House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 46% of the vote.
The Environment November 10th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member is having problems with is that this is a government of action. This is the government that tabled the clean air act. We are moving from voluntary to mandatory.
That member was part of a government that did nothing. Will she finally do the right thing and support a government that is a government of action on the environment?
The Environment November 10th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, talking about money, all Canadians know that for 13 years the Liberals did nothing and they wasted $1.6 billion.
I would ask that member to stand up right now because we have been waiting a long time for an apology for wasting money and not doing anything on the environment.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act November 8th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-285. I followed the debate with interest and I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.
I share the views expressed by my Conservative and Liberal colleagues, who argue that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation should stay the course in terms of prudently managing its self-sustaining commercial activities.
As the House has heard before, 100% of CMHC's surplus relates to the self-sustaining activities and CMHC has a mandate to operate its insurance and securitization activities in a commercially viable manner. To do that, it sets aside capital reserve to ensure that sufficient capital is available to meet future risks.
Let me illustrate this with actual figures. In 2005 CMHC capital reserve was 1.2% of the outstanding mortgages it had insured. More specific, that is $3.4 billion against $274 billion in insured mortgages. This is consistent with directions set for private sector insurers by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
Also, CMHC's surplus, including amounts set aside for capitalization, forms part of the Government of Canada's accounts and is included in the calculation of the government's surplus or deficit position. This means that both budgeted and actual federal annual surplus figures include CMHC's net income. CMHC's retained earnings have serviced to reduce the government's accumulated deficit over time.
Beyond the arguments regarding prudent financial management, Bill C-285 would also mandate a rigid approach to housing policy, an approach that would not serve the interests of Canadians as it would legislatively mandate housing investments without regard to the current need of Canadians and how those needs may evolve.
Moreover, the bill would distribute funds to provinces on a per capita basis, thus ignoring the needs of aboriginal people, whose housing conditions remain well below those of most Canadians. Housing supply shortfalls, crowding and inadequate housing on reserves in the north and remote communities are of particular concern.
Our first budget recognized these needs and investments in a $300 million northern housing trust and a $300 million off reserve aboriginal housing trust. This new funding will be a source of housing solutions for aboriginals and will address the cost of housing and extent of housing needs in the far north. In addition, the budget also included an investment of $450 million over two years for education, water services and housing on reserves, as well as to generally improve social economic outcomes for aboriginal women, children and families.
Most Canadians never have to wonder whether they have a safe warm place to come home to. However, many segments of our population are in need of safe and adequate housing.
Let me take this opportunity to highlight some of the innovative ways the Government of Canada through CMHC is dealing with some of the issues addressed in Bill C-285.
Imagine, for example, a single mother who is fleeing from domestic violence, trying to raise three small children in a shelter or cramped studio apartment. CMHC's shelter enhancement program assists in repairing, rehabilitating and improving existing shelters for women and their children, youth and men who are victims of family violence. Through its assisted housing programs, CMHC can provide people affected by violence a way of transition out of the shelters when they are ready.
Seniors are a fast growing segment of the Canadian population. Many senior citizens want the simple dignity of being able to stay independently in the house that they have come to call their home for over 30 years. CMHC home adaptations for seniors independence program helps homeowners and landlords pay for minor home adaptations. This means that seniors with low to medium incomes can continue living in their homes longer.
These are just a few examples of how the Government of Canada, through CMHC, is already tackling the issues addressed by Bill C-285.
Moreover, I would like to remind the member for Québec that we also are taking concrete action on housing renovations. Our housing strategies seek to maintain the existing affordable housing stock in addition to creating new units. In this regard, funding for the residential rehabilitation assistance program and several related housing renovation and adaptation programs has been renewed for 2006-07 at a cost of $128.1 million.
Using these figures once again to illustrate the impact of these programs, in 2005-06, 12,150 units were rehabilitated, close to 3,000 units were repaired on an emergency basis, some 1,220 shelters for victims of family violence were renovated, and 1,945 seniors were helped to live independently.
The Bloc Québécois has suggested during this debate that spending approximately $2 billion per year primarily in support of some 644 households is not good enough. I would like to remind the Bloc that we are in fact in the process of delivering on the $1 billion affordable housing initiative in collaboration with provincial, territorial and local partners. Thanks to that funding, new affordable housing is being created in communities across this country as we speak.
As of June 2006, over $659 million has been committed or announced to create a total of over 27,000 new units of affordable housing. Through agreements with each province and territory, this funding is being used to create affordable housing for a wide range of Canadians, including seniors, persons with disabilities, new immigrants and low income families. Recognizing the importance of affordable housing, the 2006 federal budget also provided for an investment of $600 million to help increase the supply of affordable housing.
These are all examples of programs and investments that meet the changing housing needs of Canadians. They are in place because, as parliamentarians, we have the ability to ensure that our housing investments do in fact respond to the changing housing needs over time while delivering results and targeting those most in need. In contrast, Bill C-285 would force CMHC and future Parliaments into a rigid, inflexible stance on the question of budgetary reserves.
I have to say that I agree with the Liberal member for Cardigan who stated during the first hour of debate that this bill is problematic from an accountability perspective, noting that it would eliminate parliamentary review of housing expenditures. The hon. member for Cardigan also briefly highlighted the fact that Bill C-285 is problematic in terms of equity of distribution, as he put it.
The federal government has an important role to play in ensuring that the housing needs of Canadians, which are so different from region to region, are adequately met. How would an automatic annual per capita distribution of funds to provinces and territories ensure that federal housing dollars are delivering results where they are most needed? Clearly Bill C-285 would take away the government's ability to be responsive to the changing and diverse housing needs of Canadians. We would not only in effect be tying the hands of future governments, we would also be weakening CMHC's ability to adapt to changing market conditions and to address the true needs of Canadians.
It is for the aforementioned reasons that I urge all hon. colleagues to join me in doing the right thing and voting against Bill C-285.
Petitions November 8th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition today from residents in my riding of Langley. They call upon Parliament to reopen the issue of marriage and to repeal or amend the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act in order to promote and defend marriage as the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Canada-EU Summit November 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that we are part of the Kyoto protocol. Canada is participating in a dialogue with the international community on how to address climate change after the first commitment period when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012.
It is only prudent for all countries to take this opportunity to discuss what is working well or what is not. I encourage the hon. member to stop obstructing the government. We need a clean air act and we need participation.
Canada-EU Summit November 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, over the next two weeks in Nairobi, at the UN conference on climate change, countries will be discussing how we can review the Kyoto protocol. That is an important agenda. We truly need to have a global response to see what worked and what did not.
We obviously know the Liberals did not work for the environment. Why would the Bloc support a nil plan?
The Environment November 3rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, over the next two weeks, in Nairobi at the UN climate change conference, one of the issues countries will be dealing with and discussing is how we can review the Kyoto protocol. It is an important agenda. It will include discussing what has worked and what has not. We all know the Liberal plan, which the Bloc is supporting, did not work.
Business of Supply November 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a short story because I know I do not have a lot of time. I am going to ask the hon. member to share a different perspective.
My father is 84 years old. He fought in the second world war, as did his brothers, my uncles. My father was a tank instructor. He was in ordinance originally, and was on a motorcycle and worked his way through different parts. He was from Edmonton.
His name is Eddy Warawa. I am very proud of this man. He got married, moved to British Columbia with my mom, and they had four children and I am one of those children. He is a man of great respect. He has worked hard over the years.
It was about four years ago that he had a serious heart operation and he needed to go into rest home. Our family is not a rich family. He is an honest man. He has worked hard all his life and is proud of Canada, as are his brothers. The brothers served in the navy. The whole family made it back from the war. We are very thankful for that.
In these later years, as I have been losing my uncles, who have been passing on, I have now been able to get some of the stories that they did not talk about before.
The point I want to come to is how the Canadian government treated these veterans. I hear first-hand. I am not hearing second-hand or third-hand. It is my father. These are my uncles and they have nothing but praise for the Government of Canada in the way they have been treated as veterans. They are proud of this country and they are proud of the way they have been treated.
My father needed some help. Financially, he was not able to stay in this private rest home after his heart operation. We contacted Veterans Affairs Canada. He is at George Derby. He is receiving wonderful care. He has nothing but praise as a Canadian veterans and the way he has been treated.
I ask the member to look at a different perspective. Do not beat the desk. Tell us what Canada has done for veterans. Tells us good stories, not just the bad because there are both.
The Environment November 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the hon. member not doing his homework. Nothing prevents the Montreal Exchange from establishing a carbon credit along the lines that currently exist in Chicago. The notice of intent that we released last week explicitly mentions carbon trading as one of the issues we will be consulting on. I encourage the member to do his homework and read the notice of intent.
The Environment November 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, we see the hon. member puff out his chest and act like he supports the environment, but in reality the hon. member owes the House an apology. Today he voted against the environment. He voted against cleaning up the air. He owes the House an apology.