1999-05-07

Government Orders
National Housing ActHon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): 
moved that Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act at third reading.
I would like to begin by congratulating members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations for their hard work on this bill. I would also like to congratulate and thank my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, the member for Mississauga Centre, for the work she did in leading this bill through the House and committee.
On March 11, my colleague said that the proposed amendments support the Government of Canada's efforts to make government more efficient and provide better service to Canadians.
The benefits of this bill are threefold. Canadians will benefit from these changes because CMHC will be able to respond to shifts in consumer demand and market conditions. They will also benefit from the availability of low cost funds and access to mortgage financing no matter where they live in Canada.
Second, CMHC will be able to better promote Canadian housing products and services abroad. This will result in job opportunities for Canadians, here and abroad.
Third, CMHC will be able to provide better service to Canadians.
Every one of CMHC's core activities, whether it is mortgage loan insurance, assistance for housing for low income Canadians, housing research or export promotion, works in support of the Government of Canada's objectives for the housing industry. Over the years CMHC has been involved in every aspect of housing, from building units, to direct financing, community planning, mortgage insurance and now trade development.
The achievements of CMHC have brought enormous benefits to Canada and indeed to many of our own families and communities.
Through partnerships among all levels of governments, community organizations and the private sector, we work to allow Canadians to obtain the shelter they need.
One of the most important aspects of these amendments is the inclusion of the public policy mandate for CMHC's mortgage loan insurance.
This change will provide access to mortgage financing at the lowest possible cost for all Canadians, regardless of where they live in Canada.
This new legislation will remove unnecessary restrictions to CMHC's mortgage loan insurance business. This enhanced flexibility will enable the corporation to respond to the housing needs of Canadians more effectively. With these changes CMHC will be a more competitive and a more innovative mortgage insurer.
The legislation will allow CMHC to operate its mortgage loan insurance program on a more commercial basis. This will ensure that CMHC is able to compete fairly and effectively with any private mortgage insurer, while enabling CMHC to fulfill its public policy objectives.
By guaranteeing competition in this sector, we can ensure that Canadians have access to the best possible price, and a greater number of choices in home financing products. Furthermore, they will benefit from the availability of low-cost funds and access to mortgage financing no matter where they live in Canada.
With the introduction of its 5% down payment program, CMHC is already an industry leader. Originally a program for first-time homebuyers, repeat purchasers can now also take advantage of this popular program.
I would like to give the House an idea of just how many Canadians depend on this mortgage loan insurance product to fulfill their dream of owning a home. Since its introduction, over 600,000 Canadians have used CMHC's 5% program to buy their first home. Surveys show that 70% of these buyers could not have purchased their home at that time without the reduced down payment option.
Overall, in the past year alone, CMHC has helped Canadians gain access to over 300,000 homes with the use of mortgage loan insurance.
This was done at no cost to the government. In fact, CMHC policy requires that it be self-financing, relying solely on the premiums and fees it charges over the long run.
With the introduction of CMHC's electronic mortgage loan insurance approval system, known as EMILI, most loans can be approved in one hour or less and in most cases within minutes.
The EMILI system has now been expanded to include new houses, to the benefit of builders, lenders, and consumers alike. That means Canadians can become homeowners much faster and much easier.
This automated system is just one example of how CMHC is working with various members of the housing industry, in this case financial institutions, brokers and realtors, to contribute to the health of the sector. In recent years CMHC has been approached to support many innovative and original home financing products. Unfortunately, under the current National Housing Act, CMHC has not been able to bring the benefits of some of these new types of home financing products to the marketplace.
Once the new NHA legislation is in place, CMHC may consider products such as reverse equity mortgages. This flexible new product allows older homeowners to use the equity in their homes to obtain funds while allowing them to continue to live in their homes.
We all know that the availability of affordable, accessible housing is a critical factor in enabling seniors to live independently, and to remain active members of the community.
CMHC would also be able to develop non-mortgage financing for remote areas where the land registry system does not facilitate mortgages. It would also facilitate similar financing arrangements on Indian reserves where restrictions exist on providing land as security for mortgages.
CMHC mortgage loan insurance has not only helped Canadians become homeowners, it has also been the key to the health of the housing industry in Canada. By fully protecting lenders against default on the part of borrowers, mortgage loan insurance encourages investment in residential construction which results in the creation of numerous jobs in this key sector of our economy.
For every $100 million spent on construction, 1,500 person years of employment are created both directly and indirectly. Behind every construction worker are many other workers producing materials needed to build a home.
With this new legislation, CMHC will also be able to better respond to opportunities within national and international markets.
These proposed amendments will further increase the corporation's success in housing export promotion. Reaching out to foreign markets will mean opportunities for Canadian businesses and jobs for Canadians.
For example, by working with the housing industry on projects such as demonstration homes, CMHC will be able to contribute to the industry's marketing efforts.
The timing for these business development efforts could not be better. Around the globe, the total demand for housing is in the tens of millions of units per year. Looking at this figure, it is obvious that there is great potential in a number of untapped markets.
This is where Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can help. These amendments will work to further increase its ability to develop international links through its membership in team Canada. They will also reinforce CMHC's ongoing commitment to provide assistance to foreign countries through the establishment of sound housing systems and building practices.
With the help of CMHC through its export promotion role, the thousands of firms that make up the Canadian housing industry can become even bigger players in international trade. Canadian entrepreneurs will be able to look to CMHC for marketing support in projects overseas.
As a result of these amendments, export promotion will become an increasingly important component of CMHC's research and transfer activities.
It is an area that holds considerable promise for expanding business opportunities for our housing industry while still promoting employment opportunities for Canadians.
The proposed amendments will enhance CMHC's ability to play a role as a promoter, facilitator and adviser in the field of export, as well as in the field of housing.
For more than 50 years, our corporation has played a vital role in helping Canadians to become homeowners. It has made an important contribution to the growth of the entire economy and the key sector of construction. It has also been a leader in research.
For all these reasons, I urge members to pass this bill so that the corporation can grow and develop in this new era of globalization, while continuing to serve the housing needs of Canadians.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on third and final reading of Bill C-66 with many concerns.
The government made claim to a bill that was to level the playing field between CMHC and the private sector and to make the mortgage insurance industry more competitive. The government promoted this bill as legislation which would strengthen Canada's housing agency, CMHC, and thereby strengthen its ability to carry out its mandate of administering to Canadians' housing needs. I feel it has done neither and that this exercise has been all the more regrettable because the government had ample input and opportunity to make a better piece of legislation.
The Reform Party opposes Bill C-66 for the following reasons. The bill does not accomplish what it sets out to do, namely, create a more level playing field with the private sector. Reform policy states that where the private sector demonstrates an ability, the government should not compete with the private sector.
The testimony of private sector witnesses before the standing committee was not acted upon and thereby rendered the legislative process ineffective. Further, the private sector's valid suggestions and proposed amendments on ways to improve the bill were systematically ignored by the minister and therefore the government which rendered the democratic process itself ineffective.
Finally, while the bill partially recognizes that housing policy would be carried out more effectively by the provinces, it does not go far enough. As a result of being vague about responsibility, a clear and concise national housing policy continues to be lacking and therefore puts Canada's housing policy, particularly on social housing, in jeopardy.
I will now turn to private sector competition or the lack of it. The purpose of Bill C-66 as put forward by the government is to modernize CMHC by enabling it to respond in a more flexible manner to changes in the workplace. The government also claims that Bill C-66 will put CMHC and its private sector competitors on a more equal footing thereby levelling the playing field in the market of mortgage insurance.
The business of mortgage insurance has been in the hands of government for so long that it currently is responsible for 88% of the market share. At this time many consumers rely on the stability of the CMHC mortgage insurance fund. Without question Canadians have benefited from this program. Many who would not otherwise be able to own their own homes now do as a result of CMHC's mortgage insurance activity.
To say at this time that CMHC should get out of the mortgage insurance business would be premature. However Reform believes that we are witnessing a demonstration by the private sector of its capability in the area of mortgage insurance. This is an indication to Reform that its policy that governments should not compete with the private sector where the private sector can do the job is on track.
However given CMHC's long history in this area of activity and the necessity to protect the stability of the mortgage insurance market, Reform would argue in favour of levelling the playing field so that the private sector can continue to demonstrate its ability to handle mortgage insurance activities effectively and competitively. In this way Canada will begin to create a stable mortgage insurance environment within the private sector.
We believe the private sector must be given an equal opportunity to capture more of the market share in the mortgage insurance business. This will create true competition, better prices and service to consumers and will encourage other private sector companies or competitors to enter the market. Is that not what it is about, better prices, better service to the consumer?
Bill C-66 does not accomplish the goal of levelling the playing field and continues to promote advantages in favour of CMHC over the private sector. It does so in several ways.
CMHC holds a 100% guarantee by the government on its mortgage insurance holdings. GE Capital, CMHC's private sector competitor, has only a 90% guarantee. Bill C-66 does not change this important inequity. Clearly the banks favour the 100% guarantee and therefore, despite good service from GE Capital, they favour mortgage insurance through CMHC. This is not a level playing field. This does not promote a competitive environment as the bill stated as a goal.
GE Capital cannot successfully introduce any new products into the marketplace because it does not have a 90% guarantee on such products, as is the case with CMHC. This means that the introduction of innovative products and services is prevented from entering the marketplace unless they are established by CMHC. This again does not create a level playing field for the private sector, nor a competitive environment for consumers.
Under Bill C-66 CMHC will now fund additional policy reserves and commence payment to the government based on capital and additional policy reserves. CMHC claims that it will do so because the private sector must do so under OSFI regulations. While the intent seems to be correct, the fee will not be calculated using the same formula that is used for private insurers and is therefore less than the fee private insurers must pay. This also does not level the playing field.
CMHC and GE Capital are governed by different legislation. GE Capital is regulated by OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, as a private insurance company whereas CMHC is not.
CMHC's corporate summary states that it wants to level the playing field where it says “CMHC needs to ensure that the basis for public private competition is fair, i.e., that CMHC has no unfair advantages”.
Clearly, Bill C-66 fails to accomplish that level playing field and therefore continues to promote an inequity to the advantage of CMHC. The failure of Bill C-66 to level the playing field between the public and private sector is a clear indication that a crown corporation cannot compete fairly with the private sector, a private sector that has clearly demonstrated it can carry out this kind of activity.
Although the government initially filled a void through CMHC's mortgage insurance fund, it is clear that there is room now for the private sector to assume more of this activity. It is both ready and willing.
What is the value of gradually devolving the government's involvement in such activity? It is that the private sector can grow, that the risk to government and the taxpayer is reduced, that the costs of government are reduced and that the marketplace is thriving on true competition. This does not mean that suddenly the marketplace is free to do as it pleases and that consumers are at risk. There are bodies such as OSFI in place to regulate such activity and to protect consumers.
The natural progression must be that government gets out of the business of the private sector where the private sector can show that it is capable. How can Canadians realize these benefits if the private sector is never given a truly fair opportunity to compete on the same level playing field and the government continues to prevent it from doing so?
I would suggest to the House that clearly the logical path toward the objective of levelling the playing field is not to continue to broaden the powers of CMHC and to make it more commercial. The logical path is to change our tack, to look at the private sector's abilities and in the long term to make the market more secure by allowing the private sector to be as strong as it can be.
In the interim we must ensure the market's stability by looking at CMHC and the private sector as partners rather than competitors. In this way through the pursuit of public-private partnership, governments can benefit from the knowledge of the private sector and the private sector can benefit from the work that the government has put in place. Government should not be competing with its own private sector. The government's ultimate objective should be to improve the economy by strengthening the private sector. Canadians can only benefit from this kind of approach.
I reiterate two reasons why Reform opposes this bill. The testimony of private sector witnesses before the standing committee was not acted upon and thereby rendered the legislative process ineffective. The private sector's valid suggestions and proposed amendments on ways to improve the bill were systematically ignored by the minister and therefore the government, which rendered the democratic process ineffective.
The government is very good at commenting on CMHC's willingness to work in partnership with the private sector, with non-profit organizations and non-government organizations but this was not demonstrated in the passage of this bill through the House.
Partnership relies on a willingness to co-operate. The actions of this government regarding Bill C-66 do not indicate a willingness to co-operate. The standing committee and members of the House outside of committee met with the private sector and non-governmental agencies that have a vested interest in ensuring that CMHC's mandate is sound and works to the benefit of all Canadians.
These groups came forward with many concrete ways in which to improve this bill and they were systematically ignored by the government. This was clearly demonstrated in committee when the suggestions for improvement by GE Capital, the Appraisal Institute of Canada and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada were ignored. Amendments put forward by opposition members were also ignored. When opposition members requested more time to deal with the bill, they too were ignored.
For the record, I wish to summarize some of the important suggestions and concerns put forward by these organizations.
The Co-operative Housing Federation asked the committee to consider the following questions: Will Bill C-66 impede the federal government from acting now or in the future to alleviate Canada's housing needs?
I would also like to point out that some of the considerations recently by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerned the shortage of housing in Nunavik and in the territory of Nunavut which are areas we have so far visited and about which we have heard many representations concerning the shortage there. I would add my concern to that concern.
Second, is it intended to allow the provincial governments to alter existing statutory requirements retroactively? If not, why does the bill empower CMHC to waive existing National Housing Act provisions for existing programs and to allow provinces in turn to waive them? These are serious questions which did not receive serious consideration. Yet, today we find ourselves at third reading and none of these concerns were acknowledged.
From the GE Capital Mortgage Insurance Company we heard requests made to provide the same level of guarantee to both public and private insurance; to extend the guarantee to new private insurance products, allowing private insurers to introduce products not offered by CMHC; to require CMHC to calculate payments to the government using a model comparable to that employed by other Canadian financial institutions; and to work to ensure that CMHC is answerable to the same restrictions and regulations as the private sector. These were legitimate concerns and workable requests that would have improved the bill but they were ignored.
From the Appraisal Institute of Canada we heard the following concern, that CMHC's growing emphasis on speedy approval for its lender clients to reflect a more commercial orientation has the potential to undermine public policy responsibilities by putting the high ratio mortgage insurance at risk. In particular, the Appraisal Institute had concerns about the lack of appraisals done by CMHC; their reliance on a computer system that does not incorporate actual appraisals by appraisers; and the fact that CMHC will now have the ability to vary the price of premiums according to the risk, thereby abandoning the policy that all Canadians should pay the same price and should not be discriminated against depending on where they choose to live. Again, these were valid concerns affecting us all that were not addressed.
These groups, every single one of them, had constructive ideas as to how we might improve the bill, but none of them were acted upon. What it shows us is that while the government is willing to promote partnership, it does not always act accordingly. If it did, it would have worked with these groups to make Bill C-66 a better bill. Instead, it has been intent only on the bill's passage so as to broaden the powers of an already powerful agency.
I would also like to state what our final main objection is to this bill. While the bill partially recognizes that housing policy would be carried out more effectively by the provinces, it does not go far enough. As a result of being vague about responsibility, a clear and concise national housing policy continues to be lacking and therefore puts Canada's housing policy, particularly social housing, in jeopardy.
First, let us be clear that CMHC plays a dual role and has dual functions. As well as its commercial activities, such as mortgage insurance, CMHC has the responsibility of carrying out the government's national housing policy by ensuring that all Canadians have access to affordable housing. Due to the latter, CMHC is heavily involved in aspects of social public housing, low income housing, residential rehabilitation, aboriginal housing, co-op housing and non-profit housing vehicles.
Here, too, the workings of CMHC would find a balance in a public-private partnership arrangement as there are many worthwhile organizations in Canada who work within and understand the social housing needs of Canadians. In order to facilitate this, however, in the most optimal, effective and cost-efficient manner, we must first be clear about which level of government is best suited to be responsible for housing in Canada. Where social housing is concerned we have seen the Liberal government pulling away from supporting social housing.
Since 1993, no new funding has been put aside for social housing needs and, as we have seen, the decline in Canada's housing stock through aging and other factors is causing a social housing shortage and challenging CMHC's mandate to provide not only affordable but quality housing to Canadians.
Despite evidence to the contrary, the government will not relinquish control of social housing to the levels of government that are most directly involved and active in meeting Canadians' housing needs. By way of example of the capability of the provinces and their municipal partners, I point to the recent reports that have been produced to address the growing housing concerns across the country, particularly the issue of homelessness.
I bring members' attention to Toronto's task force on the homeless and the British Columbia government's response to housing needs. In both cases these reports demonstrate an ability to recognize what is required and the ability to take action. In British Columbia, for instance, a 1992 amendment to its municipal act required that all municipalities include housing policies in their official community plan.
At those levels of government we see action on housing issues, not more talk. Despite the work that has been done, the federal government responded in its usual fashion according to the CMHC's five-year corporate plan:
CMHC plans to conduct a forum on best practices for addressing homelessness. This forum will bring together experts on the homeless, representatives of service providers and various levels of government to share information.
It is a cumbersome and long term approach to a problem that requires immediate action. Surely Toronto's task force does not need more time to talk. It has made its recommendations but it is a fact of life with government at the federal level. The federal government does not have the flexibility or the agility to act in a timely fashion and respond as well as levels of government that are closer to the people.
Canadians recognize this as well. That is why Reform's policy, supported by the grassroots of this country, states that housing should be the full responsibility of the provinces. The federal government is surely making a move in this direction by transferring the management of its social programs to the provinces but it is doing so very slowly.
Bill C-66 could have made great strides in this regard. However, it did not go far enough in moving housing responsibilities to the provinces and in fact confuses the issue by downloading some of its social housing responsibilities to the provinces while keeping others. The effect is a gap in social housing policy responsibility and a void where a solid national housing strategy should be.
Ultimately, the issues and requirements of social housing are not being met and Canada's social housing stock is in decline at a time when rejuvenation is needed. Reform would argue that it is time the federal government was clear about its role in administering a national housing policy and that ultimately one level of government should be responsible for it to ensure the needs of Canadians are being met.
The provinces, with support from their municipalities, have demonstrated a better understanding of the social housing needs of Canadians and are in the best position to ensure that Canadian needs are being met. It is time they were given the ability to move forward in this regard. Clearly they have demonstrated their ability.
The Reform Party regrets that the bill is not all it could be and that the government, intent on pushing it through, did so at the expense of input from many organizations in which support a better national housing policy for Canadians and a more vibrant marketplace for homebuyers. Like them, the Reform Party believes that housing is an extremely important and urgent issue, that more and more it calls for partnerships and the benefits of collective thinking between the public and private sectors. Bill C-66 did not promote this.
Canadians believe strongly in this country's ability to provide affordable and decent housing to everyone and it is a shame this government missed an ideal opportunity to create avenues that would strengthen housing policy in the country. It is time that a housing strategy, both clear and concise in its intent and its objectives, existed in Canada, that responsibilities are defined, accepted and acted upon, and that both public and private sectors are given the means to work together to ensure we reach our objectives.
The belief that making CMHC more commercial is the answer to the housing challenges we face in Canada is shortsighted and ultimately inadequate. Pinning all our hopes on one agency will not suffice. We need to recognize the abilities of Canada's private sector. We need to recognize there is a private sector out there willing to participate in the housing market. Its very involvement strengthens the economy. However, by competing with a crown corporation its chances of growing stronger are impeded, and so too then is the economy. Is it this government's intention to impede the growth of the economy?
We also need to recognize the value of partnership. We need to recognize that our national housing policy under the federal government has not been effective for some time. We need to recognize that there are other levels of government and organizations within the private sector willing to strengthen our national housing policy. We need to see that a national housing policy will thrive under the benefits of partnership and clear the roadblocks preventing those partnerships from working effectively.
Surely, if we have learned any one thing from debt and deficit woes it is that the federal government can no longer resolve our most important issues simply by opening the federal purse. The housing challenges that face us need much more than money. Solutions will require the participation of organizations and other levels of government which have the knowledge and capabilities of addressing Canadian housing needs. Yes, the needs of Canadians will be better served if those closest to the problems are in the driver's seat.
If we are to ensure that the housing needs of Canadians, particularly our social housing needs, are met then it is time to let Canadians build a better national housing policy. To do so will require much more courageous vision and much greater action than Bill C-66 provides.
The government made the claim that Bill C-66 would level the playing field between CMHC and the private sector and make the mortgage insurance industry more competitive, that it would strengthen Canada's housing agency CMHC and thereby strengthen its ability to carry out its mandate of administering to Canadians' housing needs. It has done neither.
Most regrettable of all, by failing to work with the organizations that came to the committee during the review of the bill and failing to recognize their knowledge, capabilities and expertise, the federal government has missed an ideal opportunity to improve housing policy in Canada.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-66.
With all due respect, I want to tell the minister right off the bat that we will be unable to support the bill. I do not want him to take it personally, but, as I will explain later, there is in this bill a potential for intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. This concerns us.
We are not against the fact that the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation will now be allowed to operate abroad. The minister wants to give CMHC a really commercial mandate. I believe we have already seem it a work in Chile, if I am not mistaken. A delegation headed by the minister travelled to that country. My colleague from Quebec was a member.
We understand CMHC, and builders, have a role to play in better promoting Quebec and Canadian housing know-how.
I will now sum up the proposed legislation for the benefit of those listeners who might have just joined us. Close to one million Canadians listen to the House of Commons debates.
The bill contains eight major elements. First, CMHC, the main representative of the federal government in housing, would be authorized to make housing loans to individuals, groups, organizations, municipalities, departments, federal or provincial agencies, a bit like a bank.
Some even compared CMHC to a bank.
CMHC will have new authority to set fees and charges for the products and services it provides.
There is also a third objective that we support: to allow CMHC to participate in research and development of housing internationally and to promote the export of Canadian expertise and products relating to housing.
This is, I believe, one truly important objective of this bill. Allow me to repeat that enabling CMHC to have a greater impact on international export markets is one of the positive aspects of the bill.
Another aspect is more problematic. I would ask the minister to take what I am about to say into consideration. CMHC will have the authority to make contributions relating to housing payments. Powers will also be given to CMHC, not to the minister. The Bloc Quebecois sees this as a legal problem. These powers will concern the provision of funds to individuals, organizations and municipalities. This is another point of concern for us.
The minister ought to have said in his speech that, when transfers to individuals are concerned, those amounts will not be subjected to the constraints of the social union the federal government has negotiated with all provinces except Quebec. When reference is made to transfers covered by the social union, if these are transfers to individuals, they are not covered by the agreement signed with the federal government.
Our main concern is the possibility that the federal government could transact directly with NGOs, and with municipalities, in matters relating to housing, without provincial agreement.
I respectfully submit to the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the bill is hard to follow because, in the throne speech, the federal government promised to decentralize a number of sectors of intervention. They are what we called the eight sisters. There is tourism, mines, recreation and housing, as well. Surely the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation remembers.
As an opposition party, we assumed the government would transfer the entire housing sector to the provinces. How does the minister explain to the House the claim the government made in the speech from the throne that it would transfer the entire housing sector to the provinces, and the increased powers this bill provides for the government?
If all of the prerogatives provided in this bill were implemented, the government could establish a housing allowance. Does the minister agree, or does he think we are not reading the bill properly?
From our reading of the powers accorded under Bill C-66 to the minister responsible for housing and more particularly to the CHMC, everything hints at the establishment of a national housing allowance. That is a source of some concern.
We have opened the door for the minister. We would have liked to support the government, because we are a constructive opposition. Whenever we are given the opportunity to do so, we are always pleased to support the government, provided Quebec's interests are respected. I moved an amendment asking that no loan, contribution or money be given to municipalities, non-profit organizations or individuals without the agreement of the Quebec government.
It is with regret that I inform this House that the government took advantage of its majority to reject the amendment. The minister will remember that he rose and, without blinking an eye, very comfortable in his role as minister, had the Bloc Quebecois' amendment rejected.
Except for this amendment, we were rather in agreement with the bill. If the minister wanted to reconsider his earlier decision and support—assuming there is unanimous consent—an amendment to the effect that no contribution can be made to individuals and intermediate bodies such as municipalities in the province of Quebec, we would be prepared to support this bill. Unfortunately, it is not the case and this is why we will oppose this legislation.
I am taking this opportunity to talk about the housing sector as a whole. As we know, and the minister made reference to this in his speech, there is a very tenuous but direct link between the whole issue of access to housing and the fight against poverty.
In a riding like Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the primary cause of poverty is that our fellow citizens must often spend 30%, 40% or 50% of their income on rent.
For this reason it is important for there to be state intervention, in the form of a housing allowance, access to ownership and low-cost housing construction, in order to give the least advantaged access to housing. However, we believe that the government that should be doing this is not the federal government but the Quebec government and the provincial governments.
The federal government has committed to transferring $1.9 billion to the provinces. If my information is up to date, there are now five provinces and two territories that have signed, for a grand total of seven.
I ask the minister to get negotiations moving with Quebec. I am familiar with his talents as a negotiator, and I know he is a man motivated by a great sense of fairness. I would, however, like to remind him of certain historical facts.
I would also like to take advantage of the distinguished presence of my colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa, to remind him that the share paid to Quebec by the federal government does not take into account either its demographic weight or the number of households in urgent need of accommodation.
I would remind the minister—whose roots in the Liberal family are deep and long-lasting, indeed I believe they are ever-lasting in his mind—that all of the governments in Quebec, one after another, have called for fair compensation from the federal government.
I might give the example of Claude Ryan, whom we all know is no sovereignist. Moreover, the Minister of Human Resources Development has worked for him. When he was responsible for the housing portfolio in the National Assembly, Claude Ryan called upon CMHC to hand over 29% of the available funds, but this did not happen.
I will provide some figures, which I believe you will find interesting. First of all, total federal expenditures for social housing are $362 million. That is not a trifle, but it is not sufficient either. This amount of $362 million represents 18.7% of the total. In other words, the federal government spends 18.7% of its social housing expenditures in Quebec.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If you manage to spill your water, that too will be the fault of the federal government?
Réal Ménard: I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to not encourage me to knock over my water, because unlike his government, I never thought the dollar should be allowed to float.
So, 18.7% of federal spending on housing is in Quebec, which means that 81.3% is outside Quebec. In Quebec, 29.3% of households are living in poverty.
I would ask the minister whether he is prepared today—I would even give him some of my time if he would—to instruct the federal government's chief negotiator for housing to inform the Government of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard and Louise Harel, who is responsible for housing in the National Assembly, that he is transferring 29.3% of the funds to the Government of Quebec. It is the only one entitled to have a national policy on housing.
I think the government will agree that it is perfectly logical for the Government of Quebec to intervene in the housing sector. This sector is connected with the Civil Code, municipalities and land management. There is no reason why the federal government should intervene in this area.
In actual fact, the CMHC directly subsidizes and oversees 44,597 housing units in Quebec. The federal government's offer—and I am sure the minister responsible for the CMHC was not really himself when he made the offer—is $218 million.
However, the federal government is proposing less than what the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation spends in Quebec. Indeed, the total amount spent by the CMHC in Quebec is $289 million.
I am convinced that the Quebec government would be prepared to come to an agreement with the federal government. The minister will agree that the current Quebec government is among the best and most reasonable ones we ever had. If the federal government offered $480 million, I am convinced the Quebec government would accept that amount.
I will repeat that for my colleague: $480 million, because this is the amount that Quebec is entitled to in the housing sector.
I am counting on the hon. member for Bourassa to get involved in this issue. This will be in Canadian dollars. I appreciate the member's optimism regarding a possible free trade zone using U.S. dollars. The hon. member is more or less acknowledging that a sovereign Quebec will be able to hold its own at the international level.
I will conclude, since oral question period is about to begin, by repeating that we cannot support this bill. We endorse the mandate of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to be more active on export markets. However, we think there is a possibility the federal government will get directly involved by negotiating with intermediate bodies, and this is not in Quebec's best interests with regard to the housing sector.
I am asking the minister to begin negotiations to ensure that Quebec gets its fair share. This will be an opportunity for the minister to properly serve Quebec society.

Statements By Members
Canada Endangered Species Protection ActMrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all members of the House should applaud the vision and foresight of the hon. member for Davenport.
Last night he introduced the endangered species protection act which calls for the protection of all endangered species and their habitat in Canada. The bill calls for science based identification of species at risk and would make listing automatic. Recovery plans would be required and it would be an offence to harm, disturb or kill endangered species or their habitat.
Overwhelmingly Canadians want strong endangered species legislation. In the words of the hon. member for Davenport, “this is benchmark legislation for the government to emulate”.
Emergency Preparedness WeekMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that when you are thirsty it is too late to think about digging a well. When it comes to emergency preparedness this principle is no less true.
That is why in support of Emergency Preparedness Week some remarkable leadership students from Mount Slesse Middle School of Chilliwack, B.C., will hold a safety fair tomorrow to educate the community on how to prepare for an emergency, whether a flood, earthquake, fire or chemical spill. Such information is timely and incredibly valuable even as the Fraser River threatens to overflow its banks in Chilliwack later this month.
Therefore on behalf of the honourable House I thank the emergency professionals who are giving their time and energy to support this event and to help the community prepare for such an emergency.
Most of all, I thank and congratulate the students of Mount Slesse Middle School for their leadership, their motivation, and for helping to teach our community that today's preparation determines tomorrow's success and safety.
Medic Alert MonthMs. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that May has been designated Medic Alert Month by the Canadian Medic Alert Foundation.
For more than 38 years the Canadian Medic Alert Foundation has been protecting and saving lives through the use of engraved bracelets, necklets, wallet cards and a free 24 hour hotline number, as well as lifetime updates of members' records.
Over 900,000 Canadians benefit from the protection of this universally recognized emergency medical identification and information service.
During Medic Alert Month the foundation will launch a campaign to heighten awareness of its services. I encourage all Canadians with allergies, certain medical conditions or medications, or special needs to take advantage of these services.
Let us all wish the Canadian Medic Alert Foundation the best of success in its public awareness campaign.
University Of WaterlooMr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate three students of the University of Waterloo who last month won the prestigious ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest in the Netherlands.
These world champions of computer programming, David Kennedy, Ondrej Lhotak and Viet-Trung Luu, beat out 61 teams from around the world.
This is the second time in 10 years that the University of Waterloo has won. Their record, consistently scoring in the top 10 with 2 wins, is the best record of any university in North America.
I join with my colleagues in congratulating these three young Canadians and wish them well in what I am certain will be their very successful futures.
Michael MariniMs. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a resident of Hamilton Mountain and a student of McMaster University, Michael Marini, was recently in Washington, D.C. making many new friends and collecting his second place award in an essay competition which was sponsored by the Centre for the Study of the Presidency in Washington.
In Michael's essay, “Leadership in the New Millennium”, he discussed how technology is affecting the electoral process. He believes that the Internet is an excellent way for voters to stay in touch with all levels of government and that democracy, via the Internet, can be brought directly into people's homes.
Michael Marini is yet another excellent example of the leadership and intelligence of Canadian youth. Michael loves the cut and thrust of public life and his ambition is to work as a political consultant. With people such as this young man from Hamilton Mountain, Canada's future will continue to be a bright one.
Nisga'A TreatyMr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, did you know that the Nisga'a treaty will allow unlimited tax and rent increases to non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a land? Do you think that is not a problem? Ask the non-native residents of the Musqueam reserve who just got hit with increases of over 7,000%.
Mr. Speaker, did you know there is a clause in the Nisga'a treaty that states that if at any time the government signs a treaty with any other aboriginal group that is more generous than the Nisga'a treaty, it automatically reopens negotiations?
Mr. Speaker, did you know the Nisga'a treaty allows the banning of union certification? Do you think it will not happen? The Kamloops and Westbank bands both recently did this, claiming that it would interfere with Indian self-determination, despite the fact that aboriginal workers on the reserves voted in favour of certification.
Some claim the Nisga'a treaty is necessary to end the uncertainty over land claims, but the Gitanyow band is now suing the government and the Nisga'a, claiming that Nisga'a treaty lands are their traditional lands, and B.C. taxpayers will be paying the bill for both sides.
Canadians want treaty settlements and so do we, but the treaties have to make sense. A bad treaty is not better than no treaty at all.
Medical Assistance Programs International Of CanadaMr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Medical Assistance Programs International of Canada, commonly known as MAP, a very special medical aid agency.
I first became aware of MAP through my work as a member of the Canada-Cuba Friendship Association. Since the fall of 1995 MAP has shipped $7.5 million worth of medicine to Cuba to help treat more than one million people. As well, MAP has shipped more than $48 million worth of medicine, vaccines and hospital supplies to more than 60 countries, including Kosovo, since 1990.
MAP's work, which is not for profit, is carried out in partnership with various departments and agencies of the Government of Canada.
The products which MAP provides are donated by member companies of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada, the Non-prescription Drug Manufacturers of Canada and by providers of vaccines and hospital supplies.
Together Medical Assistance Programs International of Canada and Canadians are doing their part to improve the health of millions of people.
International Composting Awareness WeekMs. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, May 2 to 8 is International Composting Awareness Week. The theme is “It's your turn...Compost”, with the emphasis on the value of compost in a number of sectors of our society.
According to the last study of the Composting Council of Canada, over 1,650,000 tonnes of organic matter have been composted, representing a 23.5% increase in the last two years.
The importance of compost in improving soil quality and the need for composting are becoming increasingly evident. The end product is used for gardening, landscaping and various agricultural and horticultural applications.
Composting is a social commitment to our environment, offering a means to reduce the production of waste while putting organic matter to productive use.
It's your turn...Compost.
United WayMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to pay tribute to the United Way. While most Canadians know about the United Way's annual fundraising campaign in October, few are aware of all the preparation necessary to its success. Right now local branches are putting in place the human infrastructure of volunteers who will do the required work. Community leaders from business, labour and government are coming together as a team to steer the campaign through a series of special events designed to raise public awareness.
In my riding of Oakville all of this activity begins with a community leaders' breakfast next Friday. From that starting point the helping network will spread through the town to involve as many volunteers as possible. The result will be financial support to the social and health agencies that are the base of any resilient community.
Today I want to salute the hardworking staff and the generous volunteers of the United Way family and to wish them well as they march together to a successful campaign '99.
Surrey Police Officer AwardsMr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday evening I had the pleasure of attending Surrey's third annual police officer of the year awards. The evening, sponsored by the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, allows the community to express its gratitude to the men and women of our RCMP detachment, including regular members and civilian workers, both municipal employees and volunteers.
I congratulate the following winners: Rusty Ashworth of Associated Labels for the Police and Business Partnership Award; Duane Foley for Policing Volunteer of the Year; Simmie Grewal for Municipal Employee of the Year; and a tie for Police Officer of the Year, chosen by their peers, Constable Kevin Bracewell and Corporal Robin Stutt; and Police Officer of the Year, chosen by the community, Sergeant Gordon Friesen.
The winners were chosen from long lists of nominees who we also congratulate. Just as important, I wish to extend on behalf of the constituents of Surrey North our gratitude to all members of the Surrey RCMP and support personnel for their continuing dedication and professionalism during what we know are very difficult fiscal times.
Tva Television NetworkMr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, TVA took up a new challenge and went national, to the delight of all francophones across Canada.
I wish to congratulate the members of the advisory committee from each of the provinces for their excellent work, and in particular TVA and its president, Daniel Lamarre, for his vision and determination. This is a great step forward for francophones in Canada.
We know how pervasive a communication tool television is in the daily lives of Canadians.
Now they will have a much greater selection in the language of their choice. I wish TVA a long life from coast to coast.
Westray MineMs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, May 9, will mark the seventh year since the Westray Mine disaster. The 26 victims of this tragedy, their families and co-workers have yet to see justice served.
These 26 men were the victims of a corporation that put profit before workers' lives. Workplace safety and health must be the first priority. The government and the law have failed the Westray victims and their families. We must ensure that those responsible for workplace injuries and deaths are held accountable.
The New Democratic Party has put legislation before this House that will hold companies and their managers accountable for crimes like those at Westray. Unless there are laws to protect workers there will always be companies that put profits before safety. Crimes like this must never go unpunished again.
This Sunday, as we spend time with our families and enjoy Mother's Day, let us mark a moment of silence and prayer for the Westray miners and their families.
Election In ScotlandMrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the people of Scotland took a decisive step toward their future. Today, after 300 years, the Scottish parliament is alive again through democratic process and the resolute political will of an entire people.
We congratulate all parties involved in this exercise, including the Labour Party, which was victorious, and the secessionist Scottish National Party, which will be the official opposition and will defend and promote its option. This historic event is the expression of a will to debate calmly and democratically the future of a people and all the legitimate choices available to it.
The day will come when Scotland, like Quebec, will find its place among nations, thus sharing with other sovereign states its common values and proffering its differences to the world as a whole as an equal partner. Maîtres chez nous is the expression that defined the Quebec situation 30 years ago. It transcends the borders of Quebec. Still relevant today, it underlies the rise of peoples in the coming millennium.
International RelationsMr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the latest separatist strategy is to provoke refusal on the part of the federal government. Their new trick is playing on the international stage.
The Parti Quebecois government is spending millions and millions of our tax dollars to strut about on the international stage trying to wage flag wars, obviously because of their obsessive drive to come up with the so-called winning conditions. We are still wading through a pre-referendum campaign.
In their paranoia, it is the fault of the federal government that Lucien Bouchard will not be meeting with Mexican President Zedillo.
The leader of the Bloc forgot to say yesterday that President Zedillo would simply not be available during Mr. Bouchard's visit there. The worst part is that the separatists already knew and nevertheless raised questions regarding the trip of their venerable leader.
There is a limit to considering people fools. Lucien's lackey must be really desperate. The polls reveal again this morning that, in Quebec, the Liberals lead the Parizeau faithful 49% to 36%.
If this trend continues, he will lose the limousine he took from his leader not long ago.
TradeMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker, tonight the Prime Minister will thumb his nose at the Canadian voters again when he accepts an honorary degree from Michigan State University.
The university is using this occasion to celebrate the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
In 1988, members will recall, in bitter debates across the country, the Liberals demonized the Conservative free trade initiative. Canadians will recall that the Liberals promised to tear up the agreement when elected.
In 1993 the Liberals insisted in their red book that they would renegotiate the NAFTA and scrap it if unsuccessful, something they conveniently forgot when elected, much like their shifty stance on GST, helicopters and the Pearson airport.
The Prime Minister himself repeatedly said “It is not a good deal”.
Tonight, when the Prime Minister delivers his commencement address to the assembled university graduates, it will be interesting to know if he tells the truth about his disregard for the Canadian electorate. Will he remind them that he, along with the Ministers of Finance, Industry, Canadian Heritage, International Trade and other serving Liberal cabinet ministers used the NAFTA issue to cynically exploit the concerns of Canadians? Will he tell the graduates that winning is everything? Will he tell them that it is not necessary to keep promises? Or, will he suddenly see the light and tell the graduates the truth?
Youth ViolenceMr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recent shootings in Taber, Alberta and Littleton, Colorado have once more awakened us to the issue of violence among children.
What can we do as a nation?
I am reminded of a speech by Hetty Adams, Canada's leading educator in teaching children the skills of peace, which she gave a little over two years ago.
Children are not born with violence in their blood, but their exposure to behaviours of violence have made some desensitized to it.
When we plant the seeds of self-esteem, tolerance, anger management, mediation and conflict resolution in the hearts and minds of our young, we will harvest a citizenry skilled in peacekeeping and peacemaking.
May the federal government, in collaboration with the provincial governments, seek to establish nationwide a curriculum in peace studies at all school levels.
May this be one legacy we leave as a nation as we head into the new millennium: a citizenry of children and youth who live and champion the ethics of peace, not tragedies of school violence.
Health CareMr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two years ago my parents had the great misfortune of experiencing the Canadian health care system in Saskatchewan. That is when I discovered that even prestigious teaching hospitals are so understaffed that unless patients have relatives or friends to help them wash, eat or go to the toilet, they have a very miserable time.
How can the minister continue to deny that lack of federal funding has wrecked a system that used to be the envy of the world, and that recent budgetary measures will not begin to repair the Liberal damage?
The Liberal's pay more, get less philosophy of government has resulted in a mass exodus of Canadian doctors and nurses and the closure of thousands of hospital beds in the last five years.
In terms of service availability, we are on the road to becoming a third world country.
I wonder which countries we can expect to send medical missionaries to Canada.
ShipbuildingMr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday evening, the Liberal members voted against the Progressive Conservative motion calling upon the government to develop a new national strategy to support the revitalization of the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
There is nothing surprising about that, hon. members will agree. The Liberals have a habit of voting against the opposition.
What is disconcerting is the inconsistency being shown by the government. The Progressive Conservative motion was an almost word-for-word copy of one passed by the Liberal Party faithful at their March 1998 convention. Most of the Liberal MPs supported it at that time.
Not only is this behaviour inconsistent, but worse than that, it indicates an unequivocal lack of respect for the Liberal Party faithful.
No one would ever have believed that the Liberal MPs would treat their party faithful to the same medicine they dish up for us regularly in this House: lack of respect plus inconsistency.
Canadian Labour CongressMr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all my NDP colleagues past and present to say thanks to Mr. Bob White, retiring leader of the Canadian Labour Congress, for over 40 years of service to working people and their families in communities from coast to coast to coast.
As well, we offer our best wishes to Mr. Dick Martin, retiring secretary treasurer. Both these men displayed an undying loyalty to the labour movement and to our party, and for this we will always be grateful.
Our party also wishes to welcome Mr. Ken Georgetti to the position of president of the CLC. Mr. Georgetti will continue the fight to improve the lives of working people, their families and their communities across the country.
For this we continue our pledge to the CLC and to working with it.

Oral Question Period
EmploymentChuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the jobless rate is up almost a full half per cent. Nearly one and a half million Canadians are looking for work. Young people are particularly hard hit.
The government's answer is to look the other way, to turn the other cheek and to whistle past the graveyard. What hollow words would the government offer to these people, especially to young Canadians who are out again today pounding the pavement looking for work?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is enough to look at one month or another month. One has to look at the underlying trend. The underlying trend since 1993 has been unmistakably in the direction of much lower unemployment and strong job creation.
We will continue the efforts that have produced a million and a half jobs since we took office. This will continue.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate is up, the taxes are up and the brain drain is up. Meanwhile the standard of living is down and confidence is down. In fact everything is going down.
Why will the government not make what is up down and what is down up, cut the taxes and get some Canadians back to work now?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, one thing for sure is going down and that is the credibility of the Reform Party.
When it tries to ignore the reality of strong job creation since 1993 its credibility is totally shot. We certainly want to continue creating more jobs, but we have to recognize that one of the factors involved is that more people are entering the labour force because of their optimism about future job prospects.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, they are not in the job force because they were just laid off. That is the fact. No matter which way the Prime Minister looks at it, unemployment is up.
Canada's jobless rate is now twice as high as that of our American counterparts. If high taxes do not drive our talent south of the border, the unemployment rate will probably encourage it.
Canadians do not want to hear hollow talk. They want to know where they can get a job, and they want to get it here in Canada. One of the ways the government could help fix this is to reduce taxation levels to the rate of our American counterparts.
Why will it not do something to help unemployed Canadians? Reduce our taxes now. Let us get some Canadians back to work.
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, no wonder the credibility of the Reform Party is down. It refuses to recognize that we are bringing taxes down for all Canadians with $16.5 billion in tax reductions over the next three years. This will add to the successful efforts the government has been making in co-operation with the private sector to create more jobs for all Canadians.
TaxationMr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, even after all the flowery rhetoric the reality is that when taxes are up unemployment rises, when taxes are up health care waiting lists get longer, and when taxes are up secondary education is an unattainable dream for most people today.
These are the realities. Is this what the government is bragging about: pay more, get less?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the labour rate there is no question the hon. member across the way has to recognize that the 15,300 new jobs created this last month is good news.
Only the Reform Party would believe that job creation is bad news. When we look at the impact of the unemployment rate, the participation rate has come up.
Why do people come back into the marketplace? It is because they have confidence that they can find a job. That is why Canadians are re-entering the labour force.
I hope the hon. member across the way would recognize that fact and use that information in his next question.
Gerry Ritz: Mr. Speaker, the reality is those jobs were created in Ontario and Alberta, two provinces which have recognized that a lower tax rate increases jobs. It has proved itself.
It seems that whenever the government identifies a problem it gets worse. It collects extra taxes for a child poverty strategy, and more kids and their parents are living in poverty. It creates a youth employment strategy, and unemployment youth numbers increase.
Does the government not realize if it takes less in taxes ordinary Canadians will do a better job looking after themselves?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I am so very thankful the hon. member pointed to Alberta as an example. I would like to quote from a CP wire story:
I've questioned really the wisdom of the dramatic and drastic tax cuts in light of deficit financing. It's not how we would have gone about it. In fact, it's not the way we did go about it...We were able to eliminate the deficit first, take it one step at a time, start a debt repayment program and then look at taxation.
It is the Alberta guru. It is what the Reform Party stands for. It is what it aspires to be. It is Alberta Premier Ralph Klein. He said take a step at a time.
Federal ProgramsMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is about to announce consultations regarding the creation of a new program for children.
Quebec immediately expressed reservations about what appears to be a new intrusion into its areas of jurisdiction.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister pledge to either transfer the tax points or, in light of the provisions included in the social union framework agreement, give Quebec the right to opt out, with full financial compensation, of any new program that might be created following the government's consultations?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for all Canadian children. The minister and his provincial counterparts are announcing the first two papers on the national children's agenda. One is a vision document and one is a discussion paper.
This shows the beginning of the social union where the provinces and the federal government have come together. The discussion paper will now begin to engage all Canadians in fleshing out the plan and developing which programs will happen in which provinces.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, aside from the nice rhetoric of the parliamentary secretary, we know that the social union framework agreement allows the establishment of Canada-wide programs with the agreement of six provinces accounting for as little as 15% of the population of Canada.
Since Quebec already has its own infrastructure for daycare and child care, will the Deputy Prime Minister immediately promise that no new program will be imposed on Quebec, and that no duplication will be created by the policy that the federal government wants to implement?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, no new program will be imposed on any province. That is the strength of the social union and the national children's agenda as part of that social union.
The whole thing about this new arrangement is the flexibility with which each province will design what it is they want to do for their own children. Quebec has participated in the past in these kinds of things.
For example, the national children's benefit, which was the first step, gave Quebec the money to invest in its family policy including its $5 a day, day care policy.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a human resources sub-committee established to investigate children's needs and to evaluate what is being done in other provinces is now working on a policy paper for the government.
How is it that the Minister of Human Resources Development today announced a series of initiatives for poor children, including support for day care centres and early childhood development, when the committee has not yet completed its consultations and has issued no guidelines?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at my counterpart asking this question. Is she suggesting that she is against the development of new programming for children in Canada? That is very surprising to me.
The ongoing discussions in the subcommittee to which she refers are again part of the fleshing out of a menu of programs that will be chosen by various provinces according to their own needs, just the way members of the Bloc Quebecois want to see in most programming Quebec participates in.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, after wreaking havoc in social programs by cutting $33 billion in provincial transfer payments for health care, education and income security, how dare the Minister of Human Resources Development, who has no expertise, stick his nose into areas of provincial jurisdiction, unless it is for political visibility?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the hon. member's question. It is entirely the opposite.
The federal government will not be interfering in Quebec's choices about what it does in the way of family and children's programming. The purpose of the national children's agenda is to allow that flexibility so that Quebec can design its own programs and deliver them to its own people.
KosovoMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, even as the G-8 agreement gets us closer to a peace settlement in Kosovo and as the list of people calling for a peaceful resolution continues to grow, NATO shows no sign of letting up on its strategy of expanded air strikes and escalating aggression.
My question is for the foreign affairs minister. Why will the Canadian government not seize on this opportunity to lead the way for a suspension of the bombing in the Balkans to give peace a chance?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the meeting we held yesterday I think we gave peace a very good chance.
Frankly I would say to the hon. member that the regrettable decision taken by her party to change its position does not contribute to that initiative. In fact it weakens the initiative by taking away the necessary pressure which needs to be maintained on the Belgrade regime to ensure that it will come to the table.
We have put down an offer that I think represents Canadian principles, which is to go to the United Nations and get a settlement that we can all be satisfied with.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has consistently pressured the government to find a peaceful resolution. Even the Prime Minister has said that the timing of the stopping of the bombing is something that can be negotiated.
That time is now. Every day that the government hesitates is a day marked by more bombs, more destruction and more deaths. Will the Canadian government call on NATO to suspend the bombing immediately?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have not been hesitating whatsoever. I have just spent the last nine days in a round of negotiations with a number of countries.
We were able to culminate an agreement yesterday at a G-8 meeting. A series of initiatives will go forward to the security council of the United Nations which includes a series of conditions that will end the repression and the violence that are taking place in Kosovo and that will provide the basis for a just and fair agreement.
I would say to hon. members of the New Democratic Party that I very much regret that they broke the Canadian consensus and decided to turn away from a very successful formula which was necessary.
AgricultureMr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture has said time and time again that the AIDA program is open and accessible to all farmers.
An AIDA office was just opened in Winnipeg and I would like to visit it. Farmers would like to visit the office, but unfortunately they will not give us their address. They say that it is not open to the public. I wonder if this is the user friendly attitude which this minister talks about in the AIDA program.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the user friendly attitude is that there have been over 21,000 calls to the 800 number. There is a bank of people to give information to those who call in. Certainly that is a more efficient way to have it happen rather than somebody walking into an office with a handful of papers and books and saying “will you help me fill out your forms?”
The information is available. We have had dozens of information meetings, not only with primary producers but with accountants and accounting firms, and will continue to do so.
Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I suspect with 21,000 calls the minister would like to make the access face to face as opposed to just over the impersonal telephone call.
I have a guest in the gallery who is the general manager of a very large credit union in small town Manitoba. I ask the guest if in fact this program—
The Deputy Speaker: We will move on to the next question.
Aboriginal AffairsMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs. I would like the minister to listen closely to the following quote:
We are the true owners of British Columbia. The Indians across the province own everything—the rivers, the trees, the bugs, the animals, you name it. Subsurface rights, the air, the rain, the whole shot. That's what we mean when we say we have aboriginal title to the land.
Does the minister agree with the interpretation by the Nisga'a tribal council chairman, Joe Gosnell, of aboriginal title?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the member a quote from this morning's front page of a British Columbia newspaper. It states:
Reform's enthusiastic hostility to the deal is well known. This week we caught a glimpse of just how low they'll stoop when the Liberals bring the treaty to the House of Commons this fall.
One after the other, Reformers disgraced themselves with a range of questions that displayed everything from wilful distortion to extreme paranoia.
The article goes on to state:
And this is a party whose leader has designs on broadening it into the mainstream alternative for government?
As Charlie Brown would say, good grief, Mr. Speaker.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, we are proud that we stand up for British Columbians and we are proud that we stand up for all Canadians. We believe in equality.
I want to read the quote to the parliamentary secretary again:
We are the true owners of British Columbia. The Indians across the province own everything—the rivers, the trees, the bugs, the animals, you name it. Subsurface rights, the air, the rain, the whole shot. That's what we mean when we say we have aboriginal title to the land.
My party and Canadians want to know if that is the government's belief. Is that what aboriginal title is in Canada? Is that what we mean by equality for all Canadians?
David Iftody: Mr. Speaker, I will refer again to the article in this morning's paper. One of Vancouver's leading newspapers has castigated quite thoroughly the members of the Reform Party for misrepresenting the good people and the good views of the people of British Columbia.
This is not true. We have signed a treaty under section 35 within the constitutional framework of this country. It is legitimate, it is valid and we stand behind it.
Summer Career Placement ProgramRéal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we were informed by an official from the Human Resources Development Department that almost $400,000 would be diverted from the summer career placement program in order to fund an exchange program with other provinces.
Will the minister confirm this diversion of funds from the summer career placement program?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, there is no diversion of funds for this program.
When two ridings exchange students in the summer, a portion of the receiving riding's summer career placement funds are allocated to the students who arrive and take jobs in that riding. At the same, the students who left a riding, went to another one and got jobs, assume the funds in that riding. There is an exchange of money that is fair.
Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, given the very great number of students from Quebec that wish to take part in this placement program, does the minister not think it would be a better idea to put in new money, rather than divert part of this program's budget?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I think the questioner must be the only person who is against the mobility of students learning about their country and other places.
The exchange program is only part of the summer career placement program. I am glad to tell the House that the amount allocated across the country for that program remains the same as last year, $90 million.
If there is a change in the allocation for a particular riding, it is because the basis of the formula may have changed due, for example, to the number of local students and the local youth unemployment rate.
JusticeMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, conditional sentences make a mockery of our already severely tainted legal system.
Dennis Peters of P.E.I. was recently convicted of impaired driving for the fourth time. A previous conviction in 1997 landed him in jail for 35 days. This time he got a 60 day conditional sentence to be served at home. The reason he was sent home instead of to jail is because he is claustrophobic.
My question is for the justice minister. What deterrence is there when a repeat offender like Peters is allowed to go home because he is afraid of his cell?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is now preparing a report on ways of improving the justice system's handling of impaired driving.
Rather than grandstanding in the House, I would urge the hon. member to come and make a more positive contribution to the preparation of this report.
Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want this law changed now. They have spoken very clearly on this. It is not however long it takes the committee to make up its mind.
In order for our justice system to work it must be based on deterrents. Repeat offenders must receive tougher sentences, not more lenient. When Peters repeated his crime for the fourth time he was told, “you'd better not do that again”, and he was sent home.
Chronic drunk driving is a serious crime and it should warrant serious time. Does this guy have to kill before he is sent to jail?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague said, the committee is in the process right now of preparing its report. In fact we have finished preparing our report.
I also want to address the issue of conditional sentencing which has been brought up by the hon. member a number of times in the House. At the request of the minister, the committee will be studying conditional sentencing. There are a number of decisions in which we have to review the intention of parliament in terms of conditional sentencing. I ask the hon. member to assist us in the process. I ask his colleagues who sit on the committee not to bring forth other frivolous motions so we can get on with conditional sentencing.
KosovoMr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs adopted general principles which ought to lead to a political solution to the Kosovo crisis.
Since these general principles must become a UN security council resolution, what approach does Canada plan to use in order to get China not to use its veto against implementation of these principles?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, the Prime Minister spoke recently with the Premier of China about a progressive initiative in the security council. Yesterday, we decided to approach the Chinese concerning the proposals contained in our agreement with the Russians.
I believe that there is now a commitment for real consultation with the Chinese in order to ensure that there is agreement in the security council, once we have details on the proposal.
René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, it would be most desirable for this agreement between the G-8 countries to be accepted not only by the Security Council of the United Nations, but also by the government in Belgrade. Does Canada consider the principles of this agreement to be negotiable or is it prepared to impose them without the agreement of President Milosevic?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as we announced yesterday in the agreement, we will be pursuing an article 7 resolution at the security council. An article 7 resolution is an authoritative mandatory requirement that applies to all UN members. Through that, we believe we will be in a position to have an effective engagement with the Belgrade regime.
In the meantime, there will be ongoing discussions. The Russians will clearly continue to carry out their own dialogue and communications. The secretary general will establish an envoy system. I think there will be full opportunity for Belgrade to respond we hope in a positive way so we can bring this conflict to a resolution.
AgricultureMr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture promised farmers bankable assistance in December. It is now May and, while application forms have gone out, not one cheque has been cashed.
In our minority report we identified $500 million in farm input taxes, costs and user fees which could be eliminated today without waiting for any application form.
The premier of Ontario has heeded that advice. He has cut sales tax to farmers because he knows lower input costs help farmers now not later. When will the federal government follow suit?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable the lack of knowledge the hon. member has and his inability to look at information when it is available to him.
He just stated that not one cheque has been cashed. Over 5,000 applications have come in from across Canada and nearly 2,500 cheques have been sent out. My guess is that they have been cashed because we know the farmers need the money.
If the member would take his energy in opposing the AIDA program and use it to encourage producers to send in their applications maybe more of the 25,000 applications would be sent in so that we could deal with them. We are sending out cheques.
Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, the farmers, the bankers and the credit unions are telling us that this program is virtually useless for a lot of farmers.
The minister of agriculture's officials have indicated that even farmers who qualify for this emergency package will only receive 40% of their entitlement now. It will be fall before those few who do qualify for assistance will receive their full entitlement.
Are his officials, who said this, wrong? Will farmers really have to wait until the fall to get help from the government?
Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the very final clean-up cheque, if I can refer to it in that way, will be later in the summer, I agree.
The provincial portion and the very large federal portion of the contribution will go out to farmers as the forms come in and as the calculations are dealt with. Those cheques have been flowing and will continue to flow. There will also be interim flows as they are dealt with throughout the summer.
Transportation Of Dangerous WasteMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, in response to a question I put to him, the Minister of Transport said, and I quote “Canada has perhaps one of the safest regimes for the transportation of dangerous goods of any country in the world”.
The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said recently that the federal government was neglecting border transport of dangerous waste.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. How does she plan to respond to the environment commissioner's allegations, in the light of the complacent remarks by the Minister of Transport?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my department works very closely with provinces and other jurisdictions internationally to make sure that all of the articles of the Basel convention are upheld within this country and around the world.
My department has a protocol that is rigorously carried out, making sure that we are notified of all transports of hazardous waste and all manifests are inspected before those wastes are allowed to travel within this country.
The EnvironmentMr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, anyone who looks at the issue will know that community groups can achieve impressive positive environmental results when provided with leadership and encouragement from the Government of Canada.
Can the Minister of the Environment tell us what she is doing to encourage the participation of environmental work at the critical community level?
Christine Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of the Environment with very skilled staff in my department, we take action every day to improve the environment for Canadians. We work to improve air, water and all nature issues.
I am very pleased today to announce our first tranche of projects approved in this country where we will assist people at the grassroots to improve air, water and climate change, nature issues. One hundred and sixteen community groups across Canada will receive—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.
ImmigrationMr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, thanks for that brief commercial message and now back to the news.
There is more news today showing that the immigration system is broken. Three Canadian consulates were investigated on charges of visa fraud and, following the investigation, fourteen of the minister's employees were charged with criminal offences. How can Canadians have faith in an immigration system like this?
Will the minister or the government order an investigation of all the embassies to ensure the safety and security of Canada's visa system?
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, let us turn from the comedy channel back to reality.
The integrity of the department lies at the very heart of what we do as a government. There is no question that any allegation of illegal activity is taken very seriously both by our government officials in CIC and the RCMP.
Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, if the member would not take all his time working on his first line perhaps he could actually answer the question. I will try asking it again.
Today there is news that there are three consulates that have been investigated and fourteen employees have been charged with criminal offences. This is a challenge to the integrity of the immigration system. I would surely hope the member could see that.
I am going to ask a direct question and I expect an answer. Will the immigration minister or the government order an investigation of all the embassies to ensure the safety and security of Canada's visa system, yes or no?
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stands up and says these people have been charged. They have been charged because the government is very concerned about the integrity of the system and that member should be applauding us for it.
I reiterate that any allegation of wrongdoing is examined by the government. If we find anything underhanded, any illegal activity, charges are laid. The member sees the effect of our investigations.
EmploymentMr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I am sure he joined all members of parliament this morning who were both shocked and disappointed to see the reversal in the downward trend in the unemployment figures. Was the Deputy Prime Minister surprised at this reversal this morning? Is it serious enough for the government to take some steps to bring the downward pattern back into play again?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the results of one month. This is not enough to establish that the very favourable upward trend since 1993 has been reversed. We are obviously watching the situation very closely.
At the same time, the NDP and all Canadians should be ready to recognize that the very favourable upward trend has gone on since 1993 with 1.6 million new jobs being created. One month's results are not enough to say that the trend has stopped. We are going to be watching the situation very closely.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, just three months ago the Minister of Human Resources Development said that job prospects for young Canadians are brighter than they have been in years. This morning we find that in Ontario more than 50,000 people have been added to the rolls looking for work. More than half of those are young people, bringing it up to 15.7%.
Earlier today we heard about the summer career placement program and the funding it has received. If the government wants to do something about youth unemployment, would it consider adding funds to that program so at least people coming out of the colleges and universities will have a chance for a decent summer job?
Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, like the Deputy Prime Minister said, we have to look at the trend and the trend is in fact improving.
Over 900,000 jobs have been created in this country since December. Over 15,000 jobs were created in April. What has happened is that the participation rate has gone up. It has gone up because the economy is solid. It has gone up because the fundamentals are right. We have low inflation, low interest rates, a balanced budget and declining debt to GDP. The economy is poised to do well. The help wanted index has gone up and that is always a precursor to better job opportunities. That is what has happened. I would hope the hon. member would take that into consideration.
HomelessnessMr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker, it has been 45 days since the government appointed a minister responsible for homelessness. We still have seen no plan, no strategy and no budget to tackle this problem. At the Toronto summit on homelessness the minister promised to have a plan in place by the end of April. We are now in the month of May.
When will the minister have a plan and budget in place, or was this appointment just an empty gesture?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the hon. Minister of Labour's presence, her work and her past dedication which has been demonstrated on countless times because of what she did so successfully in the past, is an empty gesture is totally unbecoming of the member across the way. He should know very well that the minister has devoted herself, heart and soul, to this cause in the past. She continues with that same kind of enthusiasm in this House, in cabinet and throughout her entire career.
Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, we do not live in the past. We live in the present. The minister responsible for homelessness said she is qualified to do her job because she went to bingos with the homeless. It has been three years since the government announced it was getting out of the social housing business.
When if ever will the minister responsible for homelessness have a strategy to announce on homelessness? Or is she too busy playing bingo?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rest my case. Those remarks are even more outrageous than the words we heard previously. It is not the minister responsible for homelessness. It is nonsense to suggest in any way that she is responsible for homelessness. She will be responsible for assisting homeless people in Canada. That is the exact opposite of what the hon. member just said.
ChildrenMr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we listen to the members of the Bloc it is obvious their concerns are about jurisdiction and money. Our priority is children. Can the parliamentary secretary to the minister of HRD inform the House what outcomes we can expect from the Saskatoon meetings?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague recognizes the good news nature of the national children's agenda launch—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult to hear the answer and the question.
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, I think it is good news for all Canadians who are sick of jurisdictional wrangling. They are happy to see a new level of co-operation that the publication of the national children's agenda document represents. On the subject of children, we know that Canadian children do not all have the same chance to get a good start in life and in fact that erodes the equality of opportunity we purport to represent.
Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceMr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to a question about the lack of RCMP funding the parliamentary secretary said “bring us the specifics and we will address them”.
Here are some specifics. Last week the three member federal drug squad covering the north half of Vancouver Island was eliminated. In Port McNeill the already short-staffed detachment lost another constable with no replacement in sight.
When will the minister stop the bleeding, fill the vacant positions and restore the millions of dollars missing from the RCMP's core budget?
Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, here are the facts: an additional $10 million for the B.C. division of the RCMP; an additional $37 million for the RCMP budget; an additional $135 million at the request of the RCMP to improve the Canadian Police Information Centre; a memorandum of understanding between Treasury Board, the RCMP and the Solicitor General so contract positions will be paid from outside the RCMP's budget.
Let us have fewer myths and more facts.
FisheriesMr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has once again been very unfair to Quebec fishers.
In spite of a 25% increase in the total quota for the northern shrimp fishery, Quebec fishers will only get 1.6% of it.
The minister had pledged to consult the provinces but did not do it. Can he explain to Quebec fishers why he is trying so hard to help Newfoundland fishers? Is it because of his good friend, Mr. Tobin?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I did consult with the minister of fisheries of the province of Quebec.
Second, the increase in the value of landings in the province of Quebec between 1989 and the year for which I have figures, 1997, was higher in Quebec than in any other province in Atlantic Canada. The Quebec fishermen are in fact, in terms of increase in their landings, getting more money than those of any other province.
My final point is that when it comes to temporary shrimp licences we allocate on the basis of adjacency and the Quebec fishers are not adjacent to the Labrador and Newfoundland shrimp.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationBev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, it has been announced that there will be severe cuts to the Halifax and Calgary operations of CBC Newsworld. Not only will this mean further job losses at the CBC, it runs contrary to the commitment made by the CBC to the CRTC and Canadians that there would be significant regional presence. These cuts will guarantee that the news will be increasingly central Canada based and biased.
Can the minister explain how Newsworld will remain reflective of all regions after these cuts in Atlantic Canada and the prairies?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more.
ForestryMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister responded to questioning at the natural resources committee that he hoped capital gains changes for private woodlot owners would be forthcoming. Capital gains changes and changes to allow for amortization of forestry maintenance practices are essential for sustainable woodlot management.
Will the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House when such policies will be forthcoming?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, there has been considerable discussion ongoing involving the Department of National Revenue with respect to interpretive bulletins it issues from time to time. These discussions have included woodlot owners who have expressed taxation concerns in the past.
I understand that that work has gone forward very successfully. We can anticipate in the next short while some adjustments in those interpretive bulletins that will be favourable to the woodlot owners.
Revenue CanadaMs. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every summer Revenue Canada uses university and college students to deliver customs services at airports and border crossings.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. Is Revenue Canada putting Canadians at risk by using students to do those important jobs?
Beth Phinney: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.
Revenue Canada's student hiring policy serves not only to provide much needed employment to young Canadians but complements and enhances the department's role to provide both quality service and protection at the border.
In 1998 Revenue Canada helped almost 800 Canadian university and college students to acquire life skills and gain work experience through our successful customs internship program. Student customs officers perform selected routine duties which allows our customs inspectors to concentrate on higher risk tasks.
TransportMr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the economic artery to the south Okanagan is about to be cut off. Talks between Transport Canada and the Penticton Indian band over the land claim against the Penticton airport site are at an impasse. We are now just eight days away from the next transfer date and the Penticton Indian band is still opposed to the transfer of the airport to the city of Penticton.
When will the government act and appoint a mediator to end this deadlock for the south Okanagan?
Stan Dromisky: Mr. Speaker, we realize that there have been problems in the negotiation process in this situation. It is a very delicate one.
The government as well as the parties concerned, the municipality, as well as the chief and representatives of the Indian band, have been working diligently in this area. We hope that on May 15 they may come to some conclusion and settle this issue once and for all to the betterment and to the benefit of all parties concerned.
Astronomie Québec MagazineMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is concerned—and rightly so—about the dumping of American magazines in Canada, is certainly not indifferent to the problems caused to Astronomie Québec by the French edition of the Sky News magazine, which is funded by a federal museum.
Since the Museum of Science and Technology did not deem important to comply with the request made the standing committee on heritage to negotiate an arrangement with Astronomie Québec before publishing its own astronomy magazine, how does the minister intend to compensate the Quebec publication, whose excellence has been recognized for decades in the Francophonie?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, here is a political party looking for problems. I have here a question put by the hon. member for Québec on June 22, 1995, in which her party was specifically asking that the Museum of Science and Technology publish the magazine in French.
Now, they are blaming us because the magazine is published in French, while four years ago they were blaming us because it was not published in French.
FisheriesMr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, northern fishers and producers are facing an economic crisis in their communities. This message was heard 30 years ago in 1969 when the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was created with a northern transportation program.
Will the government now listen to northern fishers who are facing an economic crisis in 1999? Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans review the FFMC monopoly on processing and marketing, and will he reinstate a fair transportation program?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct at least in reference to the importance of the inland fishery. Freshwater fish are a very important part of our exports and, indeed, a very important part of the economy of the small communities of the northern prairie provinces.
Where he is incorrect is to say that we have not followed up and done everything we can to encourage the maximum return to the fishermen. Breaking up the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board is very similar to the arguments which we hear in the House about breaking up the wheat board. If the New Democratic Party wants to go on record as being against the wheat board and the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board, let it say so clearly. We think that both serve a useful purpose.
TaxationGerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, downstream petrochemical producers and consumers are fearful of an increased carbon tax being charged at the gas pump.
Can the Minister of Finance assure the House that no increase in federal gasoline tax is about to be levied?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has addressed this question. The Minister of Finance has addressed this question. The Minister of the Environment has addressed this question. The former Minister of Natural Resources has addressed this question. I have addressed this question. Every answer, every time, has been “no carbon tax”.
HealthMr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is Mental Health Awareness Week.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health tell the House what Health Canada is doing in the area of mental health research?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that very serious question.
During Mental Health Awareness Week it is important for everyone to know that, while it is the provinces that deliver front line services, the federal government plays a very important role in helping to remove the terrible stigma of mental illness and to do the research that is necessary. We have invested some $19 million in mental health research. We know that the new Canadian Institute of Health Research will continue the important work on mental health.
I thank the member for his question because there are a number—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the parliamentary secretary can continue at another time.

Routine Proceedings
Fisheries And OceansDavid Anderson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the government's response to the seventh and eighth reports of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “The Nunavut Report” and “The Prince Edward Island Report”.
I thank the committee members and chair for the time and effort they put into preparing these reports, and I am sure that the response will be well received.
Government Response To PetitionsMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Committees Of The HouseMr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations.
In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, April 26, 1999, your committee has considered Bill C-78, the public sector pension investment board act, and agreed on Thursday, May 6, 1999, to report it with amendments.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
This is a provisional report on the pressing problems noted by the committee when it traveled to northern Quebec and Nunavut in May 1998 as part of its study of aboriginal economic development. It recommends that the government act quickly to meet the basic needs of northern Quebec's Cree and Inuit with respect to housing and Nav Canada infrastructures.
The committee has asked that the government respond within 30 days.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Industry on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.
PetitionsMr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by many Canadians. The petitioners are asking parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision, as supported by Bill C-340, that would allow the grandparent of a child to have access to the child and to ensure the well-being of the child without having to go to court.
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present petitions on behalf of those who seek the amendment of the Divorce Act to allow grandparents to have access to their grandchildren. It is a very laudable objective indeed.
Questions On The Order PaperMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be read the third time and passed.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to split my time with the hon. member for Churchill.
I rise today to say a few words regarding Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.
The impression we get is that the government is actually doing something about housing in the country. Perhaps this comes as a surprise to people. When we think that the government is going to change the National Housing Act and the CMHC act, it could be implied that it has decided to take some initiative to improve the housing situation in Canada.
We know, without any question, that there are tens of thousands of people in the country who do not have a home, period. They are living on the streets, in parks, under bridges and so on around the country. We heard earlier today the government whip indicating that the government had appointed a cabinet minister, the Minister of Labour, to co-ordinate some activity to deal with this issue of homelessness in Canada. We would assume that when we are dealing with Bill C-66, an act that deals with housing in Canada, there would be some reference or some indication that the government is actually going to do something about the homeless situation, but in fact the answer is that it is doing absolutely nothing. This is not a good day for the people who are living under bridges and the homeless in the country.
Let us agree, among ourselves at least, that to have a housing problem in Canada is rather unusual. We have more land available than every single country in the entire world, except one. We have land from coast to coast to coast. We have billions and billions of hectares of land.
We have trees in every single province and territory. When we fly across the country we see that we have trees from coast to coast. We have millions of hectares of trees, except for Nunavut which does not have any trees, but we could always ship a few up to those people if they need some. For most people, we have trees coming out of our ying yang. We have trees everywhere.
Think about it. Our banks are filled with money. We have an unbelievable amount of land at our disposal. We have lumber from coast to coast to coast. To have a housing problem, we have to work at it. We have to really work at it. There is not a single reason there should be a housing problem in this country. We hardly have any people compared with most other countries. We have housing technology and everything else. There must be a reason for this problem.
The problem is sitting right over there. That is the problem. We do not have a government with any inclination to improve the housing situation in this country. We should take this legislation, tear it up, throw it away and say enough—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys is an experienced and capable member of this House and he knows it is quite wrong to use props. Tearing up bills and other papers in the course of his speech is surely using the document as a prop. I know that he is excited about the subject and feels passionately about the issue, but perhaps he could constrain himself a little and comply with the rules.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is tough to constrain myself. I appreciate the fact that I should not have torn up that bill, but I am fed up. I am fed up with this government. I am fed up with its lack of attention to housing and I am fed up when I talk to people who cannot find decent housing for their families.
We are talking about Bill C-66, which would change the housing act and the CMHC, but we are not doing anything about housing. We are making it worse. Imagine that. This bill will make housing worse in the country. What are we doing here? We should all run out of here before this bill proceeds any further, but I know we are not going to do that. We have to hang in here, so I will say a couple of words.
What is so depressing is that governments are elected to serve Canadians. We have a very serious housing problem facing our country. I am looking particularly at a number of groups. I will identify two that immediately spring to mind. One group is the young people of this country; the young people who have worked hard to get decent training and education, who have hustled to get work, who are working often at two or three part time jobs, although some have decent jobs. They are trying to save money. They cannot afford to put a down payment on a house. They cannot afford housing. One would think that there must be some program we could introduce to assist them.
That is to say nothing about the aboriginal peoples of the country. If there is an embarrassment, it is that. We should hang our heads in shame and say we are disgusted and ashamed that we have allowed this situation to develop in terms of aboriginal housing in virtually every part of the country. There is something wrong. It is a disgrace.
The homeless issue is sad. There are people living under bridges by the thousands in this country. It is an embarrassment in one of the richest countries in the world. We should be doing something about it, but we are not. We are making it worse.
We are not alone in this. Back in 1993 the government said “we're outta here”. It said that it was out of housing and that it would not do anything more for housing, that it would not put another cent into housing, that it would not put a new nickel or quarter into social housing. In 1993 that was the big announcement. It was embarrassing that the Liberals cheered this announcement. They said, “Hey, great news. We are cutting back on social housing”. I remember that day. There was applause in here when they announced that they were not going to spend any more money helping people get into social housing. Members across the way applauded. I think most members would find that there is something very seriously wrong with this picture.
The Liberals then said, “We are out of here. We are not going to put another new nickel into social housing. As a matter of fact, we are going to get out of the business completely. We are going to fob it off to the provinces. We are going to download it onto the provinces so that they can carry the can on social housing”. They did download it onto the provinces over the last number of years and are still doing it.
What are the provinces doing? Are they any better? They are worse. They are not doing anything either with a couple of exceptions, to be fair. To our friends here who are representing the province of Quebec, Quebec has programs in social housing. I am pleased to say that the province that I represent, British Columbia, is doing something in social housing. As a matter of fact it just announced an increase in hundreds of units of social housing.
The provincial government alone says, “We are out here all on our own. We get no help from the federal government, not one whit. We need social housing in British Columbia and if we have to do it we are going to expand with hundreds and hundreds of new social housing units”. We should be cheering the province of British Columbia for at least picking up that initiative.
We have the province of British Columbia, not only maintaining its social housing but expanding its social housing, we have the province of Quebec and that is about it. That is all the social housing we are seeing by and large across the country.
We have a serious problem. That is why we were hoping that when we looked at Bill C-66 dealing with housing that we would see some initiatives.
We heard some very eloquent speakers before me comment about a variety of issues on why they are concerned about this. I want to identify clause 38 of this legislation. This is a pathetic clause. Under clause 38, it allows the CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to waive provisions of existing agreements. What does that mean? It means that under this clause an agreement between CMHC and a housing co-op or non-profit corporation could be ripped up and people living in co-ops or social housing could see their homes sold out from under them. That is what this little clause means about provisions regarding existing agreements.
We tried to get a clarification in committee whether this means that if the government deems it appropriate it can say to co-operative housing organizations across the country, “Too bad, we're getting out of it”. We have not received a decent answer.
That is why we are opposing this legislation so strongly. We tried it at second reading but it did not work. We tried it in the committee. We tried to get the Liberals to understand that we have to do something about housing. They said, “No. We are not going to do anything about housing. We are out of housing. We don't even like social housing”. They probably did not say that, but I guess that is what they were really meaning.
So here we are at third reading, the last gasp. We are just going down the tube here. This is it. At the end of the day the government is gone and that will be it for social housing from coast to coast to coast. It will be a sad day not only for people who are looking for homes today, not only for people who are living in shabby, dastardly housing conditions, but more importantly a bad day for Canada generally.
Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the third reading of Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the CMHC act.
As my hon. colleagues from Kamloops has mentioned, a more accurate and descriptive title for the bill would be an act to destroy the National Housing Act or an act to throw Canadians out on the street.
I have been disgusted with the Liberal government's duplicity. Homelessness is at a crisis in Canada. We have just come through one of the worst winters ever with homeless people freezing and dying on the street. The Liberal government's policies are responsible for this travesty. It has slashed transfer payments to the provinces. It has abandoned social housing and left overburdened provincial and municipal governments to pick up the pieces. It is a disgrace.
When Canadians walk the streets of their communities they see this crisis with their own eyes. The evidence is everywhere. All the Prime Minister has to do is walk down the street here in Ottawa, just a few metres from Parliament Hill, to see the evidence. There are homeless people pleading for help. It is the same in every city and town in Canada from Thompson to Toronto. The Liberal government is either so out of touch with what is going on out there and it does not see the problem or it just does not care.
There has been report after report on this issue: the Golden report, the report submitted to the Minister of Finance by the New Democratic Party's social policy critic, the member for Vancouver East.
The member for Vancouver East travelled from coast to coast, including to Thompson and South Indian Lake in my riding. She has met with people on the front lines of the crisis and people who work with the homeless and, unlike the Liberal government, actually cares about them as human beings. However, her report, like the Golden report, is sitting on a shelf somewhere in the finance minister's office collecting dust.
The Liberal government has done nothing, not a thing. Of course, the government says it cares, just like it said it cared about victims of hepatitis C and just like it said it would get rid of the GST.
The prime minister appointed the Minister of Labour as his minister responsible for homelessness. This minister would not even go before the committee studying the bill. According to the Liberals on the committee, housing and homelessness are not related. That is the typical Liberal government logic. It is like saying hospitals and health care do not go together.
This raises an interesting question about the Liberal government's attitude. Why do we even need a minister responsible for homelessness when there is already a minister responsible for housing? One would think that homelessness would be something that the minister of housing ought to be responsible for. After all, he is responsible for making sure Canadians have homes. There must be more Liberal government logic at work here.
The fact that the Liberal government has appointed a minister responsible for homelessness separate from the minister of housing should speak volumes. It says that the government sees homelessness as something that is always going to be there and therefore needs a minister to look after it. It clearly does not see homelessness as something the minister of housing can or should be doing anything about. Heavens, no.
Instead, the minister of housing brought us this bill to gut and privatize social housing. That is the Liberal government's idea of what the minister of housing is for. Apparently that minister's job is to create homelessness so that the minister for homelessness has some work to do. This bill is the last nail in the coffin of social housing in Canada.
I know that makes the Reform Party giddy with joy. The Reform Party even brought in amendments to try and get the bill to go further. It is just like the years 1993 to 1997 when it pushed the government to cut more, cut taxes and cut dollars going to health care and social assistance. What do we have now? We have a health care crisis. The Reform Party is now pushing to cut social housing even more just to make the crisis for homelessness even worse.
I do not know how members of the Liberal government can say they care about homelessness when they are doing the exact opposite of what they say. They have abandoned social housing in seven out of the ten provinces. It may be eight soon.
We all know the Liberal government has more or less finished a deal with the Conservatives in Ontario. It is just waiting to see whether or not the Conservatives get re-elected so it can dot the i 's and cross the t 's in that agreement. It will not make much difference if the Liberals or the Conservatives get elected in Ontario. When it comes to housing, they pretty much agree.
Howard Hampton of the Ontario NDP is the only party that is coming out in support of social housing in Ontario. Then there is Manitoba where the Liberal government has already downloaded social housing onto the province. The Filmon government has already begun phasing out all funding for social housing. Every cent for social housing will be gone if Mr. Filmon and the Manitoba Conservatives get a chance to finish what this Liberal government started.
The one shred of good news in all this has been the news that co-op housing will not be part of the download in Ontario. The Liberal government has spared the Ontario co-ops. Of course, this does not exactly warrant a lot of gratitude. That would be like being grateful to a mugger for leaving our pocket change but taking the rest of our money.
The Liberal government is still downloading non-profit social housing corporations and aboriginal housing corporations. In seven provinces that have already been downloaded, the Liberal government did not spare the co-ops. If the Liberals truly are a national party, they should prove it by reversing the downloading of co-ops in those other seven provinces. Better yet, they should not download any social housing at all. Housing is a national responsibility not a provincial one.
Bill C-66 takes the Liberal government's attack on social housing to new heights. The bill paves the way for the privatization of social housing. It opens the door wide for private for-profit corporations to be recognized as social housing providers by the CMHC. Of course, once we privatize social housing it is not social any more. As the name indicates, for-profit companies are in business to make money not provide a service. Social housing is a service not a business. It is a service to help put a roof over people's heads. Housing is not cheap and many low income people need subsidized housing or they would have no choice but to live on the streets. These people are not living in mansions. Many social housing units barely meet minimum standards, but at least they give people warm, dry places to sleep.
What does the bill do to the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act? It guts them. It guts the acts that govern social housing in this country. It eliminates the minimum standards that were built into the old legislation for social housing to be clean, safe and affordable.
Logically, what is the Liberal government saying by eliminating these minimum standards? It is saying that it does not think the homes of Canadians should have to meet even the most minimal standards. It is saying that Canadians do not deserve even a minimal level of safety, cleanliness and affordability.
The only logical reason for the government to get rid of these standards is so that it does not have to live up to them. That is what it has done for years in most first nations communities throughout Canada. It is shocking and appalling that it is knowingly and willingly removing minimum standards from homes in Canada.
The Liberal government cannot say it did not know that was what it was doing. My New Democratic Party colleague from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton raised amendments at report stage to put these standards back into the bill but the Liberal government voted them down. How does the government try to justify this? The CMHC bureaucrats who wrote the legislation say they need flexibility. I am all in favour of flexibility but not flexibility without standards. Flexibility is good, but we cannot give bureaucrats and private social housing providers the flexibility to reduce cleanliness, safety and affordability of social housing below basic human standards. It is not right.
Speaking of not meeting basic human standards, let us talk about aboriginal housing. The housing conditions of first nations people in Canada, whether one is talking about remote first nations or urban ghettos, are a disgrace.
The minister of Indian affairs has been to a number of remote first nations. She has seen the conditions in my riding and in other northern communities. She has seen the pillows stuffed in the holes in the walls to keep out the winter cold. She has seen homes wrapped in plastic to keep them warm and homes without running water or toilets. She has seen all this, but the minister of Indian affairs has done nothing.
The Liberal government has done nothing about aboriginal housing but make a few token gestures. Small token gestures are all that the government has shown to its gathering strength policy.
Conditions on first nations are so bad that even the United Nations has condemned them. Now we are saying we should keep on going and do this throughout the rest of Canada instead of improving where we should be. Watching the decline of social housing since the Liberal government took power has been like watching one of the ancient Greek tragedies where everyone dies in the end. Every Canadian will lose because of what the Liberal government is doing with this bill.
Housing is part of the foundation of our economy. People cannot be expected to get training or to look for jobs and add to our economy if they are busy struggling to survive on the streets. By giving people a roof over their heads and a chance to make something of their lives, social housing provides a boost for our economy. It prevents people from falling through the cracks.
The bill will privatize social housing and it will raise rents, lower standards and put people on the streets. This bill will do more harm than good to our economy and our society. It is cruel. It is short-sighted. I do not know how the Liberal backbenchers over there can sleep at night. I hope some of them will show a shred of conscience and help us in the opposition to defeat the bill when we vote on it one last time.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask a question as a result of the comment.
After listening to the hon. member's speech, it would seem to me that the hon. member mixes up two very important terms: the issues of homelessness and housing. They are not synonymous. The issue of homelessness is a broader issue. If the hon. member has read the Golden report, which I hope she has and recognizes that it was sponsored in part by the federal government, the report shows that the issue of homelessness is a multifaceted issue.
In the city of Vancouver, where there is a great deal of homelessness and the issues of prostitution, urban natives and drug addiction, the government has recently put in $5 million to coordinate a strategy between three levels of government: between the people who live in the area and between the non-governmental organizations in the region to be able to work horizontally within and between governments and communities to come up with a coordinated, comprehensive, holistic response to these issues.
Not only was money put in to do this issue, but recently money was put in to the urban aboriginal strategy to help aboriginal people in cities to work toward a plan of action they can administer to find solutions to some of these issues. It needs to be co-ordinated.
Does the hon. member understand the difference between homelessness and lack of housing?
Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, anyone who would suggest that homelessness does not go in line with housing is dreaming in Technicolor. Certainly there are situations where that may not be the key issue, but I can say without any doubt in my mind the reason that a number of first nations people leave their first nations to go into cities and elsewhere is the lack of proper housing in first nation communities.
If the government were truly committed to addressing the problem of homelessness, why is the minister responsible for homelessness not being given a budget? What is she supposed to do? Are we supposed to look out there on the street and say make it go away? It will not happen. The crisis will get much worse if there is not a serious effort to address the problem.
By downloading social housing and not supporting social housing programs we are increasing the crisis that much more. There will be that many more people on the streets.
Gilles Bernier: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to debate Bill C-66 at third reading. It is an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Act. It is also a sad day for Canadians. We all know that the bill will pass because the Liberals will use their majority to pass it, I suspect some time next week.
When the bill was introduced in committee we were allowed to submit amendments to it. We supplied a few. One of them was with reference to subclauses 18 (1) and (2) on page 7 of the bill. We requested the addition of a subsection (3) which would require the government to spend an amount equal to compensation paid by CMHC to the Receiver General for Canada in return for the federal government's backing of its loan insurance and guaranteed operations on social housing. It was defeated in committee.
Let me explain what the amendment was all about. If I lived in a rural area of Canada and had a seasonal job, in the wintertime I would have to rely on EI to feed my family. If I wanted to get ahead in life, I would try to obtain a loan to put a roof over the heads of my kids and my wife.
I would go to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and would be considered a high risk. There is not a bank in the country that would give me a mortgage; I would be told absolutely no. However, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation would assume this high risk so that I could build a house for my family. If something happened and I could not pay for the house, the government would guarantee CMHC 100% of the mortgage insurance.
When the bill goes through the government will not guarantee a penny to CMHC. Yet the governments wants the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation within the next three or four years to give it $198 million. The government wants to take $198 million out of the corporation and put it into its general account and waste it like it has been doing since 1993 when it came to power.
My amendment was defeated in committee. It was a shame, but that is the way it is. The money is lost to CMHC forever. It could have been used for social housing, but it will be put into the general revenues of the government.
It could be spent on something like the million dollar plastic dinosaur that the government is building in Alberta or the grant the Department of Canadian Heritage gave to publish a book of dumb blonde jokes.
We were sent to the House of Commons by Canadians to be their representatives. We have a mandate to fight for the concerns of Canadians, to make sure the economy moves well, and to create programs so that there will be prosperity in the country and the economy will be booming.
I do not think spending money to publish a book on dumb blonde jokes and creating a plastic dinosaur in Alberta is good for the economy. People are living in shacks. Families with young children are living, eating and sleeping in their cars. This is Canadian society today.
While the flexibility to offer new products is welcome—and I welcome that because we need new products—the changes eliminate the advantages of government underwriting. Forcing the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to cover any loss will decrease the willingness to finance high risk borrowers such as low income people. It may also make it more difficult for borrowers in more remote locations to qualify for mortgage loan insurance. I am not the one saying this; it has been reported.
Another of my party's amendments concerned clause 25. We would have liked it to be amended by deleting lines 19 to 24 on page 19 and line 35 on page 19 and replacing it with subclause 6(7). Again, for the record, that amendment was defeated.
CMHC has a board of directors with a good balance of five highly qualified professionals: a chairman, a president, a vice-president and two public servants. It also has five political appointees. Clause 25 in Bill C-66 proposes changing the composition of the board so that there would be a majority of eight political appointees, with only the chairman and the president remaining on the board.
I asked on a number of occasions how this change would benefit Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and/or the clients it serves. The only answer was that all other crown corporations were doing it. Is that a logical answer? To me it is not.
On three different occasions on the same amendment I asked Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials in briefings what problems existed that needed solutions. They gave no answer. I asked them how it would improve service to Canadians and they had no idea. I believe this change is totally unnecessary.
At least we have five highly qualified professionals on the board who know what they are talking about as far as the corporation is concerned and five political appointees. With the new bill some of these individuals will be pushed aside and eight political appointees and two highly qualified professionals will sit in their place. Does that make sense? To me it does not.
Under the new bill the changes would remove any reference to fair rents in providing RRAP assistance to private landlords. Any provisions for urgent repairs have been removed. Transfers from the governor in council to CMHC authority to determine amount of RRAP forgiveness, household incomes, household needs and attributing household incomes have been deleted. Specific reference to non-profit corporations has been removed.
I will now go to sections 78 to 83, the public housing section. The changes rationalize the flexibility of the 1996 social housing transfer agreement by eliminating the need for global agreements. They remove the restrictions on decent, safe and sanitary housing. They remove the low income restrictions. Consistent with the changes under other sections of the act, all references to low and modest incomes have been removed. Overall the bill is defining social housing out of existence.
In section 95 dealing with programs, the definition of eligible contribution recipients has been eliminated. The reference to section 27, non-profit status, has been removed. The social housing character of section 95 has been defined out of the legislation.
What is good in the bill? I do not see too much in it. From 1985 to 1993 under the previous Conservative government funding for social housing rose by 73%. That is how much money was put into social housing under this program. I even have the figures to show how much social housing was built by the previous government from 1985 to 1993. From 1993 to the end of 1998 when the government took power, the number of units in Canada declined by 3%.
We are not in 1993 any more. We are in 1999. There is a crisis out there. It is not a problem; it is a crisis. People do not have homes and the government is cutting social housing.
A couple of weeks ago a new minister for homelessness was appointed and was asked a question. She rose in the House and said she was not the minister for homelessness. Last week she gave a speech in the province of New Brunswick in which she told the audience she was the minister for homelessness.
I would ask the government or the minister responsible for homelessness what is her mandate in this new portfolio. She does not know. She does not know if she is the minister or if she is not.
She had a meeting with the mayor of Toronto not long ago. There were articles this morning in the National Post and the Toronto Sun in which she was quoted as saying “I went to bingos with you homeless people. I know your problems and I am going to make things happen”. The mayor of Toronto now calls her bingo mom. That is a shame.
I asked two questions in the House during question period. Some Liberals screamed that they were not good questions. I do not want to discredit the minister responsible for homelessness. I know her past. She is from New Brunswick and I am also from New Brunswick. For 25 or 30 years she was very good with the program she started. However I am not a person who lives in the past. What I did 20 years ago is irrelevant today. Now she has a job as a member of parliament and has been appointed minister to see what can be done to help homeless people and if there can be a better housing policy.
The minister should have come back a long time ago, it was 45 days ago. She was supposed to have something at the end of April. Now we are in the month of May and there is still nothing.
While the minister was in Toronto, she was to have a meeting with the mayor of Toronto. She was supposed to have that meeting within 30 days, on April 29. I am quoting the mayor of Toronto when he said “but the bingo mom did not show up and now I cannot get a date for another meeting”. What is the minister's mandate?
It is not something that needs to be fixed next year or in five years time. As I said a while ago, it is not a problem, it is a crisis in this country.
I am on a task force that was organized by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. I travel around Canada to meet with special groups. I have been to Vancouver. I have been to Edmonton. I have been to Calgary. I have been to Saskatoon. I have been to St. John's, Newfoundland. I have been all over. Next Monday I will be in Charlottetown. The stories told to us by people who have appeared before our committee are unreal.
I was in the United States about nine years ago. When I came back to Canada I was a proud Canadian. Many times we hear it said that Canada is the best little country in the world. Say that to those people who appeared before our committee and we will hear firsthand what those people have to say.
As a member of parliament representing Canadians and especially the constituents in my riding of Tobique—Mactaquac, I cannot believe that a country as rich in resources and minerals as Canada with the big population we have cannot afford a social housing policy.
Instead of helping those people, we are cutting social housing. This bill is taking everything out of social housing. This bill will pass. The Liberals will use their majority to pass it, and when the bill passes there will be no more social housing policy. It is the end of this country's social housing policy.
When the Liberals were first elected they were on a roller coaster ride for two years. In 1995 they finally realized there was a problem with social housing. Instead of tackling that problem, facing the problem and taking care of it then, they decided to download it to the provinces. They decided to give their problems to the provinces.
Now that we are in a crisis the same Liberal government will not accept the responsibility. It blames the provinces, like it did with health care and like it did with Mike Harris in Ontario. The Liberals cut health care. They cut the transfer payments by 40%. Then the provinces had to cut the hospitals. Then the Liberal government blamed the provinces for the crisis. Is that logical?
I do not care which party governs, we are here to represent all Canadians. We should throw partisan politics out the door. We should work together as one to make sure that all Canadians have a home. That is a basic need. I do not see that happening on the other side of the House at all.
This bill will take us into the international market. I am not against that, because it will create jobs here in Canada within that market. The problem is wider than that. My dad always told me that charity begins at home. We have a problem in Canada. Instead of running abroad, we should try to fix the problems here.
In closing, we will be opposing this bill because we believe in Canada and we believe in its people. It is time that members of this House got together.
Look at our party's record. I have a copy right here of the record of the last Progressive Conservative government from 1984 to 1993. It lists the number of units built and the amount of money that was put into the social housing of this country. We see a big difference between where we were and where we are. We are going backward in that regard but the years are going ahead. So are we backtracking here?
It has been an honour for me to speak about social housing and Bill C-66. Again, my party and I cannot support the bill because it has all the wording about social housing taken out of it. I cannot support a bill like that.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about housing in Canada.
We have before us today a bill to make some changes to the CMHC. I emphasize that home ownership is a cherished value in Canada.
For most of my generation when we graduated from university we got married and the first thing we did was plan to purchase that first house. It is incredible when I think about it. At that time my wife and I chose to live on one salary. We decided that she would be a full time mom to our children. We were able to borrow the money and make the payments on my income of the day. I am sure everyone will be pleased to know and young people will be especially pleased to know that my salary when I was first working in my profession was a little under $6,000 a year. With that I was able to borrow money and start our first home.
A young couple starting today cannot do that. They cannot afford to have their children. They cannot afford to have a house unless they are both working. Even then with all of the taxes and the GST on top of all of that, it is really tough for young people nowadays to get started.
The bigger issue by far is the affordability of homes in this country. CMHC at least in theory and in its philosophy is supposed to support the notion of making housing more affordable. Through the CMHC the government, the taxpayer, takes on a certain amount of the risk of providing the money to purchase homes. That is one of the things government can do but I think the government should have done it in the past. I am talking about the governments of the past 30 years. We will go all the way back to 1970.
The governments since then have racked up so much debt and increased the payments of interest on that debt. I would hold the Liberal government, the Conservative government after that and the present Liberal government accountable for that. Young people nowadays have such a high tax load that it is very difficult for them to get their own housing.
I am basically supportive of measures that would provide for the ownership of homes or that would make it possible for young people to own their own homes. It is a good model of housing that we have. It is quite different from some countries where the thought of owning your own home or your own apartment is totally elusive. It is part of the dream, part of the initiative, part of the psyche of our country that can help us in this ongoing problem of productivity. It motivates us. There is something special about being able to own your own place, to make your own decisions on how you decorate it and how you live.
I have some concerns about the bill. I have some concerns about CMHC extending its industry around the world. I wish we would concentrate on the problems in this area within our own country. We certainly support helping other nations to a degree through our foreign affairs department and through our humanitarian efforts around the world. However when it comes to something like this, CMHC should concentrate on Canadian enterprise, Canadian housing, and not get involved in other countries to that extent.
The other thing that is somewhat troubling is that CMHC expends taxpayers' money, or at least it has the potential of doing so. It is supposed to be designed in such a way that it turns a small profit or operates evenly, but it does have the potential of spending public money. It should always be held accountable through the minister and through parliament to the taxpayers. This bill falls short in that regard.
There should be some amendments made to it so that the Canadian taxpayer is protected and we do not give a blank cheque to the minister to spend as much money as he or she wishes. We like to think that would not be out of control. Accountability is always important to make sure that does not happen.
I conclude by saying that a bill like this one deserves some level of support because there are some good things in it but amendments should be made. I emphasize over and over again that our first obligation to young people and young families in our country in terms of home ownership is to reduce their taxes so they have enough of their earnings left over and they can pay for their mortgages and own their own homes.
Rick Laliberte: Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to speak on the issue of housing.
It certainly is a wake-up call for a lot of Canadians, especially a lot of people in my constituency, to see the effects of Bill C-66 on our communities. It will mean wholesale changes in the structure of housing in my communities.
A lot of the responsibilities have already devolved from federal to provincial authority. There is also concern about on reserve housing in aboriginal communities and contributions that the federal government has made for the development of communities and their infrastructures.
When one sees social housing coming to an end as a national program, Bill C-66 seems to punctuate it. In Canada we have such pristine land that gives us natural resources of timber, rock, minerals and properties that can provide for meaningful homes, that can be designed for a new generation of children to come, that can meet the environmental needs, the non-polluting needs and sustainable development housing needs of the future. For the federal government to abdicate and abandon its responsibility now is very untimely.
As a national vision we should be empowering our youth. When they leave high school are they trained to understand how to build a home, the basic need of a shelter? Can they renovate the property they will eventually own as students, workers or parents? What about the maintenance of the heating, cooling and electrical systems or the plumbing? All these are housing needs and basic skills that people need to take care of their homes and to make them sustainable.
In a high tech world everything has become a case of calling 911 when people are in trouble. People call the plumber when there is a leak, the electrician when there is a power outage, the computer specialist when viruses are coming down from the online system. We are making people dependent.
The social housing program has been utilized by many generations of families and individuals. In future they will have to try to find their way through the provincial and local community administrations.
As well, this bill will abdicate the corporate for profit social housing programs. That is a very dangerous venture for this country to go on.
I believe that our young people, our homeless people, our disadvantaged people require the state to look at these interests and to find the means to create opportunities to put before us. The state should make the challenges. It should make them local challenges.
My first career, coming out of high school, was as a carpenter. In 1976 there was a major infrastructure development in northern Saskatchewan which included housing. I learned to build a house. Today I am proud to be a carpenter who can still build a house, but if it was not for the social housing program that was in place in my community I would have not attained that skill or that trade.
Today, if for profit corporations build social housing in our communities, they hire local people at minimum wage for a very specific, short period and then they leave with the profits they have made. There is no advantages for trade development or skill development. I guess the bottom line is one of self-awareness and self-pride, self-esteem in housing.
If families can provide homes, if communities can provide for the well-being of their citizens and if the country can provide for the well-being of its citizens, then we will have self-esteem in the country. With Bill C-66 we seem to be going to the common marketplace to look at social housing delivery in the country.
In Canada we have a housing shortage in the middle of the boreal forest. That is a mindless situation. It is not a housing problem, it is a social problem. It is a sick society when we have a wealth of resources in the backwoods of our communities and we have a housing shortage. Young families are starting up. Some families have 15 to 20 members living in one dwelling. They have issues of health, discipline and economic plight.
Housing is also an industry. We have to create industries in our communities in all necks of the woods, so to speak.
We recently had the birth of Nunavut. We watched the celebrations take place in the capital of Nunavut, Iqaluit. This is a growing, young population, the majority of which is under 25 years old. They are going to need housing in the future, but there are no trees in Nunavut. There is an abundance of trees in northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. We have to create an economic cycle within our own country. We have to trade among ourselves. We have to prepare ourselves, but we have to take care of our people first, before we trade worldwide.
Let us take care of Canadians in a responsible way. I call on the government to reconsider its support of Bill C-66 at this time. I call on the government to reconsider in the new millennium renovating and rejuvenating our pride, as well as renovating this House. Why not? This House has a housing problem of its own. We should reassess how we populate it, and redesign the House which came from the British form of government. Let us redesign something collectively for the new millennium.
The whole structure and foundation of the government, the foundation of the country, is compassion for everyone. We must have compassion for each other.
Those people who have been using the social housing program for years should be the people sitting on the CMHC board of directors. They should be the ones administering the bureaucratic structure of social housing. Why not consider these people for positions on the board of directors? Instead, the government, the minister or the prime minister will appoint whomever they want.
The government should look at the standards of housing in this country and consider our northern climate. The government should consider climate change and the effect that will have on our environment. It should consider the use of energy.
It is a major challenge for us to empower and to teach our children that in the future we should build our homes in a respectful and honourable way, but by no means should the federal government abandon its responsibilities to the citizens of this country.
I believe that a further review of the CMHC is needed for the new millennium, but consultations should take place at the community level, not at the federal level. I call on the Liberal government not to adopt any past government's ideas of making for profit corporations' interests a priority. The government should support the non-profit and co-operative movement that has taken place in social housing. These organizations should be financially and politically supported to make it possible for people in the future to have houses.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, a recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 10, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find consent that the House would be prepared to consider the time to be 1.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's order paper.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act, 1998 (negative option marketing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Before I call for resumption of debate, I have received notice from the hon. member for North Vancouver that he is unable to move his motion during private members' hour on Monday, May 10. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence. Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Private members' hour will, thus, be cancelled and Government Orders will begin at 11 a.m.
Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words to this bill that my hon. friend has been trying to have passed for some time.
We will all remember that this process started when a lot of Canadians were shocked by the fact that cable television charges had been increased and Canadians had not approved the increase. They were shocked to find that the cable stations had every right to impose a new set of costs and a new range of services. If we do not like what they do, then we have to notify them. This seems to be kind of an odd way to go about business. It is certainly in favour of the cable companies. I remember, and I am sure other members remember the incredible response that we received as elected members: the faxes, the e-mails, the letters and the visits from delegations and all sorts of very disgruntled people in terms of wondering how it was that we were allowing this to occur.
The question is: What do we do about it? I am therefore pleased to speak to today's bill because the hon. member has brought forward a proposal that would make this kind of back door increase impossible.
This is the second time this has moved through the House. The last time it was scuttled in committee. I hope this time it will have a better chance to pass in the House. Today is the last day of debate. In a matter of minutes we will have the final round of discussion and then we will move to a vote on the bill. We in the New Democratic Party who are here will be supporting it.
I realize this is a private member's initiative and not a party initiative. It is being brought forward once again by the hon. member who was quite outraged, as we all were, when he learned about the initiative taken by the cable companies. I am not certain if this applies to other organizations or not, but even if it does, the fact that the cable companies have misused this initiative would probably justify our speaking and voting against it because it certainly is not in the best interests of their subscribers.
This tells us that the cable companies assume that Canadians are not very smart and that they really cannot think for themselves. It is either that or they are able to be manipulated quite easily. I am not sure what the assumption would be. However, I do not think we can accept that. We want to say that Canadians have the right to decide for themselves, as individuals, as families, and so on, as to what combination of programming they would like to have.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
The bill before this House is not new. We have seen it in various forms in the past. The government has a number of concerns it will raise in committee, if the House decides to refer this bill to committee. We hope to propose some amendments to the bill at committee stage, and the members will be able to consider them at their leisure.
That said, today the bill is at second reading. So, for the moment, we intend to support the bill. For our colleagues opposite who have expressed certain concerns, which we share, I reiterate that these concerns should be covered by amendments in committee before the bill returns to the House at report stage or third reading.
One of these concerns is the effect the bill may have, in its present form, on the Broadcasting Act. This concern is shared, and we intend to remedy it in committee.
I encourage my colleagues opposite, who expressed the same concerns, to raise them in committee, as the government intends.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, I am pleased to speak in this debate. Bill C-393 is intended to amend the Competition Act, 1998, which concerns industry.
On first examination, the objective of this bill appears to be a praiseworthy one. But we in the Bloc Quebecois see a number of problems in it, particularly the issue of jurisdiction. The bill is intended as an interference in the relationship between commercial operations and consumers, which is clearly an area of provincial jurisdiction.
This bill proposed an amendment to the Competition Act, and is aimed at prohibiting negative option marketing, which means billing consumers for products or services without their express consent.
In fact, it proposes to prohibit such marketing practices by banks, trust companies, credit unions as well as telecommunications and broadcasting companies. When reference is made to credit unions, of course this refers mainly to the caisses populaires, of which there are many in Quebec. Almost all Quebeckers belong to a caisse populaire.
This is the third attempt by the member for Sarnia—Lambton to ban negative option billing. In 1996, the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216, the purpose of which was to amend the Broadcasting Act.
I would remind members that the Bloc Quebecois was opposed to the bill for three reasons. First, it represented interference in commercial relations between businesses and consumers, a field of provincial jurisdiction. Second, the bill would have required the explicit consent of all subscribers for a new channel to be broadcast. Third, the bill had a particularly unfortunate effect, not only in Quebec, but in our opinion also in other regions with a sizeable francophone population.
The other place was concerned about this, and amended the bill in order to protect francophones. It died on the Order Paper, however, when the election was called.
On November 25, 1997, the hon. member for Sarnia«Lambton introduced Bill C-288. Its goal was similar to that of Bill C-216, and its contents almost identical. But the House did not get to vote on this bill.
He is now coming back with this legislation. We can attest to the tenacity and perseverance of the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, who insists on presenting a bill, which he feels targets broadcasting companies. But this time, the hon. member does not seek to amend the Broadcasting Act but, rather, the Competition Act. However, the fundamental purpose of the Competition Act is not to regulate relations between consumers and businesses, but to monitor deceptive practices used by competing companies.
As regards deceptive practices, the Bureau of Competition must of course receive complaints. When it is established that a company or a business is resorting to deceptive practices, it can be subject to stiff penalties.
But, in this case, this clearly does not come under the Competition Act. The objective is different, that is to deal with relations between consumers and companies. This, in our opinion, comes under the CRTC, which is accountable to the Minister of Industry, and the issue should be dealt with at that level.
There is a major flaw in that the proposed change is not aimed at the proper act, but at another one, whose objective does not have to do with this type of relations.
In spite of the laudable goal pursued by the hon. member, the Bloc Quebecois will nevertheless oppose this bill, primarily because trade and consumer protection come under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
We believe that this issue should be dealt with by the CRTC, which already has the powers to prohibit negative option marketing if it deems that it is appropriate and in the public interest to do so.
This bill would reduce the powers of the CRTC and give the Bureau of Competition powers that could adversely affect the Canadian broadcasting policy, limit consumers' options, increase their bills and kill the development of French language broadcasting in Quebec and Canada, in regions where francophones are present.
I will stop here and conclude by saying that we will oppose this bill.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to second reading of Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act which deals specifically with negative option billing. My caucus colleague, the member for Markham, has already spoken as PC Party industry critic on the bill at second reading.
As most members have noted, Bill C-393 had a previous life in the 35th parliament. In that parliament the member for Sarnia—Lambton introduced Bill C-216, which would have amended the Broadcasting Act. The legislation was sparked by public outrage at the cable companies imposing negative option billing through the addition of specialty channels at the beginning of 1995. As such, Bill C-216 dealt solely with cable television and passed the House despite opposition from many powerful interests.
Unfortunately for the member's efforts Bill C-216 was still under review by the Senate when the Prime Minister called the 1997 federal election. The bill was effectively killed by the member's own government, which was not under any pressure to go to the polls only 3.5 years into its first mandate. There may be some, perhaps even the member himself, who would blame the Senate for the death of Bill C-216. This is a misguided view because the Senate was playing its constitutionally mandated role to review legislation from the House.
There may have been many occasions in the past several years where the Senate has undeniably improved legislation. Correcting errors not addressed on the House side in the Liberal government's so-called Pearson airport legislation and more recent amendments to the Judges Act are but two examples. Until the Senate is either reformed or abolished we should stop attacking its members for trying to perform their mandate.
Bill C-216 is history. We are now debating Bill C-393. As previously mentioned, the bill would amend the Competition Act to ban negative option billing in a whole host of sectors, including certain financial institutions, broadcasting undertakings, telecommunications firms and insurance companies. In particular, Bill C-393 protects the basic consumer right to express consent before purchasing a new product or service. In plain language this means consumers cannot be billed for a product or service without their clear consent.
The member for Sarnia—Lambton and organizations such as the Consumers' Association of Canada make a compelling case against negative option marketing practices. Indeed I think many of us will agree that this type of marketing reverses the traditional buyer-seller relationship. With negative option billing customers are offered new products or services and are required to opt out or expressly decline these new offerings to avoid being charged for them.
From a legal standpoint negative option billing relies upon the concept of implied consent. By not responding to a solicitation the consumer is deemed to have given his or her consent. Indeed it is fair to say that negative option schemes rely on market inertia to sell new products or services to an existing client base. It is therefore a justifiable claim that negative option billing further concentrates market share with the dominant industry players instead of fostering competition in an open marketplace.
Bill C-393 applies to federally regulated businesses such as banks and cable and telephone companies. Under the law selected financial, insurance, cable and broadcasting companies would not be allowed to use a lack of consumer response to negative option billing inquiries as consent to buy. The bill wisely allows provincial governments to prohibit negative option marketing within their jurisdictions. Provinces such as Quebec have already taken steps in this direction.
While provincial governments have progressed somewhat in addressing these dubious marketing efforts, there is a noticeable lack of such consumer protection at the federal level. Cable providers are still using negative option billing in regional markets despite previous assurances to the contrary.
In August 1996 Industry Canada's office of consumer affairs warned that negative option marketing had the potential to be an important tool in the financial services sector. Examples cited in the report included the sending of unsolicited credit cards and changes in account structure made without the consent of consumers.
In 1997 the Toronto-Dominion Bank employed a negative option technique to deprive bank customers of their privacy. The National Bank reportedly used a similar scheme to sell travellers health insurance to existing customers by debiting their accounts $9.95 per month.
I am pleased that Bill C-393 recognizes that there are situations in which a consumer benefits from a negative option billing arrangement. However, for this to be the case, consumers must be able to make informed decisions and give express consent. The bill proposes certain steps to be taken for a negative option scheme to be legal and fines for those who contravene the act.
The bill has received the support of the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Insurance Brokers Association of Canada. Although Bill C-393 is strong on consumer protection, the PC caucus would like to know the views of such organizations as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute among others.
We must always be prudent as parliamentarians not to impose an excessive amount of laws and regulations on the private sector. Our caucus has already brought forward the concerns of the private sector regarding punitive measures in the federal cost recovery program, which was expanded greatly by the Liberal government in 1994.
Although the move to more user fees for the private sector was initially welcomed by businesses of all shapes and sizes, the government's chosen structure has proven to be ineffective, incompatible and costly. As a result this program cost the Canadian economy over $1.3 billion from our GDP and 23,000 jobs, according to the 1990 report by the Blair Consulting Group. Let us always be careful in bringing in government intervention no matter how well intentioned it may seem to be at the time.
Our caucus would also like to verify that Bill C-393 would not hinder French language broadcasting in Canada. This was raised in 1997 by the chairwoman of the CRTC. I am sure all members of the House, especially bilingualism's newest friends in the Reform Party, would want to ensure that Bill C-393 does not pose a threat to French language broadcasting.
I reiterate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada the qualified support of Bill C-393 at second reading. The overall intent is extremely positive. The legislation would significantly increase the level of consumer protection in the country.
I urge all members of the House to put aside partisan interests and support moving the bill along to the industry committee where it can be given closer scrutiny on issues of concern.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act which relates specifically to negative option marketing. I commend the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for introducing the legislation once again. It seeks to protect consumers and offer consumers greater choice in the marketplace.
Bill C-393 deals with the business practice known as negative option sales and marketing. The practice is also known as unsolicited marketing and marketing by inertia. Related concepts include the following: bundling, tied selling, automatic renewal contracts and misleading advertising and/or deceptive marketing.
Regardless of the term or concept, this practice is a perversion of the normally accepted rules of contract or sales. The law of contracts insists that a form of offer and acceptance is required to make an agreement binding. It could be argued that negative option marketing, in the absence of independent consent, undermines the fundamental principles necessary for a valid commercial contract.
Negative option marketing involves a consumer receiving a product and a payment request because the consumer failed to say no to the offer. Normally in the context of the rules of contract or sales, an offer is made, acceptance is given, the service is delivered and payment is required.
The framework employed under negative option sales is inverted. An offer is sometimes made, sometimes hidden and sometimes there is no choice at all. The consumer accepts the offer not because the individual necessarily wants the product but because they do not specifically say “No, I do not want this service”.
Why is this practice employed? It is obvious. The assumption that the consumer desires the product is made in the absence of refusal in order to increase revenue. Practitioners of this type of marketing or sales do not seek to meet the demands of the marketplace but create what can be termed as a false demand. This sleight of hand technique violates consumers' right to choice. Moreover approving sales where there is no market is synonymous with forcing sales where there is no demand. It is unreasonable to allow the creation of both market and demand where neither exist.
Bill C-393 would amend the Competition Act to force federally regulated companies to obtain the permission of customers for any new service. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that a consumer has the right to say “I know what is offered. I know the cost. I want what is offered”. It is not unreasonable to expect federally regulated companies to obtain a definite and positive response before supplying and charging for services.
This bill protects a basic consumer right, the right to express consent before purchasing a new product. Negative option marketing or billing relies on implied consent. In other words, by not responding to solicitation the consumer is deemed to have given his or her consent. Rather than foster competition, negative option marketing concentrates market share with the dominant players in a particular sector. Any anti-competitive practice limits choice for consumers and acts contrary to the foundation of the Canadian marketplace.
In today's marketplace consumers are inundated with communication through various mediums. It is unreasonable to sanction the onerous task of requiring consumers to examine the endless amount of communications from customer dealings in search of negative option marketing. Consumer arrangements resulting in new products or services being offered that obligate additional consumer expenditure should require expressed consent.
Several points should be made clear. Bill C-393 applies to federally regulated businesses such as banks, cable and telephone companies. The provinces are free to prohibit negative option marketing within their jurisdictions. Several have already taken steps in this direction. The time has arrived to enact measures at the federal level in order to protect consumers. Bill C-393 provides the appropriate measures.
Bill C-393 also proposes that steps be taken in order for specific negative option programs to be legal. Why? Because the bill recognizes that situations may exist where a consumer would benefit from a negative option billing arrangement. This is supported by a document produced by Industry Canada entitled “Negative Option Marketing: A Discussion Paper” wherein it is stated “Negative option marketing takes many forms and in some circumstances may benefit consumers as well as industry”.
This bill does not seek to impede successful industry in Canada. It does however ensure that consumers are able to make informed decisions and express consent before entering into an agreement with additional charges. Moreover, Bill C-393 recognizes or provides for exemptions in order that specific enterprises remain competitive in their sector of activity while maintaining consumer protection.
The bill in section 128(1.1) states:
The Governor in Council may, by regulation, exempt from the definition of “service” in section 53 any service that, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, should be exempted in order to allow enterprises to which this section applies to remain competitive in their sector of activity, provided that the exemption does not deprive consumers of their right to competitive prices and product choices.
This provision would allow any minister or department to express concern for services under their purview that might be effected. For example, Heritage Canada could propose justification for exemption based on concerns relating to heritage.
Bill C-393 provides for warranted protection of certain services against unfair competition which in turn protects consumers and, as in the example given, possible cultural or heritage issues as well. This provision however does not exclude consumer protection. In fact, it specifies clearly that the exemption must not deprive consumers of their right to competitive prices and product choices.
Recently the Consumers Association of Canada issued a statement with respect to Bill C-393: “It is timely that private member's Bill C-393 is being debated in parliament this week prior to world consumers rights day. World consumers rights day celebrates eight fundamental consumer rights of which the right of choice is paramount. A piece of legislation that bans abusive negative option marketing is a positive step in the promotion of consumers' right to choice”.
In this era of deregulation and government downsizing, it is important that we establish a regulatory framework which is consumer oriented. It is my contention that Bill C-393 addresses the inconsistency between negative option marketing and accepted contract norms. In doing so, this bill protects consumers by offering them a choice of which products they desire while increasing the competitiveness of the marketplace.
Derrek Konrad: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-393, an act to amend the Competition Act with respect to the prohibition of negative option billing.
I would like to recognize the work of my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton on this issue. I know that he has worked tirelessly in the interests of consumers. I respect any member of the House who is prepared to champion an issue despite pressure coming from within his own caucus to be a quiet and dutiful backbencher.
This bill is designed to prohibit the practice of implied consent billing by federally regulated businesses such as banks, cable and telephone companies. It would restore the traditional buyer-seller relationship that relies on the consumer's explicit consent before they can be billed for a product or service that will prohibit default billing of consumers who do not expressly decline a product or service. In other words, it would put an end to what has been called negative option billing.
Before making a decision about supporting this legislation, I considered the views of many Canadians about this billing practice. It is clear that this bill has broad support among consumers who are frustrated by negative option billing.
In particular, there is frustration with cable providers that bill for new programs automatically unless the consumer expressly rejects the service. Consumer groups have cited senior citizens as an example of a group who are often unaware that they have the choice of opting out of the new service and are consequently billed for a program they do not want and cannot afford. This is a source of frustration not simply because of the financial costs, but because it is deemed to be a violation of an age old relationship between buyers and sellers.
It is clear that consumers are looking for protection from negative option billing. The question is simply how do we provide that protection? Should it come in the form of Bill C-393 or can this be achieved through market based reforms? I think a balance must be struck.
Bill C-393 had its origins as Bill C-288 which would have amended the Broadcasting Act to restrict negative option billing by cable companies. These companies can currently act with relative impunity as they are federally regulated regional monopolies which are free from the normal constraints of the competitive market. This new version of the bill is broader and instead amends competition laws that apply to all federally regulated industries.
The decision by the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton to use the Competition Act as a means by which to prohibit negative option billing instead of making changes to the legislation which deals directly with the perpetrators of this practice is troubling. Competition laws can profoundly restrict economic freedom and market efficiency and a general move toward strengthening these laws should be approached with caution.
This bill should not be seen as a mechanism by which to restrict attempts by companies wishing to expand their market share. We must not allow our competition laws to grow steadily more intrusive. We must act vigilantly to create competition through deregulation of our industries in the interest of every Canadian consumer.
The original purpose of this draft legislation in the form of Bill C-288 was to amend the Broadcasting Act. This dealt much more directly with the source of the problem and would be the preferable course by which to protect consumers against negative option billing.
Negative option billing is a practice common to federally regulated industries because they enjoy market protection such that they restrict or limit the consumer's ability to seek out alternate providers of a product or a service. Therefore the deregulation of federally legislated industries should be the first step to eliminating negative option billing and other practices that do not properly serve consumers.
I would have been much more supportive of an initiative that worked to limit government and increase consumer choice rather than an initiative which extends the scope of government further into the private sector.
The Reform Party supports limited government and free enterprise but recognizes the important role of government in creating an economic environment with fair and transparent rules which protect both consumers and businesses. However we differ from the governing party in that we believe that markets serve consumers well as long as competition is permitted.
Bill C-393 is a band-aid solution made necessary by the Liberals' resolve to maintain protectionist policies and regional monopolies in federally regulated industries such as cable, telecommunications and banking despite the fact that these policies hurt consumers. But sometimes a band-aid is needed until a disinfectant can be found.
Before I conclude I want to provide an example that illustrates the power of competition to end negative option billing in case my colleagues across the way have their doubts. I am sure we are all familiar with Columbia House Records. This is a company that makes its money through negative option billing. After signing up with the bulk music distributor, consumers are sent cassettes and CDs on a monthly basis. If they do not send the selections back to the company, they are billed for the merchandise.
This is not a pure example of negative option billing because the consumer agreed to these billing terms by signing up with the company. However the point that is relevant is that consumers were so hostile to this form of billing that Columbia House sales began to decline. Soon a competitor entered the market and advertised that it would not engage in negative option billing at all. When faced with this competition, Columbia House very quickly reversed its negative option billing practices.
In other words, the drive for profits in a competitive and deregulated industry will give more power to consumers to seek favourable terms. It is the invisible hand of capitalism at work.
To conclude, it is clear that the Liberal mismanagement of federally regulated industries has created an economic environment in which consumers suffer the ill effects of limited competition. While this bill regrettably increases the power and scope of the Competition Act and restricts private sector decision making, it should receive the qualified support of the Reform caucus until such time as these industries can be deregulated. After this deregulation, competition itself will ferret out those businesses that conduct their affairs in a manner inconsistent with consumer interests.
The Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to call the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton and I advise the House that if he speaks now, he will close the debate.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this brief period to reply.
This marks the end of the third hour of debate at second reading of Bill C-393. We have had a number of speakers on the topic. It is clear that this is a business practice that is used not just by cable companies. I want to emphasize that. It is also used by telephone companies and it is used by banks.
Members have recognized that this is a perverse way of doing business. This is a twisting of the normal rules. The time has arrived that we recognize it is a widespread problem in federally regulated industries, it is a widespread problem in that it takes advantage of consumers in the country, and it is a widespread problem in that it reverses the normal rules of business practice.
For those reasons the bill should pass second reading and go to a committee so the committee can pass judgment upon the propriety of the bill. Then the bill should return to the House so that we may legislate in this place for the first time a degree of protection, a degree of fairness for consumers in the country, something that we have failed to do in this place, particularly in the realm of those industries that are federally regulated.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yes.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 10, 1999, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
It being after 1.45 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.46 p.m.)