sooner than that.

Should we increase our emphasis on sustainable development? Clearly the answer is yes. We have done it in foreign policy. We are now doing it by creating a role within the auditor general's office for a commissioner who will report directly to the auditor general and will file a report annually on how the government and all departments are doing in environmental matters. It is very important to keep the government's feet to the fire on environmental matters to make sure it lives up to its responsibilities to promote sustainable development in every aspect of its activities.

I was very pleased to speak on the bill and I urge all members to give it speedy passage.

[Treatment Of Municipal Sewage, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address Motion No. 425 put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment facilities.

The concern I have about the motion is that such a new country-wide program would only duplicate existing efforts of the federal government, provincial governments and territorial governments.

Our government initiated the Canada infrastructure works program which is geared specifically to upgrading infrastructure. I note that sewage treatment was given a high priority in the program. For example, in my riding of Halifax West, one of the most important and costly projects which the program funded was the upgrading of the Mill Cove sewage treatment plant. It is a very important program which will provide better service for the whole Bedford-Sackville area. That is one of the two largest programs in my riding. The other one relates to road building. Both are solid traditional infrastructure programs.

There are other kinds of infrastructure. These days we have to recognize that even things like fibre optics can be important for infrastructure and for the ability of a community or a country to develop its economic base.

I also note that the Reform Party did not support the infrastructure program when it was first introduced.

I remind hon. members that the primary responsibility of implementing standards or guidelines for fresh water, recreational or drinking water quality and sewage treatment discharges rests with provincial and territorial governments and not with the federal government in Ottawa. The role of the federal government is to supply leadership and advice in support of the provincial and territorial governments through the co-operative establishment of national guidelines and appropriate action in the federal domain.

National guidelines exist in this area and are constantly being updated. For example, through federal and provincial co-operation, health based guidelines for drinking water and recreational water quality are developed. In fact, the fifth edition of "The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality" was published in May 1993. This document is popular among those who study water quality issues. The document recommends limits for microbiological, chemical and radiological contaminants which have been found in drinking water and are known or suspected to be harmful.

The guidelines are used in all parts of Canada. They are developed in co-operation with the health and environment ministries of the provinces and territories. The guidelines fall under the auspices of the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water. It is important work which is in progress.

The process began in the 1970s. For this reason among others, Canada's drinking water is one of the safest drinking waters in the world. We have to recognize how fortunate we are in this country to have this supply of safe fresh water.

The impact of standards for sewerage is to protect raw water sources which might be used by Canadians for drinking water or recreational purposes. It is the raw water sources which we are talking about.

The environment is one of the key determinants of population health. We all know these days about the increase in allergies and respiratory illnesses which seem to be traceable to environmental causes. Water quality is an important indicator of our efforts to protect human health in this area.

Of the many environmental factors, the quality of their drinking water is of major concern to Canadians. We know this from a number of public surveys and consultations which the government has undertaken. We also know that Canada is in the enviable position of having great riches of fresh water within its boundaries. I believe that Canada has the greatest resource of fresh water in the world. Approximately 83 countries in the world do not have access to fresh drinking water. It is atrocious. The problem is the greatest in those countries which are highly populated.

Our infrastructure program is a co-operative effort of federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments. It is already being used to upgrade and improve sewage treatment across the country, just as it is in my riding with the upgrading of the Mill Cove sewage treatment plant. This is in keeping with our red book commitments.

In our present situation, the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments are prioritizing the infrastructure works program to benefit all Canadians because we have to look at what is vital to Canadians. Microbiological characteristics of the water are

still considered to be vital to public health protection and for that reason guidelines are under continuous scrutiny.

There are microbiological guidelines for coliform and total bacteria in drinking water. In fact, it was recently updated and sections on viruses and protozoa in finished water are being prepared. Microbiological contaminants will not be removed from source water if we adopt this motion. This motion will not reduce trace chemical contaminants in the fresh water supply to our municipal drinking water systems.

It will not help, for example, in the case of Five Island Lake where the lake system is contaminated by a PCB site or actually an orphan site which has a number of toxins which need to be cleaned up. This motion will not address the problem of that water system.

The establishment of a national primary sewage treatment standard will not improve the microbiological qualities of drinking water, nor will it significantly improve fresh water quality.

One of the important things we should be moving toward in this regard and one of the things happening in Halifax, for example, is the work toward the removal of toxins and other contaminants at source. That is a very important step we have to take. It is a matter of taking responsibility for the quality of our water and what we dump into our sinks and into our water system.

We have an obligation to all Canadians to expend our resources in the most efficient manner possible. Every dollar we spend must have the maximum possible health benefit to the Canadian public. Health Canada has a duty to Canadians to address serious health issues affecting water quality. We are concerned with disease-causing organisms and cancer-causing chemicals in our water. We have to be concerned about those things more and more these days.

These are the serious issues of the day that Health Canada is addressing. These are also the issues that will not be touched on by this proposed motion. Since primary sewage treatment will not reduce organic substances found in source water from municipal drinking water and disinfection is essential to maintain a safe drinking water supply that will protect the public health, the establishment of a minimum standard of primary treatment will have little public health benefit with respect to drinking water.

Water quality improvements are already occurring under the Canada infrastructure works program, the Canada-Ontario agreement to clean up the Great Lakes and the Quebec-Canada entente to address issues in the St. Lawrence River basin.

I believe the member for Comox-Alberni had the best of intentions in putting forward this motion. Unfortunately, it does not address the real problems facing Canadians today. An isolated program to spend large sums of money on municipal sewage treatment will cost Canadian taxpayers dearly without doing much to increase public health protection.

Health Canada is working now in partnership with other levels of government to improve water quality across the country. These are the initiatives we must continue to develop to ensure that the quality of our drinking water remains the envy of the world.

[Icelandair, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 10, I was pleased to join provincial counterparts, Iceland Ambassador Einar Benediktsson and Icelandair representatives in welcoming Icelandair to Halifax International Airport in Nova Scotia.

Icelandair is a 60-year old privately run airline. It is no mere beginner. It carries 1.2 million passengers every year. Icelandair will begin scheduled service to Halifax on May 14 next year. It will go from Halifax International Airport to some 20 destinations in Europe through Reykajavik. We in Halifax West and in Nova Scotia look forward to the tremendous potential this brings for tourism in Nova Scotia.

Icelandair recently held a Reykjavik to Halifax flight for Scandanavian tour operators, an important first step for this exciting tourism opportunity. Icelandair knows what more and more companies are coming to realize, that metropolitan Halifax and the province of Nova Scotia are good places to do business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on Bill C-96.

Clause 3 of the bill states:

There is hereby established a department of the Government of Canada called the Department of Human Resources Development-

Perhaps the most remarkable part of the bill is the very name of the department it creates: "Human Resources Development". Those three words stand for one of the most critical challenges and also one of the greatest opportunities facing Canadians today. They stand for one of the most basic beliefs underlying the government's commitment to Canadians.

We believe that Canada has enormous potential, economically and socially. We believe that people, our human resources, are the key to unlocking that potential. It is the talents and skills of people that have made this country one of the most prosperous nations on earth. It is those same skills and talents that will secure for Canada and Canadians a prosperous future.

By investing in people, by developing our human resources, we want to ensure that every Canadian has a chance to take part in the future. We want to ensure that every element of the social programs works toward that goal. That focus is what the new department is all about. It is about helping the people who need help the most, by giving them the tools they need the most, by giving them a chance to overcome the barriers of poverty, a chance to gain access to good training and skills and a chance to get good jobs.

Throughout the social security reform consultations we have been asking Canadians how to focus our social programs better to achieve that goal. It has been going on throughout the Department of Human Resources Development over the past year as departmental officials have worked to sharpen the focus of programs and services to make them more effective. It is going on right now as we develop the new human resources investment fund, which will lead to greater decentralization in this area. We will be working more with our partners at the local level and will be reducing the 39 current programs to a handful which can be hand tailored to local needs.

Social security reform will continue to evolve as the government prepares legislation to refocus the UI program and integrate the lessons it has learned from consultations into departmental operations.

If members want to see social security reform in action as an example of focusing resources on investing in people, they can take a look in my riding at the Bedford Professional Training Services. With this program each project consists of a mix of classroom and on the job training in modern office management. Many of the trainees are older workers who have been displaced from their former employment. In addition to learning new skills, they must deal with low self-esteem, grief, embarrassment and frustration which accompany a midlife job loss, as we all know well. A strong counselling component is built into the training package to address these issues.

The co-ordinator of the program, Fran Hill, is to be commended for her excellent work. In fact the placement rate for this program in its first two projects was 90 per cent. Ninety per cent of those people who were actually in the program were placed in jobs. That is excellent and is to be commended. One former trainee has successfully started her own business and is now employing another of Fran's graduates.

These people do not want handouts from the department. They want jobs and they want help getting the tools and skills they need to get on with their lives. That is what they are getting at places like Bedford Professional Training Services. They are getting a second chance at education and learning skills for new jobs. That is just one example of the strategic initiatives we are undertaking to refocus the department's resources away from the status quo toward real, productive and meaningful change.

I will give another example. Let us look at the communities of Lucasville and Upper Hammonds Plains which are two minority communities in my riding of Halifax West. These communities have benefited tremendously over the past two years working closely with the Bedford Canada Employment Centre.

Through a section 25 program a UI recipient prepares a strategic development plan. Right now they are arranging for community consultation on this plan but they will soon begin the initial stages of implementation. Part of that plan involves tutoring programs which have already begun and have been very successful.

Through the Youth Services Canada summer program, students, including eight from the summer program and four in the career placement program, did two activities. The first involved recreation services in the communities. The second involved renovations of homes, churches and community centres in those communities but according to priorities which were established at the local level by the people in those communities. That is a very important point.

The curriculum they used was developed with funding by the delivery of systems project of the department. The curriculum works to improve educational standards. It gives the area the capability as a remote learning centre. It will actually start in the middle of this month.

There are many examples like these across the country that reflect the new focus and direction of the department. We can see it in the assistance that thousands of Canadians receive every day in our network of CECs, Canada Employment Centres, across the country. Thousands of Canadians who need help to get the training, the jobs and income support they need are helped in these centres.

We can see it in the hard work and dedication of some 30,000 departmental employees. I want to mention one in particular with whom I worked over the past couple of years and who retired this summer. Keith Cameron was the manager of the Canada Employment Centre in Bedford. I was very impressed by his commitment to his community and his commitment to his work.

In fact on Canada Day in 1994 I visited Upper Hammonds Plains. There on a day off was Keith Cameron coaching the local ball team. If that is not commitment to a community that needs assistance and needs involvement, I do not know what is. To me that shows the kind of dedication and commitment of many of the employees of the human resources development department. It is an excellent example for others to follow.

Day in and day out, people like Keith Cameron and other departmental employees are working with people who are looking for jobs. They help mediate labour disputes. They help communities with economic development. They help young people get started in the world of work and help seniors benefit from income support programs.

This new focus of the department is an integral part of the human resources investment fund established in the last budget. They work closely together. The whole point of this fund is to make the most flexible use possible of our resources to ensure that people get the support and services they need to find jobs, jobs that they want desperately.

For example, this fund will support the government's commitment to child care, a crucial measure to help unemployed parents find work and get training. We made a commitment to co-invest with the provinces in child care and we will live up to that commitment.

We are also working to improve the child care that is available to aboriginal peoples. Our officials are working with a team from the First Nations. Together we are making good progress. The government hopes to have a new program in place this fall.

Additionally the department has launched the child care visions fund with $5 million annually. The money will be used to help support new research and development in this area which is so very important to Canada's future human resources potential.

These are some of the ways the new focus of the department is reflected in concrete action. In the immediate future one of the government's top priorities will be to integrate this focus into the unemployment insurance program with a major overhaul of the program.

A few weeks ago the Minister of Human Resources Development spoke to the human resources standing committee about the direction this overhaul is going to take. A key objective of the overhaul is to transform the UI program to focus on re-employment not unemployment, on jobs not joblessness. This means finding ways to remove disincentives in the program that hamper job creation and discourage workers from returning to the workforce. It also means simplifying the system for both workers and employers, making it easier to work with and less costly to administer. It means integrating the UI program with a variety of tools to help people get back to work.

The government will introduce legislation to reform UI in the next few weeks but the department is already working on the basic operational changes needed to make the integrated employment program work and succeed. This means streamlining the current 39 separate programs and services that are delivered through CECs across the country and integrating them in a way that allows the communities to implement them in different ways. That seems to be very appropriate.

The objective is to ensure the department's energies are driven not by program rules but by the needs of individual Canadians in different parts of the country. There will be much more room for discretion and judgment at the local level which is important. If we want to tailor re-employment programs to fit local needs, we must have that kind of local discretion.

Bill C-96 does not in itself accomplish these changes. What it does is it consolidates the administrative framework for changes that have taken place, are taking place now and will continue to take place in the future. It reflects the basic focus that underlies the government's approach to social and labour market programs. It is this focus that will help to develop Canada's human resources giving those who need help the most the tools they need to work and prosper in the future.

[Development Aid, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Last night CBC Newsworld aired a program entitled ``The Sceptics Journey''. It showed four Canadians who began opposed to foreign development aid but after visiting a number of projects in less developed countries changed their minds.

What is the government doing to make more Canadians aware of the value and success stories of Canadian development aid?

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me that members opposite have so little confidence in the economy of Canada. However, they should be aware that the mortgage fund insurance is actuarially sound. It returns money each year to the government which helps provide for any problems which may occur in the process. There are funds provided each year for non-repayment of loans.

If the situation arose where Canadians defaulted on $150 billion in mortgages, imagine what would happen to the banks across the country. It is somewhat like saying, why should we have banks because they may fail if people do not repay their loans. How can we trust putting our money in the banks because if people do not repay their mortgages, they will all fail? That is true also. We have to operate on certain assumptions that we will have good growth and an economy that works.

I am sure the hon. member will listen to my answer. We cannot assume the whole economy of the country is going to collapse tomorrow. We have to operate on cautious and reasonable assumptions. We have to take precautions. We are taking precautions with this bill. It is actuarially sound. It provides funds for failures and it is in good shape.

More important, it is interesting to me that the members opposite want to look at all the possible problems while ignoring the benefits of this very important program.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. parliamentary secretary that this program permits us to enhance the quality of life of Canadians.

If we want to recognize what the quality of life means in terms of housing all we have to do is leave our country and go to many other countries in the world. In June I had the opportunity to visit Haiti as an election observer with the OAS. I certainly got a real appreciation of how fortunate we are to have the kind of housing we have and what it really means to quality of life when I saw the kind of housing that exists in Haiti.

Haiti is the poorest country in this hemisphere. It is not by any means the only country in the world with a lower standard of housing than we have. In fact, the vast majority of the world's inhabitants do not have the quality of life and quality of housing that we enjoy. Some do not even come close.

It is very important to recognize that this measure of expanding the loan insurance of CMHC is critical to the quality of life of Canadians. It is important for the housing industry in terms of job creation.

When I was in Haiti I saw houses that had dirt floors. Imagine the problems with disease and insects. There were houses that did not have facilities which we consider proper in Canada such as indoor plumbing. We are very fortunate to the ability to expand a program like CMHC which will add benefits to Canadians and to an important resource such as our housing stock.

When I visited Haiti I was struck by the many problems of extended families living in a house which would be the size of a small room in a normal Canadian house and how that affected their quality of life. It was really a shock. We often hear about people facing cultural shock when they visit foreign countries. Well, I certainly experienced it. When I came back to Canada it made me much more aware of how fortunate we are to live in this great country and to have the opportunity to live in good quality homes.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the first question is what will it mean to Canadians if the mortgage insurance fund is capped at $100 billion. That is the point. We have a delay in the time between when mortgages are approved by local lenders and when we get the full figures for a year. We need to have it retroactive to 1994 to cover the fact that in that year there were more than $100 million worth of loans insured. That would be a huge problem for CMHC.

The other important point is what it would mean to Canadians if it were capped at that level. CMHC's ability to assist Canadians to access home ownership would be curtailed dramatically. It would mean that the 3,944 Canadians in the riding of the member for Comox-Alberni would be the last to achieve home ownership through these means. It also would mean that rural Canadians would be faced with even more obstacles when planning to purchase a home.

We can look at all the negatives and talk about the collapse of the economy. We would be in all kinds of problems if we had a huge collapse of the economy in any event. We have to look at the important role CMHC plays in building our country, in building home ownership, in building our housing stock and in helping the economy. If we can expand the amount of home ownership insurance CMHC can provide, we can expand the amount of housing activity.

I do not know about the member's riding but in my riding and in my region of Atlantic Canada, and I think across most of Canada, there is a need for increased activity in the housing sector. There

are real problems in that sector. People need to have a shot in the arm. This will help not only that whole sector, which will boost the economy, but it will help people who want to own their own homes.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that reminder. I apologize for the error.

Earlier this year, the Minister of Public Works announced that the maximum eligible house prices for first home loan insurance were increased in 30 communities across the country. This initiative allows more first time homebuyers to purchase a home with a down payment of as little as five per cent. Anyone who buys or builds a home in Canada as their principal residence is eligible for the lower down payment, as long as they have not owned a home at any time during the last five years.

First home loan insurance was initially in effect for a two-year period but was extended for an additional five years until 1999. The 5 per cent down initiative has been a major success in helping to increase home ownership in Canada. That speaks for itself as to the importance of the bill.

The statistics also speak for themselves. Since November 1993 over 210,000 Canadian households have taken advantage of the lower down payment to become the proud owners of either a new or existing home. In April 1994 a survey of Canadians who bought a home with less than 10 per cent down showed that 72 per cent of them would not have been able to purchase their home when they did without the reduced down payment. That says a lot.

The first home loan insurance initiative is constantly being monitored to ensure it continues to meet the needs of Canadians. CMHC is committed to helping Canadians who desire to own a home and who have the proven financial management capability to do so. First home loan insurance is an excellent example of CMHC's ability to adapt its mortgage loan insurance activity to ensure Canadians can enjoy the benefits of home ownership.

As I have stated, Bill C-108 is an administrative bill to facilitate the continuation of mortgage loan insurance under the National Housing Act. CMHC's mortgage loan insurance, which provides relatively equal access to Canadians throughout the country, is important to achieving that goal. This is one of the major factors

which distinguishes CMHC's operation from private mortgage loan insurance operations.

Without CMHC's commitment to providing mortgage loan insurance in the small communities of the country, places that private insurers have not traditionally wanted to serve, many Canadians might not be able to buy a home.

Our government knows just how much Canadians value home ownership. It represents a major portion of the wealth accumulated by households. For some, it is a source of retirement income. It is also an important component of quality of life. We believe that every Canadian should have access to home ownership. CMHC mortgage loan insurance can turn the dream of owning a home into a reality. It is therefore critical that CMHC be able to continue to provide mortgage loan insurance to Canadians now and in the future.

That is why I support Bill C-108 and why I hope my colleagues will see fit to give swift passage to this administrative bill so that CMHC can continue to help Canadians realize their dreams of owning a home.

The concept of home speaks to our basic human needs. Home is a place where people feel secure. Owning a home gives people a stake in their communities and a sense of belonging. Home ownership is a concept the people of Canada support. It is therefore essential that CMHC be able to continue to provide mortgage loan insurance to Canadians today and in the future.

The corporation's mortgage loan insurance has traditionally demonstrated the flexibility to respond to varying needs and must be maintained as a public policy instrument capable of evolving to meet the future housing needs of Canadians.

With an eye on these future needs, CMHC is currently working to develop a variety of new housing finance instruments made possible by innovative uses of mortgage loan insurance. In developing new products CMHC is looking to challenge the creativity of the financial community to ensure the largest possible number of borrowers can find a product in their marketplace to meet their precise needs. A variety of choices will encourage lenders to compete on the basis of services and product differentiation.

The financial environment in which CMHC's mortgage loan insurance business operates has undergone significant change in recent years. The introduction of one stop financial services, the increased use of technological systems to support business operations, and the need to manage expenditures and facilitate better risk management are all factors which have had an impact on the way CMHC runs its mortgage insurance operations.

CMHC is now focusing on introducing new processing mechanisms which will utilize the capabilities of electronic communications between CMHC and approved lender clients. These enhancements will allow the corporation to better serve the needs of Canadian housing consumers. In light of all these good arguments, I urge passage of the bill.

[National Housing Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the purpose of the bill is to increase the ceiling for mortgage loan insurance under the National Housing Act. This will enable Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to continue underwriting home mortgage loan insurance within the legislative limit.

The bill is an administrative bill. Bill C-108 will increase the existing limit on outstanding loan insurance from the current $100 billion to $150 billion. The bill also includes a provision to increase the ceiling further through appropriation in the future.

Members of the House should know that CMHC loan insurance is self-financing and self-sustaining and does not cost the government anything. Moreover, it has great benefits for the country.

The mortgage insurance fund is regularly evaluated according to rigorous insurance principles. It is fully adequate to cover all insured losses as well as all overhead.

The amendments in this bill deal with administrative matters, but they must be adopted to allow the CMHC to continue to provide mortgage insurance. Allow me to explain briefly how important this bill is for Canadians.

The desire to own a home remains strong among Canadians. Yet many people who can afford the monthly mortgage payments are still unable to access home ownership because they are finding it difficult to save for a down payment for conventional loans.

Because the CMHC assumes the risks if borrowers fail to meet their obligations, approved mortgage lenders can loan money to more Canadians. By reducing the down payment required to buy a house, the loan insurance program allows more middle income households to have access to home ownership. This is an essential element of the system to ensure that all Canadians, wherever they live, can have the same access to the mortgage loans they need to buy adequate and affordable housing.

Let me give an idea of the extent to which Canadians depend on mortgage loan insurance to fulfil their dream of owning a home. My colleagues may be interested to learn that this means approximately 40 per cent of the residential mortgage stock in Canada involved financing by CMHC mortgage insurance last year.

Without mortgage loan insurance Canadians who do not have a 25 per cent down payment would generally never have access to home ownership.

The CMHC mortgage loan insurance has already proven flexible enough to allow for innovative housing financing. This is an essential feature given the constant evolution of borrowers' needs and of the markets meeting these needs.

In 1987, the program was modified to insure junior mortgage loans, an innovation especially helpful to those needing additional funds for renovations.

In the following year the chattel loan insurance program was introduced as a five-year experiment to cover loans made on mobile homes and to help people who choose this kind of affordable home ownership. The coverage for mobile homes has now been made a regular part of the mortgage insurance program as per the announcement made by the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation at the beginning of this year.

In 1992 the mortgage insurance program was expanded to accommodate a reduced down payment for first time homebuyers, making home ownership even more accessible to moderate income households. This program, called the first home loan insurance program, has provided Canadians with their entry point to home ownership. Again I reiterate to my hon. colleagues that the success of the initiative has been achieved without cost to the government.

We want to ensure that the CMHC can continue to provide this assistance to the housing market. This is the intent of the bill before us today. The CMHC is constantly reviewing and making regular changes to the mortgage loan program in order to make it more effective and convenient for both approved lenders and home buyers.

By exploring new housing finance options for Canadians, we are looking to promote greater choices, lower the cost, increase accessibility of housing finance and assist borrowers to meet their financing needs within their own resources.

The CMHC will continue to encourage innovation and creativity in residential financing through the mortgage insurance fund, in order to improve access to home ownership for all Canadians.

The private housing market is now in a position to meet the needs of the vast majority of Canadian households. There is no question that the CMHC mortgage loan insurance played a crucial role in this achievement. The CMHC mortgage loan insurance program had a record year in 1994 in terms of volume. Several unexpected factors led to a significant increase in activity last year. Mortgage interest rates fell to their lowest level in 30 years, a level that was much lower than expected. The low inflation rate kept house prices stable and affordable. In addition, the rapid, consistent success of incentive policies, including the loan insurance program for home buyers and the home buyers' plan, helped generate a record level of insurance activity last year.

When the Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada stopped underwriting new mortgage insurance business in April 1993, CMHC had to assume 100 per cent of residential mortgage insurance activity. Furthermore a greater proportion of all mortgages has been insured by CMHC in recent years. In 1994, CMHC insured 40 per cent of all residential mortgages initiated, up from 22 per cent in 1991.

Because there is some lag time between insuring loans and receiving the reports from approved lenders, it was only in 1995 that the figures for 1994 were all compiled. At that time it was realized that the $100 billion maximum aggregate loan insurance

currently stipulated in the NHA had been exceeded. For this reason, provisions of the bill are effective starting in 1994.

I hope members will see fit to give swift passage to Bill C-108 so that CMHC can continue to promote access to home ownership through mortgage loan insurance.

Through its mortgage loan insurance program, CMHC continues to make housing more accessible for Canadians. The Corporation is also working to improve housing affordability. Through CMHC, the federal government is committed to a stable supply of affordable and accessible housing that increases economic opportunities for all Canadians.

CMHC's market housing programs promote affordable housing and equal access to financing through financial instruments such as mortgage loan insurance.

Moreover, CMHC provides mortgage insurance to all Canadians, regardless of where they live, at the smallest feasible down payment and the lowest cost.

To improve access to an affordable form of housing, CMHC also provides mortgage insurance for manufactured houses and mobile homes. In January of this year the hon. David Dingwall announced an expanded chattel loan insurance program, CLIP, that includes a resale of manufactured housing units.

CMHC is also contributing to making housing more affordable through better housing regulations. The affordability and choice today program funded by CMHC encourages regulatory innovation in municipalities across Canada. The ACT program encourages the housing industry and municipalities to work in partnership to improve housing affordability and choice.

More than 80 ACT projects are developing a wide range of practical approaches to streamlining approval processes, developing new forms of affordable housing, facilitating in-fill and conversion and adopting alternative development and building standards.

As I have said, Bill C-108 is an administrative bill. As my colleagues know, the bill is important in ensuring CMHC can continue to offer mortgage loan insurance to Canadians.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about a complementary initiative, first home loan insurance, introduced by CMHC in February 1992, to make home ownership even more accessible.

Earlier this year, the hon. David Dingwall announced that the maximum eligible house prices-