Olivia Chow

[Bank Act, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when the former Liberal government sent troops into the southern part of Afghanistan for an operation called Operation Enduring Freedom, there was no debate in the House. There was no vote. There was no analysis of the cost. There was no reporting back to the House of Commons. There was no discussion whatsoever with the Canadian public.

There absolutely has to be some accounting for why billions of dollars have been spent in Afghanistan. There was absolutely no debate here in the House of Commons provided by the former government.

How can the member talk about democracy when there was not even a vote last summer in the House when troops were sent to southern Afghanistan, into Kandahar?

[Bank Act, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the last six years while the Liberals were in government the total debt load carried by Canadians grew by 50%, the median load 38% to $44,500 per family. The line of credit debt grew more than double to $68 billion and the median line of credit debt jumped 56% to $9,000. For average Canadians that means almost $14 in debt for every $100 in assets. That is a huge jump.

The Government of Canada is loading the debt onto ordinary Canadians. Whether they are students who are graduating with $20,000 in student loans and they are carrying that debt, or ordinary families, that debt load has jumped by 50%.

For 12 years the Liberals did nothing to cap the credit card rates. Would the member be willing to support the NDP motion to begin to cap credit card interest rates at 5%? There is absolutely no reason when the prime rate right now is 6% that the credit card interest rate would be 17% to 18%. Ordinary Canadians are being gouged. Would the member support an NDP initiative to cap credit card interest rates?

[Bank Act, December 7th, 2006]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I do know that quite well because I remember opposing the amendments to the National Housing Act in 1998 that were put through by the former prime minister. Why did I oppose them? I opposed them because they concerned the commercialization of CMHC.

On the cover ratio, CMHC has $5 billion in its reserve fund. Surely it does not need $5 billion in the coverage ratio. The surplus has grown tremendously. Even if we take one-fifth of it, or 20% of it, we could use those funds to start creating some affordable housing.

The amendments that were put through in 1998 in the National Housing Act limited the role of CMHC in working with municipalities and community based housing providers, which prevented them from developing innovative new ways to create desperately needed affordable housing. At the same time, the amendments opened CMHC's mortgage insurance business to the private sector, which is what it is doing now.

What was started with the former prime minister is now being continued, and both of those trends are very bad trends.

In other countries around the world, their equivalent of CMHC provides that kind of bases. Every time mortgage interest rates go down, they take the money that is gained from that lower interest rate and reinvest it into building new affordable housing.

It has been done in Hong Kong, in Britain and in many parts of the world. It is only in Canada that we have a very reactive and negative way of dealing with CMHC. As a result, very few affordable houses were built after 1994-95 when the national housing program was cancelled.

I lament the complete walking away of the government from its responsibility of building affordable housing. It started with the former prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, and later on the former Liberal prime minister continued that trend and continued to cancel the national housing program.

[Bank Act, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 is squeezing CMHC out. CMHC is being forced to share this business.

If that happens, it means that CMHC will not continue to garner the money as it has been collecting in the last few years. It means that it will not have a large reserve fund. It also means that CMHC will not have the funds it needs to assist a lot of the co-operatives or social housing units that are now quite old and need repair and maintenance. These housing co-ops, these existing affordable housing units need the funds from CMHC to assist in maintaining their buildings. If CMHC does not assist, then some of these co-operatives and some of these affordable housing units may end up going bankrupt and, therefore, we would be shutting down on some of these affordable housing units.

If CMHC has no funding left because of the privatization that is in front of us, it will not be able to provide funds to assist some of these co-operatives that are now in need of taking more funds to subsidize some of the tenants. The tenants need quite a bit of subsidies as they cannot pay market rents. If the tenants were asked to pay market rents, they would not be able to afford some of these co-operatives. The co-operatives are looking to CMHC to fix the section 95 question but for CMHC to be able to do that it needs a pool of money.

As I said earlier, CMHC does have $5 billion at this point but it needs to spend those funds to help build affordable housing, to assist co-ops, to bring in more subsidized units and to maintain and repair some of the older cooperatives.

All of that is required and that is what we need to do, which is why I believe we should strike out the part in this bill that would commercialize or privatize CMHC.

[Bank Act, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you to speak on behalf of Canada's banks. Yes, that is right, I am empowered to speak on their behalf. I am in fact their member of Parliament. Canada's major banks and most of the insurance companies all have their dazzling, beautiful towers in my riding of Trinity—Spadina. So does the Toronto Stock Exchange, at the fabled intersection of King and Bay.

I am their member of Parliament, so I must speak up on their behalf.

Technically they are not citizens and do not have a vote, although they have certainly bought plenty of influence with the government over the years. They have poured, I am told, thousands of dollars into the coffers of the Liberals and the Conservatives, though none to the NDP, I must admit, and none to my campaign in the last election.

However, I am fair. I represent every constituent. The banks are constituents. If we read their annual reports and corporate responsibility statements, we see that they all claim to want to be good corporate citizens. I am here to plead on their behalf, to encourage members to help them to be good corporate citizens, to consider the bank act amendments as a golden opportunity to help the banks come to terms with their role and to help further the role of government in fostering a healthy economy and economic opportunity, prosperity and security for every single Canadian.

That is what the banks say they want, so let us help them. Let us show them how they can do a better job and enshrine the right regulations in legislation to keep them from going astray of their ideals. Let us ensure they are guided to make the best possible investments, and investments in Canada, not in offshore tax havens.

Let us ensure that we protect the sovereignty of the financial system that is so important to our independence and role in the world. That would be good citizenship.

The banks have grown and prospered. Surely citizenship demands reinvestment in every geographic region, community and sector, and for all Canadians, regardless of income level.

My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, has already pointed to the problems in many communities. They have been abandoned by the big banks. They are denied fair and equal access to banking services. This is the result of mergers. We need to protect against this and help banks fulfill their duties as corporate citizens.

Bank charters provide a protected privilege, but Canadians are owed something for this privilege. Let us ensure availability and access. Banks used to pride themselves on the fact that it costs the same for services in Yellowknife as it does at King and Bay. My constituents demand it. Let us ensure that bank profits are fair and fairly taxed. That would help.

Let us look at credit card rates. As I said earlier, this bill is an opportunity for renewal and change in the way banks work with Canadians. Canadians, particularly low income Canadians, are gouged daily by ridiculously high credit card interest rates. The gap between the prime lending rate and the rate most credit cards charge has never been bigger. It is time to cap credit card interest rates to five points above the prime rate. Five points is quite a lot.

The prime rate today sits around 6%. At the same time, the banks are charging upward of 18% to 19% for credit card interest. It is time to reduce the interest paid on the almost $44 billion in credit card debt owed by average Canadians. That is right: $44 billion. That is higher than Brian Mulroney's record federal deficit in 1992-93. I would like everyone to remember that. A $44 billion debt is carried by average Canadians because of huge credit card interest rates.

The Liberals refused to protect consumers from outlandishly high credit card rates. They argued that there were lower credit card rates available elsewhere. However, far too often, lower income people who have poor credit ratings cannot qualify for these lower interest cards. This is the time for the government to take real action to protect average working families from high interest rates and real action to improve our national economy by improving the disposable income of average Canadians.

There is simply no justification for maintaining high credit card interest rates during this period of steady and declining interest rates, thus making the need to cap credit card rates at 5% above prime a necessity today.

I also want to speak about affordable housing and mortgage insurance, which is also part of Bill C-37. I noticed that deep within this bill are amendments to the National Housing Act, the act that legislates the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

The former prime minister, as part of his government-wide commercialization initiatives in the 1990s, steered through some amendments to the National Housing Act in 1998 that were widely opposed by affordable housing advocates and cities.

Those amendments limited the role of CMHC in working with municipalities and community based housing providers in developing innovative new ways to create desperately needed new affordable homes, while at the same time opening the CMHC mortgage insurance business to the private sector.

Mortgage insurance has been very lucrative as Canada's housing market has been secure for the most part. Because of the Liberal era restrictions on CMHC, the housing corporation has been generating huge surpluses without being able to spend those on new affordable homes. In fact, we know the surplus to be $5 billion. Basically, it is taking this money, billions of dollars in premiums, and paying out almost nothing. We know that affordable homes are desperately needed in cities across Canada.

What this bill does is further commercialize or privatize CMHC. That includes opening mortgage insurance business to even more private sector businesses. The problem with this is that it cuts into the lucrative and desperately needed revenue stream for CMHC. This stands, even though it has not been able to invest this revenue, which makes it almost impossible for CMHC to gain any more future dollars.

The current amendments appear to seek to further privatize CMHC, and we must oppose that. CMHC has made a lot of money in recent years and has been providing good service at a reasonable cost and every bit as efficient as the private sector. There is no reason that CMHC should be squeezed out or forced to share this business at all.

We should be able take the funds that are in CMHC and use those funds to build more affordable housing. It is good for our economy and it is good for Canada. We know that we need to invest and we need to change the previous Liberal government policy and allow CMHC to invest a portion of its mortgage insurance earnings into building affordable homes.

We heard earlier today that the affordable housing crisis is something that brings our country together. We are in a desperate situation and we must build affordable housing. We are seeing increased homelessness, massive housing insecurity and substandard housing which, in turn, is leading to a heavy burden on individuals and massive disruptions of communities and local economies and increased costs for government.

We also need to look into small business lending, at service charges and at huge profitability and ask if it might be time to look at the concentration in the financial district, a district that graces my riding. We also need to look at employment, as well as at the loan shops that are popping up in poor neighbourhoods. We need to look at all of those things.

We need to address the act and give it a total overhaul for the good of my bank constituents, for Canadians and for the country. We have the opportunity right now with Bill C-37 to reform the Bank Act and we should take this opportunity. We should not just tinker with the Bank Act. We need to reshape it to reflect current realities and future opportunities right here and now in Canada.

[Petitions, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from over 1,000 young people who call on Parliament to allow them to participate overseas as volunteers.

They point out that over 40 countries worldwide rely on young people to assist them. By going overseas these young people acquire another language to better appreciate Canada's rich cultural diversity. They would also learn different cultures and respect different values. This is a very important experience that young people should have, and Parliament should ensure there is legislation and funding to allow them to participate as volunteers in Canada and overseas.

[Petitions, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first petition is from thousands of Canadians who are asking that Parliament allow the American-Iraq war resisters stay in Canada. The petitioners believe there is a moral choice for Canada, which is to give refuge to those who refuse to be accomplices in a U.S. led war in Iraq. If we were to reject war resisters, they would be returned to the United States, face incarceration, and possibly even the death penalty. Therefore, Canada should not facilitate the persecution of American war objectors by returning them to the United States.

[Marriage, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we did not need to have this debate when people are dying in Afghanistan, when children go to bed hungry in different parts of Canada and when climate change is threatening our very future. There are many more important issues for us to tackle here in Parliament.

Why are we even contemplating taking away the rights of anyone, the right to love and to make a lifelong commitment, the right to share the challenges, joys and commitments of marriage? What do the hon. members who say they are defenders of traditional marriage think they are trying to prove?

We are in this House to serve the people and to protect the charters and Canadian ideals of equality. We are in this House to serve and to fight injustice. We are not in this House to limit the rights of any citizen.

Gays and lesbians have the right to serve this country. They have the right to serve in the military. They have the right to serve the public as members of Parliament. They have that right, as they should, as they all should. They are not second-class citizens. This is a country that attracts visitors from around the world because we believe there are no second-class citizens. We believe that everyone can lead a life of respect.

Why would any member of the House dishonour Canada's greatest quality and demean this country by calling for second-class citizenship for anyone?

At my own wedding two decades ago, my partner and I called out for recognition of same sex marriage. We could not understand why our gay and lesbian friends could not find the joy of expression, that freedom of expression that we had that day. We did not see same sex marriage as a threat to our marriage or anyone else's. We saw it simply as an affirmation of love.

Since then, we have had the privilege of seeing Canada take the lead in the world. We have taken the lead in this truest test of a society; the dignity and respect we accord all citizens. We have taken the lead and that should fill every member of the House with joy and pride.

I have had the pride and joy of attending many same sex weddings, from the very first one which was performed at Toronto's city hall when I was a city councillor. It was the marriage of Michael and Michael, followed by Alison and her partner. There were tears of joy, of relief and of celebration that finally the couple could stand tall in front of their families, friends, neighbours and the communities and they recognized the respect for the commitment with each other. What a moment it was, the smiles on everyone's faces, radiant to all participants and even to bystanders who happened to walk by. It warmed everyone's heart. How could it possibly be wrong when there is so much love involved?

Some members of Parliament used the UN declaration of rights of children as an example that somehow this is wrong. The UN declaration for the rights of children said that there needs to be housing, food and shelter and the right to be respected. Yes, the right to be respected. Every kid's parents, whether it is mom and mom or dad and dad, should be respected. Children need to feel proud of who they are.

I want to talk about another occasion at Toronto city hall when many Americans came to Canada to get married. It was a joyous and amazing occasion for them to finally have a chance to fulfil their lifelong dream. At one moment someone stood up and started singing O Canada. It just spread. There was that sense of pride among Canadians that finally Canada was standing up for equality.

I wish every member of the House, all the Conservatives and some Liberals, who seem to think that same sex marriage is somehow wrong, would join me in standing up for equality and sharing that love. I ask them to open their eyes, their minds and their hearts because the joyful expression of love and commitment harms no one. It is a positive force.

This debate demeans this House. We must put this matter to rest, as Parliament already decided two years ago and as the courts decided. Instead of taking the time of this House to try to stigmatize loving people, we need to get to work on fighting injustices in our world and stopping pollution. We should not tolerate intolerance. We must remember that if we take the rights of someone else, we jeopardize our own.

We must keep moving Canada forward, not backward. Let us celebrate loving commitments, not demonize them. Let us move on.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Assembly of First Nations held a powwow in my riding of Trinity—Spadina. Its focus was on the tragedy of child poverty.

One in six children in Canada lives in poverty. For aboriginal children, especially off reserve, it is even more heartbreaking. It is 40%, close to half. Not only do they go to bed hungry but a third of aboriginal children do not even have safe drinking water. This is a national disgrace.

Every beat of the drum at the powwow was a call to action for the House. Enough talk, enough platitudes, enough reports and enough commissions. It is time for action; action to support parents, action to share resources and settle land claims fairly, action to remove funding caps so there is more money for the communities and action to make poverty history.

That is our responsibility in the House. We have the power to do it. Let us hear the drumbeat and take action.

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we know the federal wait times adviser said that there should be much greater use of the information technology, including electronic patient records. He also said that health administrators should use the latest techniques developed by industry to manage complex systems, including a branch of methods known as the queueing theory.

Other suggestions include a public awareness program to give people realistic expectations and to have a panel recommend additional wait time benchmarks beyond the five priority areas. There is also a recommendation that we pay attention to gender issues, that women often wait longer than men for care and that there are reasons to believe that aboriginal people may not be getting care as promptly as others.

I would like to know what kind of action is being taken to implement these recommendations, especially when it talks about children who need mental health services often having to wait the longest time with the most tragic results because of that. Could there be a description of what kind of--