John Cummins

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, I reminded the government that the response to Question No. 189 was late. It is still late.

I was told at that time the government was answering 90% of the questions on time. I must point out that never once have I had a question answered within the 45 day period. In fact, of 11 questions of mine the government answered by May 5, it took an average of 127 days to answer them. The quickest response was 58 days.

As of Monday, May 10, today, I have three questions that have been on the order paper for more than 45 days: Question No. 189, Question No. 226 and Question No. 227. I would like to know if I have to wait another 100 days or so to get them answered.

[National Housing Act, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today and speak to the bill. I have a number of concerns as I am sure many members of the House have about certain provisions in the bill. There are also things that I like about it.

I would like to read into the record words that were spoken by Mr. Laird Hunter, the counsel for the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. I want to do that because in my riding of Delta—South Richmond there are many co-operative housing units. They are a very necessary part of the housing requirements in my constituency for a very simple reason. People in the lower mainland of British Columbia, who in other parts of the country would be making fairly good wages, find they are in a high cost, high rent marketplace. They cannot afford to buy a home and they cannot afford to pay the high rents in some of the accommodation that is available. The alternative has been the co-operative housing marketplace.

As someone who has visited many of those co-operative housing locations, I can assure the House that the housing is simply delightful. It is a pleasure to walk through. Housing co-op members have stated to me on many occasions that they feel very safe in their environment. They know their neighbours and there is stability in the neighbourhood.

The people who participate and live in the co-op housing units have a commitment to the co-op. They ensure that the place is well-maintained because it is their home and it is their investment. They look after one another's children. It is not a concern when their kids are playing in the street in front of a co-op housing unit or in a unit itself. People have some assurance that their kids are safe because they know their neighbours are watching them.

It reminds me of old times in small-town Ontario where I grew up. When we were out playing in the streets our parents were not concerned because they knew the neighbours were looking out for us. Quite often that is something which is missing today. Certainly in busy urban settings that is not the case, but it is the case in these co-op housing units. There is that kind of security. As far as providing homes for people who need them for economic reasons, I do not think there can be a better setting than these co-op houses.

Mr. Hunter noted that the bill contains certain provisions which they are pleased with. He notes and expects that the CHF of Canada welcomes the bill's proposal to strengthen the Canadian system for residential mortgage insurance. He says: “We also support the reinforcement of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's international role both in the exporting market and in helping developing countries to build secure and affordable housing”.

He goes on to say: “We have concerns about Bill C-66. We hope to offer some comments that will help to improve this bill and prevent some of the potential harmful effects that arise through unintended consequences on the affordable housing that now exists”. He outlines the three areas of concern. He said that they have concerns about the mortgage insurance, the international housing matters and the accountability framework. Those are concerns the Reform Party has as well.

One other concern should be mentioned. It is a serious concern for many of the co-ops in my riding. It is an important issue, one which I do not think the bill has addressed at all. It is the problem many of the co-ops have where the mortgages have been locked in. They entered into mortgage agreements in times of high mortgage rates. Unlike others, they cannot simply go to the bank and pay the penalty and buy into lower mortgage rates. They are stuck with the high rates. Some co-ops are paying 10% and 11% mortgage rates, with some probably paying higher rates. They cannot take advantage of the newer lower rates.

That is a fundamental problem. The co-ops are owned collectively. In that sense individuals own their own units, but because the title is a collective title for the whole organization or complex, these people are prevented from going to the bank collectively and saying “We do not want to continue to pay these high rates; we would like to pay the penalty and renegotiate at a lower rate”. That is fundamentally wrong.

We are not dealing with the Rockefellers of the world when we talk about this bill. We are dealing with people who are working hard and trying to put the bread on the table for their families and their children. We are making it tougher for them to do that.

I should mention one other thing when I say that this point is unfair. I was visiting one of the co-ops in my riding within the past year. One of the ladies told me that she had lived in co-op housing for years and that she had paid one of the higher rates. She had a pretty good job and was paying a pretty high rent. Then she had a physical health problem and was unable to work. When she could not work her rent dropped and she paid a little less than she had before. She said that it was not a concern to the other people as they knew she had done her best when she could and now she could enjoy that security. It is only right that happens. The group is looking after its own and that is correct.

Although we in the Reform Party are great supporters of the notion of co-op housing, we believe there is also a place for private sector builders that want to build low cost housing. That is a concern to me and to my friend from Okanagan who is our critic in this area.

I live on the lower mainland where there is a need for lower cost housing. Lower cost housing does not mean lower quality housing. It may mean smaller housing and smaller yards, but it certainly does not mean lower quality.

There is a place for government in providing low cost housing, whether it be through co-ops or assisting private sector builders that want to build low cost housing. The government should be making every effort to ensure that private sector builders have access to land in our municipalities where they can build smaller homes on smaller lots.

When I grew up the home in which I was raised was not very big. It probably was about 1,000 square feet. It was certainly adequate for my parents and four kids. Nowadays it seems that in the area where I live a small home is about 1,200 square feet and many of them are in the 2,000 to 2,500 square foot range.

However, with size comes expense. There is a problem when laws restrict size and do not allow builders to construct smaller homes on smaller lots. It prices people out of the market. The motions the NDP is proposing will do just that. Its series of motions will restrict the value of the bill to providers of on reserve rental housing, non-profit corporations and co-op associations. It does not want to allow private sector builders access to funding. I think that is wrong.

If the federal government is concerned about providing housing to low income Canadians, it should be taking the lead in ensuring that municipalities make land available where smaller lot sizes are okay. It should encourage municipalities to provide areas where smaller homes can be built. There is a place in our society for them. Many of the houses that were built in the thirties, the forties and before were built on smaller lots in many of our cities. They were smaller and affordable.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the right of the House is to amend legislation that is brought before it. The democratic process is being trampled in this deal. The government has made parliament completely irrelevant to the process. Under this Liberal administration, parliament has become an ineffectual, irrelevant talk shop.

Let us ask the real question. Is this treaty so bad it cannot stand the scrutiny of parliamentary debate prior to ratification?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this treaty is a backroom deal negotiated by nameless, faceless bureaucrats without the direction of parliament. Today before the document has even been tabled in the House, the minister signed off on the deal. Next fall parliament we will be asked to rubber stamp the deal, no changes required, thank you very much. What happened to the democratic process?

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to know the whereabouts of Question No. 189. More than 45 days have elapsed since the question was asked and it is about time for an answer.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I observed the last two weeks of debate on the Nisga'a Treaty in the B.C. legislature. What I saw was not encouraging.

The legislature was presented with a done deal by ministers who themselves had little understanding of the implications of the treaty and who were intolerant of legitimate concerns raised by the Liberal opposition.

The decision to put off consideration of the treaty in this place until fall was a clear admission by the government that it was not ready to face parliament with the details of what has been negotiated away.

The limitation on access to the charter of rights and freedoms, the undermining of neighbouring treaty claims, the creation of a new unaccountable tier of government and the end of the public fishery are all issues which must be resolved before this treaty becomes part of our constitution.

The treaty provides that there can be no amendment without the consent of the Nisga'a, a significant derogation of the sovereignty of Canada.

The Indian affairs minister had one chance to get this treaty right and she blew it. She knows it and she knows that it will take more than a summer of spin doctoring to fix it.

[National Housing Act, April 28th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.

The general purpose of the bill appears to be to place the CMHC on a more commercial footing, particularly in terms of its mortgage insurance business. That in itself is certainly a commendable objective but, as we will see, there are certain problems with it.

As with much that has gone on in the House during the current parliamentary session, the significance of the legislation will likely be noticed by few in the media or the public. It so happens that the bill involves the most extensive changes in nearly 15 years, since 1985, to the National Housing Act and to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Act.

It was in the 1980s, as pointed out by my hon. colleague from Kelowna during his speech on second reading, that CMHC accorded greater priority to social housing needs. The position of the government is that these legislative changes are in keeping with the enhanced role of CMHC in facilitating home ownership, even though it is a crown corporation as an agent of government with respect to social housing concerns. For example, the government has made CMHC a missionary to the homeless through adding $50 million to the CMHC's home renovation program.

Some see a contradiction with the federal government bent on downloading responsibilities for social housing to the provinces at the same time as favouring an enhanced social role for CMHC. Others believe that the very existence of the CMHC illustrates an all too familiar pattern of federal government encroachment on areas of provincial jurisdiction, doing so either directly, under the guise of an issue being of national concern, or indirectly through the use of federal spending powers, in this case federal spending powers to facilitate home ownership with 5% down.

With regard to social housing the CMHC has played a pivotal role with respect to the expansion of co-operative housing. It is through the CMHC that mortgage interest subsidies are provided to these housing co-operatives. Some people argue that it is not equitable to provide mortgage interest subsidies based solely on the fact that a building is collectively owned by a non-profit corporation.

The profit to those living collectively in a supposed non-profit context is the shield from interest rate fluctuations which CMHC provides. In the longer term the profit to those living collectively is a mortgage free environment with the mortgage having been rapidly paid off due to taxpayer subsidies.

People living in non-profit housing co-ops never acquire any equity in the property though they acquire equity in other ways, some argue, based on taxpayer generosity with respect to the co-op mortgages. Some people question why several individuals cannot simply go to a financial institution and ask for financing through a collectively signed mortgage or by way of pooled funds and individual mortgages. To what extent should people who wish to live collectively be treated any differently in terms of government housing assistance than those who purchase homes individually?

Much of the debate on the bill has so far concerned whether it is appropriate for the CMHC to be competing with other financial institutions and whether expanded quasi-privatization of the CMHC is of general economic benefit.

In my riding there is a significant co-operative housing component. In addition, with respect to social housing, generally my hon. colleague from Kelowna mentioned during his second reading speech that as of 1992 an amendment to the British Columbia municipal act requires that municipalities include housing policies in their official community plan.

It may be said that in British Columbia social housing issues were being addressed far earlier than before they became politically fashionable in other provinces or even in the House.

I note that pursuant to the bill CMHC will be able to provide interest rate relief. However, such relief is regarded as only applicable to individual borrowers due to the competing provisions in the Interest Act. Many people understand that they can generally get out of an onerous mortgage interest rate by paying a three month penalty. These provisions are designed to protect consumers who may not appreciate interest rate fluctuations to the same extent as corporate borrowers.

Corporate borrowers generally are stuck with the mortgage interest rates they initially agreed to. This obviously causes problems with long term high interest rate debt in circumstances where, as now, mortgage interest rates have been low for quite some time. One sector that is disadvantaged in this respect is the co-operative housing sector. Many housing co-operatives are tied to high interest rate, long term mortgage obligations.

They would prefer to be able to pay an interest rate penalty and to refinance. Their mortgage lenders would obviously prefer otherwise. The taxpayer through CMHC would appear to end up paying a higher interest rate subsidy to housing co-operatives than would otherwise be the case if they could refinance their mortgages at current rates.

In the same way people choosing to live collectively perhaps should not be accorded greater government housing assistance than those who prefer to purchase housing individually. People who choose to live collectively should not be treated any differently from individual purchasers in terms of mortgage prepayment privileges.

My point is that whatever one thinks of financial institutions, housing co-operative borrowers are really no different from individual borrowers in terms of sophistication and social need. Therefore I want to use this opportunity to put on the Hansard record my concern that mortgage prepayment privileges be made available to housing co-operatives.

I know that the government has been lobbied on this issue but has yet to see fit to act. Quite apart from this being the right direction to take, it cannot prejudice the government's relationship with the financial institution sector any more than the government has already managed to do.

Another issue I would like to address has to do with an issue that was raised by Ms. Janice O'Brien, executive director of the B.C. Association of the Appraisal Institute of Canada, who noted:

These amendments are designed to allow Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation—to operate in a commercial manner. The Appraisal Institute's experience shows that they raise serious public policy issues.

In particular, the Appraisal Institute of Canada noted:

Bill C-66, amendments to the National Housing Act—is designed to allow Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation—to operate its mortgage insurance business “on a more commercial basis”. However, as long as CMHC is a crown corporation, parliament has responsibilities to act as a watchdog.

The Appraisal Institute of Canada asks members of parliament to examine Bill C-66 to ensure that it doesn't provide CMHC with a licence to operate in a more commercial manner by compromising or sacrificing its responsibilities for public federal housing policy.

The concern is that we do not repeat the mistakes that were made in the U.S. While CMHC moves away from appraisals, federal housing officials in the United States are strengthening appraisal requirements for all federal mortgage insurance.

Computerized underwriting is not replacing appraisals. Instead aggressive new consumer oriented standards are being prepared for all federal mortgage insurance appraisals. U.S. appraisals would be required to provide more detailed disclosures to the consumer about the condition of an appraised property. The U.S. experience by itself suggests the need to review CMHC's current practices.

As with opposition to any legislation, the fact that parts of a bill are objected to and the bill voted against does not mean that one is opposed to the direction of the bill.

The official opposition supports the principle that Canadians should have access to affordable housing in order to acquire housing and recognizes the role that public mortgage insurance plays in supporting it. However, in keeping with the general view of the official opposition that private sector options should be explored, it is suggested that greater private sector competition in the provision of mortgage insurance should be encouraged.

What the legislation does is further entrench government intervention in the housing market, an area of provincial and municipal jurisdiction. The prejudicial impact on existing financial institutions is largely unknown.

For these reasons, among others, the official opposition will oppose the legislation in its current form but nonetheless remain pleased to have had an opportunity to place the concerns of Canada housing co-operatives, which I fully support, on the record.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 26th, 1999]

With regard to the herring spawn-on-kelp fishery and the response to the directive of the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladstone that a new trial be held to establish the extent of licences that ought to be available to the Heiltsuk band: (a) were existing spawn-on-kelp licences purchased and transferred to the Heiltsuk in either 1997 or 1998, and if not, why not; were existing licence holders given the opportunity to sell their licences; (b) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group prior to the issuance of additional licences in 1997 and 1998 undertake reviews of the economic impact on existing spawn-on-kelp licence holders of the creation of additional licences versus the purchase of existing licences, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of each review, and which of the recommendations of each review were implemented; (c) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group undertake reviews of the economic impact on existing licence holders of the creation of new licences following the 1997 and 1998 seasons, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of these reviews and what action was taken in each case to implement the recommendations; (d) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group prior to the issuance of additional licences in 1997 and 1998 undertake reviews of the impact of the creation of additional licences on herring and kelp stocks versus the purchase of existing spawn-on-kelp licences, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of each review, and which of the recommendations of each review were implemented; (e) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group undertake reviews of the impact on herring and kelp stocks of the creation of new licences following the 1997 and 1998 seasons, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of each review and what action was taken to implement the recommendations of each review; (f) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group prior to the issuance of additional licences in 1997 and 1998 undertake a review of the market impact, particularly on spawn-on-kelp prices, of the creation of additional licences versus the purchase of existing spawn-on-kelp licences, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of each review, and which of the recommendations of each review were implemented; (g) did the department of fisheries and its spawn-on-kelp technical working group undertake a review of the market impact, particularly on spawn-on-kelp prices, of the creation of additional spawn-on-kelp licences following the 1997 and 1998 season, and if so, what were the findings and recommendations of each review and what action was taken to implement the recommendations of each review; and (h) what criteria were used to establish that additional spawn-on-kelp licences were required in 1997 and 1998; did the minister of fisheries or his department consider the impact the additional licences would have on existing licence holders and on the public right; has an assessment been made of the impact on the existing licence holders and the public right since the creation of the additional licences?

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a few brief remarks with regard to this bill before us which amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act. I understand the purpose of Bill C-27 is to amend domestic legislation to implement an international agreement on the conservation and long term sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory species.

The background of the legislation is interesting. In the first instance the legislation was brought forward in the last parliament by the former fisheries minister, a member from Newfoundland. That was on April 17, 1997. It died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

There is one item among many in the bill that I want to address which causes me some concern. It is the notion that the fisheries enforcement officials are inhibited if they attempt to enforce conservation laws outside Canada's 200 mile limit. The predecessor to this bill, Bill C-96, did not require the express consent of participating states in order for Canadian officials to take enforcement action. In other words, if a foreign vessel was operating in a way that was contrary to Canadian law outside our 200 mile limit, on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks for example, Canadian vessels would have been able to take enforcement action under that bill.

That particular part of the legislation was one that Canadians were quite proud of achieving. I would like to give a little history on how that came about.

I was fortunate enough to attend the UN on two instances when the convention on straddling stocks and migratory species was being discussed. At that time one of the concerns Canadians had was that they would not be able to apprehend a vessel which was in violation of Canadian conservation laws if it was outside the 200 mile limit.

Members will recall the shameful incident of the Minister of Fisheries in the previous government, the current premier of Newfoundland, firing upon an unarmed fishing vessel in the north Atlantic. I say shameful because he was not firing on a military vessel but he was firing on an unarmed vessel which was manned by some poor fishermen from Spain, men who were making just a few thousand dollars for five months work in the north Atlantic in very unpleasant conditions, guys just trying to make a living. Because we did not have some good legislation in place that would allow us to take enforcement actions or compel the people on the Estai to abide by our laws, this action was taken. The action was still inappropriate.

The later action of the former fisheries minister in attempting to sever the net from the vessel was just as inappropriate. He put at risk the lives of people not only on the coast guard vessel involved but also on that fishing vessel. Anybody who has any sense of the inherent danger of operating or working on the ocean knows that you do not play around like that man did.

I think it was shameful. I thought it was shameful at the time, and I still do. I do not want to see it happen again. The act will not prevent that kind of action. It simply will not do it because we have given up the right. How did we give it up?

I mentioned that I had been at the UN when this was being discussed. The Canadian negotiators were absolutely delighted with one item. They got U.S. consent to allow U.S. vessels to be boarded if they were in violation of conservation laws off the shore of any country, outside the 200 mile limit of any country.

The Americans were very reluctant to allow that to happen. They could not abide the thought that some foreign nation would be able to board their vessels and enforce some conservation laws, but they did come to the table and they agreed that they would do that. The pressure came from the non-governmental organizations in the United States. It did not come from the legislators, but from the non-governmental organizations which are concerned about conservation matters.

The Canadian delegation felt that they had achieved a great victory when they got this consent from the Americans. Back in Canada those of us in parliament and on the committee as well as those who are interested felt a great victory had been achieved as well. We felt that if a foreign vessel was operating in a manner that was detrimental to the welfare of fish stocks outside Canada's 200 mile limit on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, Canadian vessels would have the authority to apprehend. They do not have it now, but they would have had that authority.

We know that Canada is not too proud of its actions at the time of the Estai . We know that Canada knows it was operating outside the law. When the Spanish people took that matter to the World Court at The Hague, Canada refused to square off in the courtroom. Canada said no, it was not going. The court's jurisdiction did not apply because Canada would not agree.

We have problems with the Americans. We would like to get the Americans into the court at The Hague and square off with them over the problem of the A/B line in B.C. or over the problem with the salmon, but they will not go. They can always say that as Canada did not go in the case of the Estai , why should the Americans go on this issue when they think they may lose. That is the problem. If we violate international law, it is pretty hard to take the high ground and ask somebody else to abide by it when we will not.

What we needed to do in this bill was to ensure that Canada would have the authority to enforce its conservation laws outside our 200 mile limit when the laws were being broken by a foreign vessel. Without that, this whole thing really is worthless.

In talking about this point and the actions of the premier of Newfoundland up to that point I think Canada was inching slowly toward the notion of not just having control of the seabed on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, but also the water column. That is important to be able to enforce fisheries laws beyond the 200 mile limit on the nose and tail. Up until the Estai incident, we were making some progress in staking our claim to the water column as well as the seabed. That initiative really has died as a result of the Estai incident and we still suffer.

We see that with this bill the government has backed away from an important concession it got from the Americans, an important concession that it won at the UN in my understanding of it, by not insisting in the bill that we would have the authority to arrest foreign vessels which are violating our conservation laws beyond the 200 mile limit.

I do not think this bill is worth the time we are taking to discuss it. This morning the member for Sydney—Victoria commented about what he referred to as a diversion when we were talking about a private member's bill on consecutive sentencing. He said we were taking away from the debate on an important fisheries bill.

This bill is not important because it is not doing the job. It is not doing the job because this government caved in. To whom I do not know. It caved in on the important concession it had won at the UN, that we would have had the ability to force conservation laws outside our 200 mile limit on the straddling stocks and migratory species. We do not have it in this bill. The bill is not worth wasting time on until we do get it.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the deal is signed but I want to tell the House what the problem is. The department of Indian affairs and the department of fisheries cannot agree on what the treaty means for fish.

Why did this government sign a deal when it did not know what it meant? Why is it prepared to ram it through parliament without knowing what it means?