1979-03-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the unnecessarily offensive nature of the article entitled "Confessions of an Ex-Priest" in the Weekend magazine of March 3, having no redeeming social purpose or point other than sensationalism in attempting the degrading of a major Christian religion and libelling those who serve that cause, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this Flouse regrets the poor taste and deplorable lack of honest journalistic standards of Weekend magazine as shown in the issue of March 3 and hopes that such a lamentable lack of judgment and good taste will not be repeated.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I move:
That this House declares its readiness to give swift passage, before parliament is ended, to any legislation respecting veterans, particularly if it modifies the 48 per cent rule which applies to the widows of disabled veterans, adjusts the rate of compensation for former prisoners of war, or makes improvements in the War Veterans Allowance Act, and that this House expresses the hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will introduce such legislation forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing necessity.
In light of information provided in the House yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Herbert) which is both misleading and in conflict with statements issued by the minister last week, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House directs the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Ouellet), when he is to be absent from the House, to make sure someone in a position to speak for him has been informed about issues affecting the running of his department, so as to safeguard against misleading the House on matters which the minister has already announced to the country at large through the press.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).


REPORTED PC CANDIDATE IN NEXT ELECTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 is in regard to public announcements as reported in the Sunday Post of March 4 respecting a very senior, partially public official, the housing czar of Canada, Mr. Teron, who stated that he is moving into the third world and that he has been recruited by the Progressive Conservative party as a candidate.
I move, sir, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the public record be set straight, and that it be known that unlike the Liberal party, the Progressive Conservative party does not make-


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 6, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter that is urgent and pressing, having to do with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen).
In view of the fact that the minister has allocated $226,000 for Young Canada Works projects in the east half of Regina, where the Minister of Transport's brother-in-law is the Liberal candidate, but the same department has allocated only $50,000 for Young Canada Works in the west half of Regina, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House require the Minister of Employment and Immigration to adjust the allocation of funding for these two areas in a more fair and reasonable proportion, rather than being party to this blatant attempt to bail out the Minister of Transport's brother-in-law at public expense.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity stated in an article published in La Presse on February 7 last that salary demands denote a sharp upward trend; considering that a report financed by the Economic Council of Canada also published last week indicated that chartered banks had made excessive profits of $500 million from 1968 to 1973 and that this trend is continuing, since one of them increased its profits by 58 per cent in its last financial year; considering finally that those trends could signal a new inflationary push, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House enjoins the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to initiate immediately some discussions with corporations and unions to make them moderate their interest rate, selling prices or wages demands, as the case may be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the testimony given before the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines this past week which indicates that unless action is taken by the United States Congress very soon to overcome the regulatory delays in the United States, the Alaska pipeline project completion date will be delayed up to two years beyond the date agreed to in the Canada-U.S. treaty, and considering the economic importance of this project proceeding on time both in Canada and in the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel-Duffer-in-Simcoe (Mr. Milne):
That this House supports the action of the Prime Minister in his meeting with President Carter last weekend in impressing upon the U.S. President the urgency of moving ahead with the Alaska pipeline project.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be introduced for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Prompted by a measure unveiled by the federal office for the reduction of paperwork to develop a plan allowing Statistics Canada to make maximum use of income tax records, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That in view of the demonstrated incompetence of Statistics Canada to preserve the confidentiality of tax data in their possession, as well as medical health records, that the conditions under which tax data is made available to Statistics Canada, pursuant to the Statistics Act, be severely restricted, and that names and other pertinent details of taxpayers' personal lives be properly removed from income tax forms before Statistics Canada is given access to them.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

March 6, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I put my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It deals with the National Commission on Inflation. I would draw to the minister's attention a statement made in this House yesterday by the Minister of Finance who stated: "The government has concluded that the power of inquiry was needed by CSIP, but as we could not give this power to CSIP we created a new institution". The minister was referring to the National Commission on Inflation.
My question to the minister is very simple. Did CSIP indicate at any time that they were being frustrated with respect to their own monitoring arrangements because they did not have power under the Inquiries Act, and did they ever request from the government the need for such power?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no responsibility for CSIP. That question would have to be put to the responsible minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: What are you responsible for?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think it is deplorable that the minister in charge of consumer and corporate affairs would say that he has no responsibility with regard to the monitoring of inflation in the economy.


An hon. Member:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I will put my question this time to the Acting Prime Minister and, presumably, the Acting Minister of Finance and I hope it will be treated as an original question. Did CSIP at any time indicate that they were being frustrated with respect to their ongoing monitoring of prices and wages in this country because of the fact that they did not have power under the Inquiries Act, and did they ever request such power to be granted to them under this act?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the question is obviously one of fact which I cannot answer because such a request has not been addressed to me. However, it is self-evident that any instrument in this field would be much more
Oral Questions
effective if it had the power of inquiry. This is why the government has moved to provide a body with the power of inquiry. It seems to me that under the circumstances it is somewhat irrelevant whether CSIP did or did not ask for this power, or whether or not it was frustrated in its operations. The fact is that under the circumstances the government concluded that the formation of the NCI was an appropriate step to take in its concern about inflation in this country.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON BANK PROFITS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, once we get through the gobbledegook, it is clear that CSIP did not ask for any such inquiry powers.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My final question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it deals with a statement he made yesterday in answer to a question. The minister stated: "As for bank profits, there was a problem in our system, that we called income debentures, and in our November 16 budget we eliminated this system by which banks could make profits we found excessive-"
The Royal Bank has stated very plainly that income debentures did not contribute even materially to their profit increase in the statement which was brought out with respect to their last quarter. In view of the fact that the minister was told by the Royal Bank that that was the case, would he indicate whether or not he simply misled the House, or whether or not he just did not understand what he had been told?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out, with regard to this problem, that there are other aspects to the profit picture of the banks upon which they have been asked to elaborate. They made a great deal of their profits last year in their foreign operations. I believe that I did mention yesterday that the problem of the tax aspect of bank profits was one of the loopholes which we were attempting to plug last November.


NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INFLATION-ACTION TO CURB UNJUSTIFIED PRICE INCREASES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the predecessor of the National Commission on Inflation, the incomes and prices board of 1969, under the chairmanship of Mr. John Young, had to fold up after three years because of its complete failure to be able to control unjustified price increases, and as the latest commission which the minister announced with such fanfare on Friday is very similar in that neither commission had or has the power to require that action be taken when unjustified price increases are discovered and, therefore, were and are simply investigative bodies, I ask the minister what the government would expect of the commission if it discovered that there were unjustified price increases? Would it put ads in the papers, or would it take time on

March 6, 1979
Oral Questions
television to let the people know? Just what would it do to make sure that unjustified price increases are not allowed?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Phone Herb Gray.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have given a mandate to the commission. They will decide their own procedure in order to inform the public when they find people abusing the situation. If they are not satisfied, after discussions with the people who have been found not to be collaborating for the betterment of the Canadian economy, they will take the necessary steps to make that public. They could make a specific recommendation to the government, as is mentioned in their terms of reference.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is exactly what happened in the three years between 1969 and 1972 under the prices and incomes commission. Business simply laughed at the commission and nothing was done whatsoever. Now, with no more power, is the minister not aware that the business community is already laughing at this latest attempt by the government, on the eve of an election, to kid the people of Canada into thinking that something is really going to be done to hold down unjustified price increases? Is he not aware of that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I read in the Globe and Mail this morning that many organizations have commended this action of the government. The situation under the Young commission was at the beginning of our problems with inflation, not only in Canada but in the world. Since then we have been forced to impose controls. Now we have decided to get out of controls, with the support of everybody including the business community. They now understand, just like the unions, that it is in their best interests to make sure it is not they who are causing inflation in the land.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It is related to the question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, on Friday concerning the takeover bid for The Bay by Thomson interests.
In order to stop the kind of corporate cannibalism which has been taking place in the Canadian economy, will the minister bring in a revised competition bill which will require prior approval for any merger or acquisition over $5 million, to ensure that competition will not be lessened in the marketplace and that prices will not be increased as a result?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have said we will bring forward

a new competition bill shortly. Hon. members will have an opportunity to examine the provisions of the bill once it is tabled. I might say that it will contain several changes from the bill that was tabled last year, Bill C-13.


Bob Rae: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. According to the minister's department, there were a number of reported takeovers in 1978-439, compared with 296 in 1974.
In light of what the minister has just told the House, could he explain why it has taken this government this entire parliament to bring in the legislation that is required?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the past few years we have tabled severals bills on this subject, last year Bill C-13 and the year before Bill C-42, which provided quite effective measures to deal with mergers and takeovers. I do not recall any initiative coming from the New Democratic Party, the Conservative party or the Social Credit party to co-operate with us in getting that bill through.


Bob Rae: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I find it ironic that, when the government controls the order paper, they would blame the opposition for their lack of action in this critical area.
Since we are on the eve of an election and the bill is not going to be presented to parliament, could the minister take steps to confer with industry and explain to them that the kind of corporate cannibalism that has been going on is having a negative effect on the people of Canada and, in particular, is having a direct effect on price increases?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have done that already and I intend to have several more meetings with particular companies which have been singled out for their behaviour with respect to concentration, and so on. Hon. members are probably aware of the recent report with respect to the optical industry, which pointed out there was very heavy concentration in the industry. I intend to have meetings with the industry in that particular field shortly.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Since I asked him last Friday whether he could tell the House why there is a freeze on the $4 million earmarked for recycling language teachers within the public service, I would like to know if he could give the House an answer today. Did he make an inquiry?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did make an inquiry. I am trying to find
March 6, 1979

that document. As I recall, we have decided to protect those people whom the hon. member referred to in the question he asked me. In other words, I think that those people who might want to follow a career counselling program will be protected until new funds are available.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Given the fact that in this House the minister has leaned very heavily, in reply to questions regarding price gouging and profiteering, on phase two of the competition bill, and given the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated realistically that this parliament will not have time to deal with phase two of the competition bill or, indeed, amendments to the combines act, what does the minister intend to do when faced with evidence of profiteering or price gouging, given the fact that the new inflation agency set-up has no power in this regard?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when I referred to the role of the competition act and competition reform, I did so in the context of a longer term. There is no doubt that competition reform cannot affect prices in the short-term, but it can in the long-term.
May I say that is only one of several things we have done. Last year, the Minister of Finance took steps twice to reduce sales taxes, both federal and provincial. He also announced measures to help the weaker people in our society, families and senior citizens. Last week we announced the establishment of the National Commission on Inflation which will be able to highlight unjustified price increases, and I have mentioned that we are working on certain supply policies with respect to food.


SITUATION RESPECTING INCREASED PRICE OF CHICKEN
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he could tell the House and the consumers of this country what he proposes to do on an interim basis when faced with evidence of price gouging and profiteering, as would appear to be the case with the price of chicken. The minister indicated in the House that chicken prices are going up because of consumer demand. The Minister of Agriculture indicated that there is a chicken surplus of four million pounds. What is he doing about the situation?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, while reform is necessary with respect to our combines laws, we must not assume that our present laws are completely without effect. In the last year we
Oral Questions
had several companies convicted of price fixing or market rigging respecting the food industry. I need only mention the record judgment with respect to the sugar companies and the very keynote judgment with respect to jeans and clothing.
I could give many other examples where our department gained major convictions against companies which deal with consumers on a day to day basis.


James Aloysius McGrath: What are you doing about chicken?


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It arises from Transport Canada's committee report on operational interface which was concluded in June, 1976. The committee reported that there were very serious deficiencies in communications and operational procedures at Canada's uncontrolled airports. It advanced some positive recommendations and urged that they be implemented immediately.
The committee further stated that the severe procedural problems were only symptoms of a deeper, fundamental problem which required a solution of national scope. I ask the minister why he and his department have failed to react to this report expeditiously and why they have failed to carry out the recommendations contained therein. Why was the report buried? Why has the minister not seen the report? If he has, why have communications' regulations not been amended to reflect the recommendations in the report?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the report in question was one that dealt specifically with airports at Inuvik, Fort McMurray, and Fort St. John, as I understand it, if the hon. member is referring to the same report on which I have had information. Action was taken on that report to begin development procedures. The report concentrated particularly on areas where there might be many different radio contacts in one zone. Certain procedures were looked at. Therefore, the hon. member is quite wrong in suggesting there was any burying of the report. Actually, it began to be developed in this regard, as it did in regard to other uncontrolled airports, following the report.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The report clearly indicates that a thorough investigation of national scope would be required to expose the comprehensive picture and to expose the deficiencies contained therein. I find it appalling that the minister did not see the report earlier, as reported in the press yesterday.
Will the minister undertake to table the relevant air navigation orders that have been implemented as a result of this report, since the report did have national implications notwithstanding the fact that it was a regional study?
3850

March 6, 1979
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should tell the hon. member that the minister does not see reports of an administrative nature which can be acted on by officials in the ordinary course, unless there is some policy or financial implication directly involved where my assistance is required. If the hon. member wishes to have information about steps taken with regard to this area, an appropriate question on the order paper will allow me to supply him with all the information he wishes.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce respecting the matter of confidentiality of Statistics Canada records. Is the minister now able, by perusing his records and other measures, to ascertain why the written warnings that were given to his predecessors about the lack of security at Statistics Canada were never acted upon? Can he now assure us that corrective steps have been taken?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House and the hon. member that corrective steps are being taken with regard to security within Statistics Canada. The problem really arose with the severe cuts made last fall and some of the cuts in man-years that Statistics Canada has had to endure. That caused a shuffle and may well cause some lay-offs in March. That has been part of the problem. It is suggested that the government's attempt to save money is the cause of the hon. member for Central Nova being made aware of certain documents in a certain room.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the minister's answer, but I want to inform the hon. gentleman that I have records here which indicate that ten years ago the very conditions relating to the conditions that were illustrated in Building No. 5 were conveyed to his predecessor. Those had to do with medical health records, an even more serious breach of confidentiality. Therefore, I am sure that the excuse the minister just gave would not account for the lack of security ten years ago. I trust he will do something very soon to check the records and find out who is responsible for this.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter is being examined very fully. Whether it was ten years ago, yesterday or today, it is the duty of all people working within the government to obey the law.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Last spring, following the representations made by spokesmen for the rubber footwear industry, the Department of National Revenue made an investigation under the Anti-dumping Act. Could the minister inform the House of the outcome of that investigation and tell us what action he intends to take to help this segment of Canadian industry?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, the deputy minister of national revenue responsible for customs and excise made a preliminary statement last February 26 in which he said there was some dumping and stockpiling of rubber footwear exported from Czechoslovakia, Poland, Korea and Taiwan. On the same day the matter was referred to the anti-dumping tribunal which will have to rule on the matter of the serious prejudice incurred by the Canadian industry. The tribunal has 90 days to come to a conclusion.


WHEAT-REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN PRICE PAID TO WESTERN FARMERS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is asked on behalf of the wheat farmers in western Canada. On December 18 last, I raised an application in the House under Standing Order 43, asking that consideration be given to paying an additional 50 cents a bushel to farmers on the delivery of their wheat. If you look at Hansard for that date, you will see that it was turned down by Liberal members, including the Minister of Transport.
In the past few days, on the way to Damascus, the government decided to pay the extra 50 cents a bushel that I asked for in December and which was turned down at that time. I find farmers everywhere saying that prices have gone up because of inflation in so far as farm matters are concerned, and costs are out of all control; therefore, 50 cents is not enough. I now ask the minister, as we approach the election- which has a wonderful influence on the thinking of the government-whether they will add another 50 cents at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I find it extraordinary that the right hon. gentleman makes use of Standing Order 43 to make it sound as though this House turned something down, when all it did was not agree to set
March 6, 1979

Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS
aside the business of the House for that specific issue at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The record should show that just because the right hon. member said that certain people said no to that question, that has no relationship to the truth whatever, as quite often takes place under Standing Order 43. All that the right hon. gentleman was doing in December was reading to me what effectively had been passed in the form of a resolution by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool asking for that 50 cents. I told the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that it would indeed be appropriate to consider this matter, and that that would be done on or before March 1 as we looked at the whole question of the pool for this year and initial prices for next year.
I assure the right hon. gentleman that this government, conscious of the cash needs of farmers in this spring, is doing as it did a couple of years ago in maintaining initial prices as high as is reasonably possible to give farmers their cash as early as possible and not come around, pre-election, with $200 acreage payments like the right hon. gentleman did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, $200 then meant $200, and not $75 as it does today. I suggest, for the benefit of the minister, that he read Hansard of that date. He will find it was Liberal members who turned it down. I now ask him, will he endeavour to tell the truth-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I said "endeavour" because what he has said so far is the reverse of the truth to the fullest extent.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that at this time the addition of 50 cents to the initial price reflects more than advisers from the Wheat Board would have said was safe to put forward in an ordinary and past time way. Just as two years ago we held at a $3 level when the Wheat Board's opinion in that regard would have been in the order of $2.25 or $2.50 as being safe, we recognized the ongoing regular needs of the farmer. It is our practice to put in place programs which last, not to do as the right hon. gentleman did and throw, ad hoc, $200 in the way of farmers twice, and only before elections. That is what the right hon. gentleman did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SATELLITE RECEIVING STATIONS-CABLE OPERATORS AND PAY-TELEVISION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Communications. The minister has given the green light to cable operators to own satellite receiving stations and to thereby set up a cable satellite network.
Given the current discussions now taking place with the minister and the industry about programming, does the minister acknowledge that the cable industry sees this as an opportunity to establish a pay-television network which the CRTC opposes at this time?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, with or without a review of the earth station policies, the cable operators were in a position to distribute pay-television. The earth station policy only allows for a network to be installed if cable operators decide to do so.
I would remind the hon. member that pay-television cannot be introduced until the CRTC approves of the content and until it is made government policy.


Reginald Cyril Symes: My supplementary question relates to the technical changes which are now taking place and which only facilitate the introduction of pay-TV in accordance with the wishes of operators.
In light of the minister's statement that pay-television is inevitable, how can she justify implementing the very policies which will facilitate the introduction of pay-TV despite the fact that the CRTC concluded only a year ago, after exhaustive public hearings, that pay-TV would further fragment TV audiences to the detriment of off-air broadcasters, would lead to the domination of American programs and would siphon off free programs such as sports into pay-TV?


Jeanne Sauvé: We are, of course, all aware that the introduction of pay-TV would further fragment the audience and we all know that it will be possible at some point in time, as it was when cable was introduced, to get the signals off American stations whether or not the federal government determines that pay-television should be introduced. We do not intend to wait until a situation of this nature presents itself before determining a policy with regard to pay-television and ways and means of introducing it.
As for the hon. member's fear that the review of the earth station policy facilitates the introduction of pay-television in that it allows cable operators to set up a network for that or any other purpose, I would remind the hon. member that this policy allows us to give broadcasting services to people in rural and remote areas; that is the important feature of the review that I have just carried out. It is very important that everybody in this country should have equal access to the kind of broadcasting service which the people in the south enjoy.

March 6, 1979
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It deals with money which the town of Val d'Or had to borrow, like several other Canadian municipalities, in a foreign country. As a matter of fact, the town of Val d'Or borrowed on the Swiss market on January 15, 1973 and the loan is refundable over a seven-year period. Can the minister tell us whether he or his colleagues received representations from the town council of Val d'Or asking himself or the government to help that municipality solve its serious problems?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, I received no communication from the town of Val d'Or. I do not know whether my colleagues received representations but I would doubt it; this is a decision made by the municipality and a problem it has to solve itself.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WOULD GIVE FINANCIAL AID TO VAL D'OR
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. As the major monetary instruments and economic means are in the hands of the federal government, could the Minister of Finance indicate whether the federal government would be prepared to take steps to help this municipality?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the financial problems of municipalities are a provincial responsibility, and I have received no representation from Mr. Parizeau concerning this.

[English |


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A report published by the C.D. Howe Institute in December claimed that figures supplied by Statistics Canada are inaccurate, misleading and hastily contrived.
Recently, the minister said the people of Canada accept the material published by Statistics Canada as though it were the bible. Would the hon. gentleman comment on these conflicting views? Has he had any discussion with the chief statistician on this matter?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have had numerous discussions with the chief

statistician. I do not accept the allegation which the C.D. Howe Institute made about Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada has a difficult problem in assessing promptly what is happening in Canada and to the Canadian economy. If they were to delay releasing their statistics they could, of course, probably be more accurate. In releasing them as quickly, as they do, with respect to each month, as soon as that month is ended, there is, of course, a greater tendency to error. But if one takes into consideration the monthly statements, the quarterly statements and the yearly figures, we see that from time to time they go back and make an adjustment in the figures for a given month with regard to exports, imports, or whatever they are keeping track of.
Large numbers of people, and certainly members of the opposition, always pay a great deal of attention to the monthly release of the CPI figures. This is what I was referring to when I said many people believed Statistics Canada figures as if they were the bible. I do not accept the inference of the C.D. Howe Institute that Statistics Canada is doing a sloppy or a misleading job.


Robert Alfred Corbett: In the light of what he has just said, will the minister have his officials contact the C.D. Howe Institute in an attempt to set them straight, so that people who may not have read the bible from cover to cover may be instilled with as much faith as those who have?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Many accountants have passed an opinion on the C.D. Howe Institute and its assessment of Statistics Canada. Most of those I have read, including contributors to the Financial Post and the Southam chain, have said that Statistics Canada, in all the circumstances, is doing a good job.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REPRESENTATION ON COMMISSION
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. It is prompted by information published by her ministry with regard to salaries paid to CRTC commissioners-hidden, incidentally, by a spread of $13,000 to $16,000-which amount to more than the average earnings of the taxpayers who pay those salaries.
Since the list of original homes of the commissioners shows six coming from Quebec, two from the prairies and one from Belfast, Ireland, would the minister move quickly to remove the commissioner from Ireland and replace her by one from the Canadian province of British Columbia which has no representation?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the commissioners of the CRTC are not nominated to
March 6, 1979

represent regions. They are nominated for their knowledge of the matters with which they have to deal.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: An Irish lullaby!


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Bearing in mind the high incidence of crime against women and the appeals which have been received from so many women for legal reform because victims of rape are presently more victimized than the accused when cases come to trial, has the minister considered either reintroducing the reforms as set out in Bill C-52 or introducing a new bill which he told us was under review the last time I asked this question?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: My intention would be to introduce an improved bill following representations I have received from women's organizations and various other groups. The offence of rape would be changed to one of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault, and consent could not be inferred from mere submission, a point to which women have attached great importance.
Further, there would be changes in the law concerning corroborative evidence, another area to which great importance was attached. I hope that when this bill is introduced it will be supported by all women's organizations in Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the minister is coming around to our way of thinking. I would ask him this: Is he prepared to bring that bill before the House before the election, because a number of backbenchers have said in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that an election is coming any day now and they want this to go through?


Marc Lalonde: I am surprised to hear that finally the hon. member's party has views on this subject. The only views I heard from his party on this whole issue were very distressing last year when Bill C-52 was introduced.
So far as the bill being brought before the House before the election is concerned, if the hon. member can tell me what the date of the election will be, I will certainly be happy to provide him with the date of the passage of this bill.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister arising from the answers given yesterday by the Minister of Finance as to the responsibilities of the Chairman of the National Commission on Inflation.
Seeing that the government is giving no guidelines and that it is giving total power to the chairman of that commission to find out what he thinks are excessive increases, and given the fact that he will then try to persuade people to change their views, whether it is labour, business or other segments of society, is this approach not a fundamental negation of the rule of law as it is supposed to be practised in a democratic country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I fail to see why. Perhaps a supplementary question would permit the hon. member to explain.


James McPhail Gillies: It seems to me fundamental that in a democracy, people who will have to respond to situations as they are developed by the government should have some terms of reference within which to respond. They have to know what is expected in terms of proper performance.
To give to one man in this country total authority to determine whether or not a labour settlement or a price increase is excessive, and the power to then use the authority of the government to try to persuade people to change when they have no idea whether or not they have broken the law or whether or not they are within the guidelines, because no guidelines are given, seems to negate the fundamental principle of the rule of law that people have to know what they are expected to do before they can do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member, as an economist, would not do better to stay in that area rather than talk about the law. He knows better than I do that it is not against the law to cause inflation. One can do that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You have been doing it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Even the hon. member's colleagues understand that, and that is saying something. When they understand something, he should rejoice. The hon. member and his colleagues have been complaining about inflation for some months now.


An hon. Member:: Twelve years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In fact, the hon. member says, since he was born. I am talking about his mental age, Mr. Speaker. They are complaining about it. It is not against the law to have inflationary settlements or to take inflationary actions, yet

March 6, 1979
Oral Questions
they are complaining about it and they want the government to do something about it.
The government has set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act which is authorized by this parliament. The commission will report on facts which are not illegal but which, we hope, will permit the participants, the actors in the inflation drama, and the government as well as the opposition, to draw certain conclusions. This is not against the law, but policies are drawn from facts and it is facts that the commission will bring to our attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Small Business. In view of his commitment to reducing the amount of paper burden for small business, would he discuss with his benchmate, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the possibility of relinquishing the requirement for footwear and clothing importers to obtain import permits for each shipment, thus saving the small businessman time, money, frustration and unnecessary extra paper work?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a representation.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications supplementary to that of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. Without getting into the pros and cons of pay-television and the recently announced earth station policy in what is supposed to be the new era for Canadians in reception-and I wonder why it did not come ten years ago-may I ask the minister, before any other policy is defined and announced by the minister, when we are finally going to hear from the Clyne committee and when we can expect their report?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I did explain to the hon. gentleman the other day that the earth station policy has been under review for a little over a year and that, having seen the conclusions of that review, I felt I had to make my decision upon the facts which it contained.
As for the Clyne report, I understand I will be receiving it shortly and I will read it and then have it translated.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. Given the allegation raised yesterday by the hon. member for Leeds, in his usual broad-brush strokes, concerning the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews, will the minister advise us if he intends to investigate this matter or if he has already done so?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I say at the outset that I find it extremely abhorrent that a member of the House should use his position to cast such aspersions in such a widespread manner, which necessarily brings a cloud over many civil servants, when he himself has indicated he has no proof that any of these allegations are correct.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John (Moody) Roberts: I have found officials, not only in the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews but in my department, to be extremely concerned about these irresponsible charges and I do not wish to let them go by without a reply.
Today I received a request by telegram from the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews both protesting against the irresponsibility of these statements and asking that an independent audit be made of their activities so it can be shown that these allegations are baseless. I am pleased that the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews has indicated its good faith in this manner, and currently my department is arranging for an independent audit to be taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Last Thursday, the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as government House leader said this:
I have had discussions with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and I have assured him that when and if he is ready to bring forward legislation affecting veterans I will co-operate with him.
May I ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs the obvious question? In view of the fact that he has the green light from the government House leader so far as parliamentary time is concerned, and in view of the fact that the House would pass quickly any veterans' legislation, will he make a serious effort to bring before parliament, this week or next, legislation respecting the 48 per cent rule affecting widows, or legislation to deal with disability rates, or his promised review of the War Veterans Allowance Act?


An hon. Member:: Or all three.
March 6, 1979


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the three items mentioned by the hon. member are under review, and I can go so far as to say today that if progress on them is to my satisfaction and that of the government, I could bring them forward at some time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. A short time ago, the Prime Minister wrote to Dennis McDermott, president of the CLC, with respect to the use of social insurance numbers in the private sector.
Is it the Prime Minister's intention and the government's policy not only not to restrict the increased use of social insurance numbers outside of government but also to encourage their use as the single identifying number in government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I did not
indicate it was the government's intention to encourage such use. I just indicated that the social insurance number existed and if the parties, those who had the number and those who wanted to use it, both agreed, then of course it was not illegal to do so.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister, during the 1972 election campaign, indicated that he saw not far down the road the possibility of a national identification card or number for Canadians. He thought that would be a possibility. Does he agree with the use of a single identifying number in Canada, and does he think that the social insurance number might be a convenient number to use for that particular identification?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to share my thoughts with the hon. member on that matter and I would be interested in hearing his. In my view, as long as society could do away with these identification forms it was for the better. I was not particularly partial to the introduction of identification cards or identification means, but I think at least I was perceptive enough to realize we are living in a society where these instruments are increasingly necessary in a very complex administrative system. Therefore, I am concerned, if the numbers exist, that they be used in all manners which are legal and not in any other manner.
I do not think it will be possible in our society to prevent the use of computers in order to simplify administrative devices, whether public or private. But as long as they could be resisted, that is, in the hon. member's youth and mine, it was a good thing to resist them.
Privilege-Mr. MacKay PRIVILEGE
MR. MacKAY-ACCESS TO INCOME TAX FORMS-MOTION TO


REFER SECURITY PROCEDURES TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as a result of remarks made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) last week in my absence in the course of what he called either a question of privilege or a point of order. Apparently it was prompted by the motion raised under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) regarding confidentiality of tax information. Somehow my name was brought into this matter.
In attempting to assess what the minister was alleging in my absence and the weight to attach to whatever it was he was trying to express, I checked Hansard respecting the most recent question of privilege prior to this one where the minister rose to explain he no longer intended to write memoranda to himself, confidential or otherwise. No doubt the minister was referring to those which somehow escaped his office and were reported widely in the press that illustrated among other things his fixation with trying to get out of the shadow of his cabinet colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). He and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce share responsibility for the confidentiality of income tax forms, and so far he seems much more willing to accept the responsibility.
When this so-called point of order involving myself was raised by the minister on February 27, as reported in Hansard, Your Honour said the following:
The record will have to be examined. My memory is that the minister in his intervention said that the hon. member for Central Nova was possessed of stolen documents. That was the language used; at least, that is my recollection. Like the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), I will examine the record, as I am sure the minister will, to see whether he made an accusation of a member having committed an offence. If he did, that will have to be withdrawn. We will have to examine the record. The minister, of course, is on notice to that effect.
The following day, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), according to Hansard, defended the Minister of National Revenue by claiming the minister had never said that I "had stolen those documents or knew that the documents were stolen". He concluded by indicating that there was absolutely nothing wrong in that statement, and he asked Your Honour to set any question of privilege aside.
In examining the record of the House, I have found that the Minister of National Revenue, in spite of his self-confessed determination to acquire a reputation of being "a nasty piece of goods" and a "target for animosity", did not claim I had stolen the income tax returns in question. In fact, he said that I was "possessed of stolen tax returns". As I have mentioned already, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, presumably speaking for the government, assured the House the minister has never claimed that I knew the documents were stolen.
I am quite willing to accept this assertion from the government benches, and I do not wish necessarily to pursue this

March 6, 1979
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
particular point any further. However, I must remind Your Honour of the fact the minister on the same occasion, as reported at page 3632 of Hansard, accused me of "revealing these forms to the public". I suggest this is not only false but highly objectionable. The simple fact is that confidential income tax information which came into my possession was never made public by me.
The quote from the Globe and Mail story of February 23 indicated that I showed copies of four 1974 tax returns. In the House the minister was wrong again and referred to them as 1977 tax returns "with social insurance numbers, taxable income, income tax paid and spouses' names in full view". Your Honour will note that I took care to see that taxpayers' names were obliterated, while those responsible for the care and custody of the tax returns through their carelessness allowed the forms to be left lying around with all the details clearly visible. Then the Globe and Mail story continued:
The Nova Scotia M.P. said he would not release the names on the returns. He said some have already been destroyed but he would not say where the others are.
It is clear I took precautions with the confidential material sent to me. On a confidential basis I even sent a letter to the minister responsible for Statistics Canada, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, indicating that some of his constituents were affected. For this reason I ask the Chair, having regard to the precedents in Beauchesne's fifth edition under "unparliamentary remarks" and having regard to Your Honour's fine dissertation on a question of privilege raised on March 22, 1976, to extract a withdrawal from the minister if Your Honour thinks it is proper.
I have just about come to the end of my brief presentation, but since this matter was raised in the connotation of the law being broken, and with some suggestion that I was involved in it, I should like to say that there may very well be some instances of the law having been broken. If so, it requires investigation to see whether the persons in Statistics Canada who, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce very properly said, have a responsibility to ensure that these highly confidential documents are kept inviolate, have not been in breach of the obligations under the statutes, particularly section 23, 18 and 16 of the Statistics Act.
The Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) took a very laudable position when the matter was first raised. As reported at page 3473 of Hansard, the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, of course I agree there is a responsibility to protect the confidentiality of information provided to the government, particularly the confidentiality that is prescribed by law. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the law will be carried out.
Before I make a motion on this matter, and by way of additional information which I intimated to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, indeed there is evidence previous ministers and officials were warned in writing that there were appalling conditions regarding the lack of security in the very building, over ten years ago, where these income tax forms were found. If I may, I will read one sentence to

illustrate the point. This is information made available to the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin back in 1969. It reads:
In 1968, when the Health and Welfare Division at DBS moved to No. 5 Temporary Building, some mental morbidity cards were stored in room 2141, (although a vault was available a few feet away); more current cards were kept as before in unlocked filing cabinets ... A few flimsy cardboard boxes, lids open, containing notifiable disease cards were also kept in this room.
This is the point: it existed over ten years ago. It continues: Any person, a tramp... or someone with more deliberate intent, might easily stroll into the rooms where cards were kept when civil servants were off duty, at night or on weekends, and examine these cards.
In view of these longstanding abuses which I have brought to the attention of the minister today and which he indicated he would look into, I should like to make the following motion:
That the confidentiality and security procedures of income tax forms, made available by virtue of the Statistics Act to Statistics Canada, be referred to the appropriate parliamentary standing committee to determine the adequacy of existing procedures under the Statistics Act and the regulations thereunder pertaining to confidentiality of income tax matters.
I remind the House and the Chair that in the current information being supplied to Canadians regarding their income tax forms under the Canadian Human Rights Act the following is included:
An objective of Revenue Canada Taxation is to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the tax system. To achieve this objective the Income Tax Act stipulates that the information you provide on your income tax return must be kept strictly confidential.
Sir, I think this matter is sufficiently important that it should transcend any petty bickering about who said what to whom and ought to be referred to the appropriate standing committee. Obviously, if there is no trust in the tax system of this country, the whole system is in jeopardy.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question, and I rose before the minister spoke because I felt there was another very narrow point that should be dealt with in determining the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).
If I read the record correctly, and if I heard the hon. member correctly, the minister's words were that "the hon. member for Central Nova was possessed of stolen documents". That was the phrase, and that, sir, is a criminal offence. The possession of stolen property is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code. Therefore, the charge that the hon. member for Central Nova was in possession of stolen documents suggests that he is guilty of a criminal offence.


An hon. Member:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Under those conditions I suggest, sir, that the accusation-


Mr. Pinard:: Go back to law school.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says "go back to law school". I have practised law for 27 years and I doubt very much if he has been practising continuously since he has been in this place.
March 6, 1979

This is a charge of the commission of a criminal offence, and being that the minister should withdraw. I think you, sir, should deal with that specific point. The words were, "the member for Central Nova was possessed of stolen tax returns", which in essence amounts to a charge of being in possession of stolen documents, a crime under the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the minister I should point out that I think we find ourselves in a bit of a procedural difficulty here in that the motion put forward for consideration by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) is not in fact a motion which relates to his grievance in the question of privilege, but is a substantive motion which relates to an examination of the confidentiality of income tax returns. That in itself is a very important matter. The hon. member obtained the floor on a question of privilege which relates to some remarks by the minister, but the motion which he would introduce, while relating to that subject, is not in fact a complaint against the language of the minister.
On the other hand, the point made by the hon. member for Central Nova, and referred to by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), is a valid point.
Let me go back to the intervention by the parliamentary secretary, which is a correct statement, that in fact simple possession of documents that may have been or were stolen is not in and of itself a criminal offence. However, in that regard we are getting very technical. The hon. member, incidentally, said at the beginning of his remarks that he took that intervention as meaning that it was not intended that he be indicted in that way by the minister's remarks.
However, the hon. member for Central Nova then went on to make another point, namely that he did not divulge or reveal this information, and the revealing of that information would be an offence.
On both counts I think we ought to leave this matter very clear. The word of the hon. member in this case must be accepted by hon. members of this House-that is to say, there was no guilt involved in the possession of the documents themselves-and the hon. member's word must be accepted that he did not reveal the information, thereby committing an offence. We cannot deal with this matter without establishing that. However, the hon. member has compounded the case, it seems to me, by ending his remarks with a substantive motion, not one of privilege.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a moment or two, because of the seriousness of this problem, to deal with the question of taxation documents and why they may be in the hands of Statistics Canada. During the course of this intervention there have been allegations made from various quarters that Revenue Canada has been slipshod in the handling of these documents and that Statistics Canada should not necessarily have the documents.
The point I would first like to make is that Statistics Canada has an obligation to provide facts, collect statistical
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
information, and provide, among other important facts, the earnings by society of income and its distribution.
The tax returns of individuals and corporations which are provided to National Revenue for purposes of tax administration provide the best and most reliable source of information on incomes. Parliament recognized this in section 23 of the Statistics Act when it stated:
The Chief Statistician or any person authorized by him to do so may inspect or have access to any returns, certificates, statements, documents, or other records obtained on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue for the purpose of the Income Tax Act.
At the same time, parliament was concerned that the information so provided to Statistics Canada should be kept confidential and, therefore, it further provided that the "information when communicated to Statistics Canada shall be subject to the same secrecy requirements to which it was subject when collected". Clearly this means that employees of Statistics Canada are required to comply with the severe confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act which imposes penalties upon an official or authorized person who shall knowingly communicate or allow to be communicated any information obtained for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.
Statistics Canada publishes income information only about groups in a way that hides tax information about any individual. Those are the provisions of the law, provisions of the Income Tax and the Statistics Act, and my department and Statistics Canada, to the best of my knowledge, operate in accordance with these provisions.
We now come to the point raised by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). He refers to my position the other day, that I was concerned that members were making wide ranging allegations that income tax information, not simply in the hands of Statistics Canada but perhaps also in the hands of Revenue Canada, were being handled in a slipshod manner. I attempted during the question of privilege to assert that this was not the case and that a good deal of the blame for this whole incident rests with the hon. member for Central Nova.
In an article in the Globe and Mail of February 23, which I did refer to earlier on the question of privilege, the hon. member revealed that he had gone to Statistics Canada and had found about 50 cardboard boxes full of confidential tax returns which he said were "lying unattended in a Statistics Canada office building in Ottawa". The duties and responsibilities of the hon. member as a parliamentarian do not give him the right to go into a building which he may say is improperly guarded and under the guardianship of Statistics Canada, to go down to the basement of the said building and look at files in boxes which are marked confidential, return and presumably, if this article is correct, encourage others in the form of news cameramen or others to take the same journey and photograph the boxes and whatever documents may be there.
The hon. member, knowing the law, knowing the obvious security provisions of the Income Tax Act, and knowing that he himself had seen the boxes marked "confidential", received,

March 6, 1979
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
he asserted, 100 or so returns. Ele showed a Globe and Mail reporter copies of four 1974 tax returns he had been given, the taxpayers' names having been obliterated, but with the social insurance numbers, the taxable income, income taxes paid and spouses' names in full view. The article goes on to state:
The Nova Scotia MP said he would not release the names on the returns. He said some have already been destroyed but he would not say where the others are although he promised he would eventually destroy all the forms he had been sent.
He knew perfectly well that he was not entitled to copies of those forms. He knew they were bound by the Income Tax Act, and he knew that whoever had communicated them to him had done so not only improperly but unlawfully. When, indeed, I suggested he was possessed of stolen reports, I had no doubt that these returns, if transmitted to him anonymously or otherwise, had been transmitted by someone acting outside his right under the law and who was committing a serious offence. Naturally, knowing the hon. member's zeal for justice and his inquiring mind, his instincts as a detective-we all remember the bugging caper of not so long ago-he recognized that he had a self-appointed duty to ferret out such matters.
Certainly I was not accusing the hon. member of any criminal offence because he had those documents in his possession, for many people, perhaps disgruntled people, know him as a likely source of interest to whom such information could be sent. Nor do I stand and say that Statistics Canada, in the instance the hon. member revealed, was managing the documents with the kind of care which is required under the law. I think that my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) confirmed this somewhat when he said that the law had to be obeyed but that it was because of financial shortcomings that they could not properly look after the documents. I do not think that this is a reasonable excuse. Statistics Canada must obey the law and look after such documents with great care.
At the same time, however, I think that I was right in taking the position back to the hon. member himself that he had gone to a building, that he knew the records were highly confidential, that he only raised the point because of this high confidentiality and the legal requirements for secrecy and that he brought the matter before parliament and the news media and showed them returns in a fashion, according to the report, that any intelligent observer could find out to whom the returns belonged. For example, the report stated that some of the returns were from Alberta farmers. There was a picture taken, thanks to the guidance of the hon. member who led the media to the premises of Statistics Canada, which shows the form of a resident of Courtenay, B.C. The name was obliterated from the picture, but it was taken.
I suggest that the hon. member did not act with the kind of responsibility which one should expect of a member of parliament in such circumstances. He seems to have done so only for the purpose of gaining the centre of attention by leading his crew of cameramen around so that he could be photographed in his self-appointed role as guardian of our society. When

I stated that that information was stolen I suggest that clearly I am correct. The hon. member had no business having that information in his hands. It should not have been transmitted, anonymously or otherwise, by the person or persons who did so, and it is a serious offence under the law. I suggest also that the hon. member acted with a good deal of recklessness in encouraging reporters to take a look at the documents he had in his hands and in encouraging other media representatives to take a tour of Statistics Canada's building to see other tax returns.
I do not feel that there is a question of privilege here. If I had accused the hon. member of stealing documents, of course, I would have been wrong and would have quite properly been obliged to withdraw the remark; but I do think that anybody could assert that the 100 income tax documents which were marked highly confidential and which were in the hon. member's hands, having been sent to him anonymously, could have been sent to the hon. member by anybody who was doing anything but stealing that information as defined under the law.
I am not suggesting that the hon. member is guilty of a criminal offence because he held on to those documents. Perhaps in his position as a member of parliament he has certain rights in the interests of the public to deal with the matter and acknowledge his possession, I do not know. What I suggest is that there is no question of privilege, and 1 believe that my position in this matter is entirely conscionable.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the facts as they have been asserted in terms of the status of the document which the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) received-using the words of the minister, "documents that must have been stolen"-are correct, then I do not think that the minister has obliterated of defended the question of privilege which has been raised by the hon. member. In fact, what he has done is compounded the position of the hon. member for Central Nova. The minister's words, "possessed of stolen returns" in reference to the hon. member for Central Nova are damaging to the hon. member. It is also a tenet of the criminal law that the doctrine of recent possession casts an onus upon a member of parliament or anyone else in whose possession those documents are found to turn them over to the proper authority.
The question of necessity under those circumstances takes on a different aspect. What the minister has done in making the statements he has, instead of admitting perhaps overzealousness in his desire to be the cutting, controversial figure and arguing that there is no question of privilege, is in fact established grounds for a question of privilege. The House cannot allow this to stand. The word "stolen" casts aspersions on the honesty and integrity of a member before the House, and it cannot be allowed to stand.
If the hon. member's motion is imperfect in the manner in which it is put, we have had imperfect motions before and time has been given to perfect those motions; and I think that it is the duty of the Chair to allow that time.
March 6, 1979

It is an offence within the law that applies to income tax officials, Statistics Canada officials, private citizens, members of parliament or whoever, to break the confidentiality which is imposed upon them.
In the second reference the words "and this private dick in residence in the Tory party has been revealing these forms to the public" constitute an accusation by the minister to the effect that the member for Central Nova has committed an offence.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Those are his own words.


Walter David Baker: I do not think that those words should be allowed to stand. There is no question of intent there, and the words themselves raise a question of privilege. The hon. member for Central Nova ought to have time, if he has been imperfect in his motion today, to make the necessary corrections.
The final matter which I want to deal with is the question whether a member of parliament has a duty in a public building. For the purpose of my argument, I do not put a member of parliament in the position of trespassing on such property, which is the implication. Unless a member of parliament went into a building against the instruction of the security service guarding that building or against some form of indication on the building that he could not enter, then a member of parliament or anybody else can go into that building and go through it. There is nothing sacrosanct about a government building unless it is made sacrosanct.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: There better not be.


Walter David Baker: As the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has said, there better not be. Supposedly, we operate a relatively open system. However, there is a duty on the Government of Canada, which was accepted by the government House leader last week, to maintain certain confidentiality.
If there has been a breach of that duty of confidentiality, then the public will judge the circumstances and conduct themselves accordingly with regard to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) or the minister responsible for Statistics Canada, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or whoever, as to what credit ought to be bestowed upon them for maintaining confidentiality. In these circumstances and according to the minister's own admission, there is not very much credit to be bestowed.
Unless a member of parliament is stopped-he is no better or worse than any other citizen in society-that member has the right to go into a public building. As I understand the situation, the hon. member for Central Nova was allowed into this particular building and into an unsecured area to look at documents, with the media present, by the security service. This is an indication of the respect for confidentiality-and that is the important issue-that the government has in these circumstances.
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
I do not think it lies in the mouth of the Minister of National Revenue to try to point the spear at the hon. member for Central Nova, nor does it lie in his mouth to argue as he did that an accusation with respect to an offence-two offences at least-ought to be allowed on the record of this House. The important part of this argument is not who is right or wrong; the question is that the minister, as a gentleman, ought to have withdrawn the remarks he made and he did not do so. I think he ought to be made to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am faced with a fundamental difficulty that seems to have been overlooked. I am not worried about the part which refers to a public building as that seems to me to be peripheral to the main issue.
Procedurally the matter of the hon. member's motion has perhaps a reduced significance. The hon. member was seeking by his motion to investigate the handling of confidential documents in the income tax department. If that is going to be done it ought not to be done by way of a question of privilege related to some remarks by the minister.
The minister has said today in his place, however stridently he has done it, that "I do not accuse the member for Central Nova of the commission of an offence. The documents which he had in his possession which he has acknowledged were documents unlawfully obtained." That is the opinion of the minister; he is entitled to that opinion and he is entitled to express it.
In respect of the possession of the documents he said, "I say those documents were stolen." The minister maintains: "They are unlawfully obtained, therefore I say stolen, and the member for Central Nova was in possession of those. 1 do not accuse the member of the commission of an offence." It seems to me he added another phrase: "Perhaps the member sees himself in a role as an elected member as having some rights in respect of that."
This question has come up before in respect of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) when he was being pursued on a regular basis over a period of time to return documents to the House which he had in his possession and about which he had given some information. It was contended at that time that the status of those documents was clear-they were unlawfully obtained and the member had them ir. his possession. The question therefore became one of some interest as to what are the rights of a member who is in possession of these kinds of documents that have been brought to him when he looks at the documents and knows that they are confidential and that they are not being handed to him by the person in whose care they belonged. It seems to me there was more than an allegation in that case; there was an acceptance of the fact that the member was in possession of documents which were unlawfully obtained.
In the case before us it seems to me that the minister has said virtually the same thing. The hon. member for Central Nova, in his capacity as a member of the House of Commons, came into possession of documents which, on looking at them,

March 6, 1979
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
appeared to be obtained irregularly. In fact, the minister says that, in his opinion, they were stolen, clearly. He does not accuse the member for Central Nova of any complicity in their theft and in fact allows that the member may consider himself to be the logical possessor of such documents if it helps him to bring a grievance against the government which he may see as part of his duties. That remains a very open, legal question. The minister has said today that he does not accuse the member for Central Nova.
I think the minister is entitled to his opinion that the documents have been unlawfully obtained, is entitled to regard the fact that the member for Central Nova had them in his possession and he is entitled to say so. He has to make it clear that he does not accuse the member for Central Nova of any offence and he, in fact, has said that.
The question of privilege of the hon. member in attempting to get to an investigation of the confidentiality of documents is irregular. It does not conclude the same way it began. What remains is the question of whether the minister has made unparliamentary remarks about the member for Central Nova.
I have had to conclude that in respect of the commission of an offence, the minister has said he does not accuse the member of an offence regarding possession of these documents. The member took that, and I think correctly, to mean that he was not accused of an offence in the possession of those documents. In fact, he may consider that confidential documents may be brought to a member of the House of Commons in some way by a person who, as the minister said, may consider himself disgruntled or otherwise in order to air a grievance. That remains, to me, an unresolved legal question. I have to accept the conclusion that the minister is entitled to say that without accusing the member of an offence, and in fact he made it clear that he did not accuse the member.
There remains one other item, however, and that is that the hon. member for Central Nova had behaved in a manner in which he revealed the contents of those documents to the public. That is an offence. Therefore, if I am to be consistent and the minister in his remarks used language which indicated the hon. member was reckless in his duties of one thing and another, I want before concluding this matter to have the same clear position from the minister, if I may, on behalf of the decorum of the House, that he is not accusing the member for Central Nova of an offence in respect of the information contained in those documents. Then I think procedurally we can put the matter to rest.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I quoted only from the Globe and Mail, which was the source of my information in this case, and indicated that the hon. member for Central Nova had shown the reporter copies of four 1974 tax returns, etc. I did not accuse him because I was quoting only from a newspaper report which, however consistently reliable that publication may normally be, none the less could be in error. I am simply saying that if that was the case-and the hon. member did not deny it-then I found it offensive. It is not an offence, I guess, but I found it offensive.
If Your Honour feels that I am charging an offence improperly, then we will clear the record. I did not accuse the hon. member of an offence. I said that presumably by his own acknowledgement he showed certain forms to a newspaper reporter who published the fact, and I found that offensive. I do not say he committed any offence in doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that the matter can be any more clear in terms of parliamentary language. I do not think that procedurally we need to pursue the matter any further.
Had the question of privilege of the hon. member been related, in a motion albeit imperfect, to remarks of the minister, I think we would have perfected it. I think he has gone one step further, however, in attempting to introduce a substantive motion to investigate the confidentiality of documents in the possession of a department. This is a bit of a leapfrog over the substance which is contained in his motion. These two matters of possibly unparliamentary accusations by the minister did remain. I now find that the minister has withdrawn both. If any such allegations were made by the minister they are now withdrawn. The matter is therefore closed.


MR. NIELSEN-PROPRIETY OF MOTION UNDER S O. 43 MOVED BY HON. MEMBER FOR ALGOMA
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege arising out of today's question period. It concerns a question which was asked by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster); I am sorry to see he has left the House. He has asked questions on the same subject in times past. As you know, he is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member was recognized in the question period. He presented a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 before the question period.


Erik Nielsen: That is right. Thank you for correcting me on that, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, chairmen of standing committees have a very particular position, one that is closely analogous to that of parliamentary secretaries. When Your Honour first assumed your duties as Speaker you were very quick to state your view that you were not going to recognize parliamentary secretaries for the purpose of asking questions because of the special relationship they enjoyed with ministers, and particularly you would not recognize parliamentary secretaries asking questions of their own ministers.
Today we have the chairman of a standing committee, who is more knowledgeable than non-committee members, asking questions with political intent, in my view to gain ground only, concerning a subject matter about which he is very knowledgeable and based also on the fact that he enjoys a special relationship with the minister responsible for pipeline affairs. He is the only chairman I am aware of who is following this course.
I do not submit that it is improper for chairmen of committees to ask questions concerning matters not falling within their responsibility. That happened today when the hon.

March 6, 1979

member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), the chairman of the public accounts committee, put a question to the minister which had no bearing on his responsibilities as chairman of that committee. The chairman of the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines also has a party responsibility, if not an official responsibility, to keep the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) informed of the progress in committee and the matters discussed therein.
I believe that allowing the chairmen of standing committees to question the ministries for which they are responsible is just as offensive and an abuse of the accepted practice of the House as being allowed to put motions under Standing Order 43, or to ask questions of those ministers.
Incidentally, that committee is sitting this evening at eight o'clock. The content of the motion that the hon. member put under Standing Order 43 was based on evidence which is currently being given and has been given before the committee. The committee, as you know, sir, has not yet presented any report to the House. I submit that that is an offence. It is not within the rules to base a motion on evidence given to a standing committee before that committee has reported to the House. It is just as offensive for a question to be put.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: It is my submission that the evidence before standing committees prior to those committees reporting to the House cannot be raised in the House. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are familiar with that rule. If need be I can turn it up very quickly.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is mistaken because he confuses committee with department. The chairman of a committee is not the parliamentary secretary to a minister; that is obvious. But, if in practice parliamentary secretaries to ministers are not allowed to put questions in the House, as you stated specifically in one of your rulings, Mr. Speaker, it is doubtless because the Parliamentary Secretaries Act stipulates, very simply and very tersely, that parliamentary secretaries help the minister as requested by him. However, no law or House rule stipulates directly or indirectly that the chairman of a committee must be muzzled either in the House of Commons or in committee.
Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member stand up even less under close examination because they do not concern a situation where the chairman of a committee put a question to the minister, which would have been perfectly in order, but it does deal with a situation where the chairman of the committee acted through a motion presented pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43 of our House.
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
Now, if I am not mistaken, you yourself, Mr. Speaker, have recognized that a parliamentary secretary can present a motion under Standing Order 43. All the more so if a parliamentary secretary, like the one sitting on my right, has already done so-the parliamentary secretary to the minister of urban affairs at the time was recognized-so, if a parliamentary secretary can present a motion under Standing Order 43, the chairman of a committee can also certainly present that type of motion. Nothing in our traditions, regulations or laws prohibits this.
Finally, on the hon. member's remarks concerning what is said before a committee, may I remind him that as a rule committee meetings are deemed to be public. There is therefore no harm in repeating in this House, be it by the chairman or any member of the committee, the evidence brought before the committee, be this done by means of a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 or questions to ministers, or even in any debate on a motion or otherwise. Nothing forbids the chairman or any member of a committee referring to revelations made before a committee holding public meetings.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I think the question raised by the hon. member is a little far-fetched. He referred to absolutely no regulations, laws, customs or traditions to support his point.
I would therefore ask you to simply reject his contention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when you rule on this point, perhaps you should also tell us what it was in our proceedings this afternoon that stopped all the clocks.


Mr. Speaker:: I intended to keep the House up to date at least on that matter. It is now exactly 3.45 p.m. Hopefully before the end of the day we will reactivate the clocks on the floor.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly on the same point of order. It would seem to me that if the arguments of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) were true, they would also apply at this particular juncture in our history to the chairman of the public accounts committee who happens to be a member of the official opposition. That would mean, of course, that when the public accounts committee is examining the public accounts, the chairman of that committee would not be able to address questions to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan). It would also mean that when the Auditor General's report is before the committee on public accounts he would not be able to address questions to any particular minister whose department was under review by that committee at that time. He did just that.
It seems to me that such action would be a curtailment of the rights of members on that side or on this side of the House. In my opinion, the hon. member's point of order is not a point of order at all but simply an argument that he has put forward, for whatever reason I do not know.

March 6, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Happily for the Chair the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has not followed his intervention with a motion and therefore no specification is called for by the Chair. However, some of the suggestions which the hon. member has put forward will give us an opportunity for reflection.
The status of committee chairmen is a subject that has been under examination in the past. We do not, as is the practice in the United Kingdom, have an independent panel of chairmen, but when that subject is discussed then the suggestions of the hon. member might be relevant to that discussion. Steps in that direction have been under consideration by this parliament from time to time, and the subject is bound to come up again.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 748, 805,838,950, 974 and 1,013.


Mr. Rae: Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pay the participants in the radio broadcast concerning the preliminary inquiry of the alleged criminal activities of Jeremy Thorpe, heard on the "Sunday Morning" program on December 3, 1978 and, if so, in each case, in what amount?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Andrew Newton and Norman Scott were paid by the CBC for their contributions to the program, in accordance with what is common journalistic practice in Britain. The producers of "Sunday Morning" judged these interviews to be of sufficient importance to their coverage of the story to accede to the demands of Mr. Newton and Mr. Scott for payment.
With regard to the amounts paid, it has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal

management and administration as costs incurred in the production of individual programs. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Is consideration being given to extending the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme to Marysville, Barker's Point, Nashwaaksis and remainder of Devon areas of Fredericton, New Brunswick?
2.	What was the total amount spent under the RRAP in Fredericton, New Brunswick by (a) Canada (b) the Province of New Brunswick (c) Fredericton, in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. Applications have been received by CMHC for designation as Rehabilitation Areas for the Marysville and Barker's Point areas of Frederiction, but not for the Nashwaaksis or for the remainder of the Devon areas.
Treasury Board, however, has stated that it will not approve further designations until it has approved a method for controlling the flow of RRAP funds, and review of "in-hand" applications is, accordingly, not being proceeded with until then. It is expected that this submission will be presented to Treasury Board during January, 1979.
2. (a)-1977, $890,000-January 1-October 1,	1978,


[Stage Direction]
(b)	-New Brunswick does not contribute to RRAP
(c)	-Fredericton does not contribute to RRAP
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Department of National Health and Welfare Finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the Department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: None.


Mrs. Pigott: 1.	How many of the document entitled Proposed Changes to the Public Service Staff Relations Act were produced and distributed to public servants?
2.	What was the total cost of publication and distribution of the document?


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board):: 1. There were 349,000 copies of this document produced. All but 4,800 have been distributed
March 6, 1979

to public servants. The remaining copies are stored in the Treasury Board's distribution centre.
2. The documents were printed by the Department of Supply and Services at a cost of $24,648 and distributed in bulk quantities to the departments, agencies and separate employers subject to the PSSRA, at a cost of $292.60. The documents were then distributed to employees through their internal distribution system. The total cost for printing and distribution was $24,940.60.


Mr. Howie: With reference to the answer to Question No. 877, what are the names of the individuals or groups that received assistance and what were the amounts?


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows:
Payments made under PILP by name of contractor and contract amount April 1, 78 to December 1, 78
Individuals	Contract Payment
E. Whitely	$ 13,086
Groups of Individuals None
Companies
Bristol Aerospace Limited	$ 313,704
Cambridge Instruments Company (Canada) Limited	17,530
Canadian Chromalox Co., Limited	6,661
Canadian Vacuum Equipment Company Limited	37,483
Dale Electronics, Limited	39,955
De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Limited	16,225
Digital Methods Limited	142,768
Dominion Aluminum Fabricating Limited	24,070
Dynalogic Corporation Limited	17,446
Electrohome Limited	101,039
Epsilon Data Systems Limited	32,759
Guildline Instruments Limited	48,032
Hermes Electronics Limited	240,000
Hovey & Associates Limited	21,113
Institut Armand-Frappier	63,488
Leigh Instruments Limited	154,035
Lektromedia Limited	17,891
Lumonics Research Limited	210,326
MDS Health Group Limited	63,741
MHG International Limited	3,776
MPB Technologies Limited	114,163
MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates	111,675
Order Paper Questions
Marine Colloids, Limited	533,256
Norpak Limited	210,739
Nu-West Development Corporation	5,189
Ontario Research Foundation	80,722
Otal Precision Company Limited	22,760
RAB Dedesco Limited	5,586
R. F. Webb Corporation Limited	1,419
Sentrol Systems Limited	64,987
Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited	31,977
SPAR Aerospace Products Limited	79,645
Sydney Steel Corporation	70,331
W. G. Hutchison and Company Limited	7,489
Other	
DSS Contract Fees	$ 58,749
Total	$2,983,815


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past Five years, by province, what amount was paid under the Health Resources Fund?
2.	How many construction projects were assisted and what was the approximate total value of the construction work?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: l.the list is as follows:
	Payments		Payments
	under HRF		under HRF
Newfoundland		Quebec	
1973-74	9,787,813.	1973-74	10,453,163.1974-75	7,784,180.	1974-75	13,065,383.1975-76	1,742,648.	1975-76	12,523,682.1976-77	1,064,962.	1976-77	4,357,953.1977-78	71,057.	1977-78	8,139,792.20,450,660.	48,539,973.Prince Edward Island	Ontario	1973-74	NIL	1973-74	9,926,607.1974-75	NIL	1974-75	6,564,220.1975-76	NIL	1975-76	2,998,580.1976-77	NIL	1976-77	6,138,161.1977-78	NIL	1977-78	8,791,807.NIL	34,419,375.Nova Scotia	Manitoba	1973-74	NIL	1973-74	1,895,124.1974-75	NIL	1974-75	642,590.1975-76	233,754.	1975-76	284,841.1976-77	749,158.	1976-77	806,733.1977-78	561,179.	1977-78	NIL1,544,091.	3,629,288.New Brunswick	Saskatchewan	1973-74	390,836.	1973-74	1,240,978.1974-75	278,546.	1974-75	917,477.1975-76	385,858.	1975-76	1,207,835.1976-77	4,052,549.	1976-77	2,146,298.1977-78	71,386.	1977-78	2,439,190.5,179,175.	7,951,778.
March 6, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Patterson
Alberta		Northwest Territories	
1973-74	3,299,493.	1973-74	5,986.1974-75	1,822,238.	1974-75	NIL1975-76	578,589.	1975-76	NIL1976-77	NIL	1976-77	NIL1977-78	NIL	1977-78	NIL5,700,320.	5,986.British Columbia	CANADA TOTAL	1973-74	NIL	1973-74	37,000,000.1974-75	272,098.	1974-75	31,346,732.1975-76	44,213.	1975-76	20,000,000.1976-77	4,734,614.	1976-77	24,050,428.1977-78	2,044,736.	1977-78	22,119,147.7,095,661.	134,516,307.
2. One hundred and twenty construction projects were assisted for a total construction value of approximately $227 million during this period.


Yvon Pinard: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to call the attention of the parliamentary secretary to question No. 938 which was placed on the order paper on December 22. In view of the fact that it has to do with events that will take place in the near future, I wonder when that question will be answered. The question reads:
1.	How many annual airshows are held on Department of Transport Airports?
2.	What are the locations of such airports?
3.	(a) What is the cost recovery formula imposed by the Department (b) are there any exceptions to this formula and, if so, for what reason?
It seems that questions such as those could be answered very quickly.
While I am on my feet I would like to call attention again to question No. 180. I made an inquiry about this question a few days ago. The parliamentary secretary indicated that he would seek to obtain the answer. I have not received it as yet, and I would appreciate its being considered.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of the hon. member's remarks. I am pleased to see that he has carefully read question No. 938.

As for the other question, I will see that he gets a reply as soon as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-29, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make other related amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, when I called it ten o'clock last night I pointed out that there were just a few more things I wanted to say on this matter. I cannot help but wonder whether the fact the clock has stopped is somewhat symbolic of what is happening in parliament in these closing days. It may by symbolic of how much is being accomplished.
I began my remarks last night by referring to the speech made just prior to mine by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). There was a great deal that he said with which I agreed. One such comment was recorded in yesterday's Hansard at page 3832, and I quote:
I know the minister cannot control everything going on in these projects, rehabilitation projects, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation projects and others where you have to qualify and where qualifying means being a Liberal.
When he said that, I did a double take. My memory took me back almost five years to the summer of 1974 when it came to my attention that there were some CMHC housing projects in my constituency. One in particular had been built by a developer under the general umbrella organization known as Imperial Ventures with head office in Winnipeg. The head of that organization has added something to his record. He is not only the former Liberal leader of the Liberal party in Manitoba, but the former Liberal leader of the former Liberal party in Manitoba. His organization known as Imperial Ventures built a project called low dividend housing. That was a good idea on the part of the former leader. The program was supposedly to provide houses for low income families. The government loaned money to the developer at a low interest rate, presumably because the profit on that investment would not be in the rental but on the appreciated value of that property. It was a good idea.
It came to my attention that some of the rules for that kind of housing were not only being bent but broken. There are certain strict rules which CMHC officials impose on a venture like that. I took it upon myself to visit the project. One of the rules was that you had to have a family. Second, you had to be
March 6, 1979

below a certain income level. Obviously you had to require that kind of housing. I presented myself to the manager of that project. There were no questions asked about whether I had a family or what my salary was at the time. There were no qualifying questions at all.
I started probing and asking certain questions. I found out that on the bottom floor of the department block were the single bedroom apartments. On the second floor were smaller apartments or family units and on the third floor were the three bedroom apartments. When I asked whether it was necessary to have a family to move in there, I was told it was not necessary at all. I asked what was done about people who did not have families but wanted to rent an apartment on the third floor. I was told that there were career people who rented those. They divide the rooms among themselves. These are several adults occupying one suite. If a couple without a family rented a three bedroom apartment, I was told they would make the third bedroom into a den.
This was a project for low income families. In no way were the rules being adhered, to. The manager was not ensuring that those who needed housing the most were the ones to benefit from that project. The former Liberal leader of the former Liberal party in Manitoba has done very well by this project even to this day.
As the hon. member for Roberval pointed out last night, we cannot blame the minister for that. I do not hold him accountable. As the hon. member for Roberval said, the federal government should never have been involved in this kind of program. It is a centralist notion. It is from a bygone era when a lot of people in Canada, particularly members opposite, thought that the central government could solve most problems in Canada. My colleagues and I did not think so.
We found out through the affairs of this department that that is far from being possible. There is no government agency omniscient enough to be able to supervise all of the building projects and investments that CMHC has made across Canada. There is no one agency that can ensure that the rules are not being broken. When guidelines and rules are set up to protect low income families, they are broken. This means that those who need housing the most are being ripped off.
Therefore, I am happy to see this legislation which will do away with the department of housing and urban affairs. I am glad the government has accepted our proposal and said yes, it is time for this department to be disbanded. I commend the government for taking this initiative and being able to turn over to the provinces some of the projects that belong to provincial areas, letting those governments do as they should have done in the first place.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I participate in this debate. As the housing critic of this party, I will be summarizing the approach this party is taking to the measures proposed by the minister and the government as well as looking at the housing situation in general. From listening to the minister's remarks some ten days ago and from reading the speeches of Liberal
Housing
members who participated in this debate, one would not recognize that there is a housing problem in Canada.
The minister and his associates trot out figures showing that over 200,000 houses are being built each year. They say there really is no housing crisis in Canada today. The minister spent a great deal of his time assuring hon. members that there is no problem with housing, that what is needed is a bit of tinkering here and there, such as the amendments being put forward, in order to clear up the problem that he says exists.
I have often thought that many members of parliament and many governments live in a cloud in cuckoo land. The minister occupies one of his own rather uniquely. I invite him to come to my constituency in Toronto and tell the people there that there is no housing crisis in the city of Toronto and no housing problem in Canada today. I am sure it would come as news to many people.
Who are these people? It is not the rich who are concerned. It is not only the people we classify as poor. It is many people starting out, with one income and sometimes with two incomes, who 20 or 30 years ago would have found it easier to buy a house even though the standard of living at that time was lower than it is today.
I follow the remarks of my colleagues the hon. members for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) in saying that Canadians are house poor. The high cost of housing is shattering the Canadian dream. It is not part of this party's policy that everyone should live in a single family dwelling or that everyone should live in an apartment, but that people, regardless of their income, should be able to live in affordable, decent shelter. Those who want to live in houses should be able to do so. Those who want to own their own homes should be able to do so. Those who want to own their own homes should be encouraged to do that.
It is more difficult for Canadians to own their own homes now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Right now, the average price of a house in metropolitan Toronto is $68,500, and it is anticipated the price will rise by a further 7 or 8 per cent over the coming year. In many parts of Toronto, in the central core, for example, prices have risen to about $80,000. With mortgage rates at a high of 11 'A per cent the dream of being able to afford one's own home is becoming unattainable.
It is important that we should look carefully at the causes of the extraordinary inflation which has taken place in this area. What are the components which go into the cost of housing? In all the research the government has sponsored and all the work of CMHC, very few studies have been undertaken which tell the truth about the reasons for the present high cost of housing. It is a monument to the government's political ability that it has managed to convince itself, on the basis of only the Lord knows what information, that there is not an "affordability crisis" in the cities of Canada today. Look at the costs which have gone up. We admit that the cost of labour has gone up. One can see that the cost of materials has risen; this was

March 6, 1979
Housing
documented by my hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie when he talked about the price of lumber and so on.
But the price increases do not stem solely from increases in the cost of labour and materials. They are caused by two other factors-the cost of money and the cost of land. When you look hard at what the government has done to protect Canadians from the increasing price of money, you find the answer is "not a single thing". Quite the reverse. They have encouraged interest rates to rise to a point at which it is impossible in Toronto to get a first mortgage for less than 11 per cent or a second mortgage for less than 13 per cent. We all know that increasingly it takes two mortgages to enable a family to acquire a home.
The cost of land is the other factor which must be closely examined. In our view, land should be considered a resource just as we consider oil or coal or gold to be a resource. Precisely the same phenomena as we have seen with respect to the exploitation of other natural resources-domination by foreign companies, a tendency for greater concentration, control over the price of the products-are being repeated in the case of land. We in our party have argued that we can see a pattern developing-a greater concentration taking place in the economy leading to excessive profits and consumer gouging. We can see this happening with regard to the price of land.
So we have "an affordability problem". More than one million Canadians are paying over 30 per cent of their income for shelter. We have a serious interest rate problem which is forcing many families into permanent and uncontrollable debt. Also within the housing industry there is the situation in which fewer and fewer companies are controlling land, not only in the inner cities but in the suburban areas. We know the names of these companies-Cadillac-Fairview, Genstar, Trizec. Such firms are accumulating land around the cities, controlling the choices which are available and restricting the ability of our people to afford decent housing.
What is the major lesson to be learned from this? First, any housing policy which fails to deal with the large developers and the powers of financial institutions cannot possibly succeed because it is these two groups which are the major source of the problem. Proposals such as those put forward by the Conservative party, and put forward as well, though admittedly in a striptease, delicate fashion, by the minister of state for housing and which simply increased consumer demand without dealing with inflation and profiteering in the supply of housing, serves simply as a guarantee of higher prices and higher profits. To put it crudely, if you simply put money into the hands of consumers without doing anything about the supply of housing or the cost of money, you are merely supplying a subsidy to developers and bankers.
The second lesson to be learned is that any subsidy on housing and home ownership should be clearly expressed and costed. The Canadian people should be allowed to see exactly who would benefit from any change in subsidy and at what price. I find it ironic in the extreme that the parties which have been advocating restraint at the expense of working Canadians

should now be proposing solutions costing billions of dollars like some nineteenth century evangelist who had suddenly discovered the sins of the flesh.
Third, we should be crystal clear as to the full extent of any subsidies both from the point of view of the direct expenditure of public moneys and also from the point of view of what we call tax expenditures. Tax expenditures have aptly been called hidden welfare, and we are still in the dark as to the cost, for example, of capital cost allowances and accelerated depreciation provisions under the Income Tax Act.
Then there is the cost of tax shelters from multiple unit residential buildings known as MURBs, tax deferrals which allow companies to withhold taxes in a given year and put them off on a continuing basis; and there are the tax provisions which have just been put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) which will allow for the continuing write-off of all carrying charges on undeveloped land.
In addition to action along the lines of the three points I have made, something else has to be done. There is an obvious need for tax reform which would bring relief to lower and middle income Canadians. It is increasingly difficult, I would stress once again, for the average Canadian to afford to buy a house and live in affordable housing or in an affordable apartment. A government which does not take note of this fact will find itself facing some unpleasant music when it finally realizes it has to call an election.
Finally, there is no instant or magic solution to the problem of affordable housing. If there is no free lunch, as the Liberals and Tories are so prepared to say when they discuss unemployment insurance and direct government expenditure, there is no free lunch in tax spending on housing either, and that is something that both the Liberals and Conservatives would have the Canadian people believe. The hard fact of the matter is that fewer and fewer developers control the supply of land. Private land banking has replaced public land assembly, and we have no control over the price of land. To increase demand willy-nilly when so few companies control the supply of land is simply an incentive to profiteer. House prices will not simply rise, they will go through the roof.
That is the background against which we have to consider the housing proposals that have been put forward by the government. It is the background of ever increasing concentration of wealth, of control over the supply of land; it is the background of ever increasing corporate power, private power and control by the public; the background of ever increasing mortgage rates and extraordinary bank profits. Of course, the final story is the high price of a house.
It is against this background and not the cloud cuckoo land in which the minister lives that we have to consider the Liberal party's proposed amendments to the National Housing Act, because the thrust of the amendments is to reduce public control and public investment in housing. But there is one problem, and that is that while the government would have us believe that it is leaving the housing situation to the so-called
March 6, 1979

free market, the fact of the matter is there is no free market in housing.
I want to quote from one CMHC report which was published surreptitiously, one might say, and which exposed the high cost of land in 1976. Peter Spurr says the following about metropolitan land development:
Metropolitan land development has been taken over by the giants, who are now consolidating their position by buying up their competition, and the suppliers and materials in their production processes. The small builder, revered in the mythology of housing, is an anachronism-the residential construction industry in metropolitan Canada can be recognized as paralleling the structure of the automobile industry during the 1920s, or the aircraft industry in the 1940s. The understanding of this reality could lead to several different objectives for public policy, ranging from the break up of the evolving cartel, to the nationalization of the firms, to increased public supervision of their products and prices. Of the three, the latter seems most directly related to the quality of life and substantive needs of this society.
That was the suggestion and recommendation of Mr. Spurr who wrote the report for the government on the high cost of land and land prices. What did the minister in all his wisdom, and the people who are advising him in CMHC, do? Did they decide to break up the cartels? The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) has been looking for a backbone for four years and he still has not found one with respect to the competition policy. Have they nationalized land or done anything about public control or ownership of land? No. Have they done anything about public supervision of products or prices? No, they have specifically refused to do so. They have gone from one impotent institution to another in their attempt to find an answer to the problem of inflation, not only in housing but in the rest of the economy, and they have not come up with a single answer. Now they are desperately trying to find a political solution to save them when they come to call an election.
What has been the answer? They have rejected each of the three possibilities put forward by Mr. Spurr, and now they have come with a fourth one. It is called "leave the jungle to the lions". It calls for a reduction in public involvement in housing, a reduction in the kind of control that is available, and it leaves it all to the private sector. This would come as no surprise to us because the government and the Liberal party, which have made millionaires of Campeau and Teron, of Cadillac-Fairview and Trizec, of Genstar and Daon, are now fulfilling their historic mandate to make Canada even safer for the development industry than it has been up to now.
We will have occasion, when the bill goes to committee- and we will see what committee it goes to, depending on the attitude of the government-of looking at the proposals in detail. Some of them have been dealt with by my colleagues the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. But I want to make one point. I am sorry the minister is not here to hear this, but perhaps he will have the opportunity to read it. My point is that in the pre-election period in which we are living now the government is attempting to put the gun to the head of the opposition and to say: "We have to have the housing bill passed". They have done it with every other piece of legislation with which they have
Housing
come up. Each one is a matter of urgency. They say they need to have the unanimous consent of the House to get it through.
Let me say this to the minister. He has delayed the bringing in of this bill and yet he is the one who allowed the neighbourhood improvement projects to lapse and left them hanging in mid air, with the people involved not knowing what was going to come next. He is the one who allowed his deputy minister at this critical time to take an extensive leave of absence and now to quit the government for good. He is the one who announced in May proposals which were opposed by many of the groups affected by these proposals, and it took him until November before he could get agreement from those groups to the amendments he was putting forward. He is the one who waited until December to have the bill printed the second time, and his government was the one responsible for waiting until February before they decided to bring this bill in. They are the ones who are responsible for the delays, the costs, the abandoned projects and the defeated hopes. It is not us but the government who are responsible for this delay and this extraordinary mismanagement.
There are hundreds, not to say thousands, of groups affected by the changes in the government housing program. 1 can only mention one from my riding in the short time I have been here. There is a project in my riding of which the minister is aware because 1 brought it to his attention a number of times. The project is for a senior citizens' building which is in danger of languishing-it is a non-profit corporation-because this government has delayed and has refused to give direct government funding to groups which are in need as they wait for the introduction of this new policy.
The basic thrust of the new policy has to be seen in light of the announced cutbacks of over $300 million in the CMHC budget in August and September. The government is determined to get out of a number of areas and to leave them to banks, to the private sector and to trust companies. We have no guarantee that the private sector and the trust companies are interested in supporting co-ops or are interested in supporting non-profit corporations.
The government has introduced the graduated payment mortgage scheme, which is a fraud on the Canadian public, and I say that with no apology whatsoever. I want to quote from the "Graduated Payment Mortgage Safari Kit" which was provided to the members of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs by the minister in December. This kit was supposed to explain to us the great benefits of the graduated payment mortgage scheme. What does that scheme do? It allows a potential home buyer to pay a lower total amount of money in the first four or five years of his mortgage, and then requires that he pay an escalated amount of his mortgage after the first five years. The key fact, which is not mentioned once in this GPM safari kit, is that the total amount of money which an individual would pay is greater over a 25-year amortization period than it would be under an equal payment mortgage, which is what we have in Canada today. It is unbelievable that that fact is not mentioned once in a government document presented to members for briefing.

March 6, 1979
Housing
If a private group put forward this proposal and did not provide an explanation, they would be guilty of misleading advertising of the worst kind and would be prosecuted by the government. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should have a look at this document. It is a clear example of the kind of thing many lenders in the private sector would like to get away with, that is, concealing the true cost of a loan from the consumer. Now we know why the government is afraid to bring in an act to protect creditors and borrowers. It is because the government does not want to reveal the true cost of loans to Canadians.
If the Liberal party is bankrupt, I should like to look briefly at what we have heard from the Conservative party. Apart from criticism, applauding the government for abolishing the ministry of urban affairs and for giving its role back to the private sector, the only proposal put forward by the Conservative party was one to allow the deductibility of mortgage interest and property tax from pre-tax income. I admit this proposal deals superficially with one of the problems I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, and that is the problem of tax relief. Obviously one would pay less tax, and it would provide a substantial saving to a large number of Canadians.
The main problem with the scheme is that it does not do anything about the problems facing the housing industry and Canadians who are interested in buying houses. It does not do anything about high prices, corporate concentration, or creating equity between home owners and tenants. It is a massive hidden subsidy of home ownership at the expense of the rest of Canadians. In political terms it can be compared to those nineteenth century Conservatives who opposed giving the vote to non-property owners. What twentieth century Conservatives are saying is that Canadians who are not lucky enough to own property will not receive the benefit of a tax cut. The Tories are barring nearly 40 per cent of Canadian households from the benefits of economic citizenship.


Mrs. Pigott:: The hon. member should say that in the trade union halls.


Bob Rae: I have said this wherever I go. I admit the scheme provides a form of tax relief, but I do not think it provides the Conservative party with a monopoly on virtue. It is a proposal which creates inequities between home owners and tenants. It means the government will spend millions of dollars in the subsidization of a particular group. The fact it is a hidden subsidy and may be superficially politically popular is irrelevant. Nevertheless it is a subsidy. It does nothing about the key housing problems facing Canadians. It is a tax relief which provides relief to some but not others. We in the New Democratic Party are interested in tax relief. Certainly we are interested in the problem of cost relief, but our approach will not be at the expense of some Canadians and to the benefit of others.
Our approach is based on two premises: affordability and fairness. It is time to look very hard at the groups in our society who have prevented Canadians from having the type of

housing they deserve. Since 1945 huge amounts of Canadian investment capital have been absorbed in urban development. With the guarantee of the federal government, financial institutions recognized a safe market and invested heavily in this sector. In 1977 the total value of real estate mortgages outstanding was $73.9 billion, far more than the total federal budget. Since 1945 the government has allowed this distortion to grow in our economy. The economic policy of the federal government has allowed more money than was needed to be used in the development of urban real estate. From 1945 to 1977 the amount of money spent on urban real estate by Canadian financial institutions increased 100 times.
What has been the effect? The effect has been to suck money from many of the productive and manufacturing sectors of the economy into speculation and urban land development. While some sectors of the economy have done well, such as urban land, other sectors have been underfed, underplen-ished and starved by the lack of capital and investment. Also it is important to recognize what has happened with the massive profits made in urban land and real estate.
Rather than investing in the industrial sector of Canada, our dollars are flowing south into the United States. The investment of Canadian capital in the United States is being led by real estate companies. The workers and the people of this country who are looking for jobs are being bled dry by the investment going out of the country.
For example, Markborough Properties and the Meridian building group announced plans in May, 1978, to finance a portion of a $1 billion new town in Dade County, Florida. Olympia and York Ltd. of Toronto bought eight New York City office buildings for approximately $350 million. Cadillac-Fairview holds close to $200 million in current United States real estate assets. Genstar, a foreign-owned company, has been dominant in the Canadian real estate industry. Now it is exposing its tentacles elsewhere in North America. Recently it acquired Westmor Corporation of Long Beach, California, which owns mortgage bank branches in Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and California. Also it bought 8,600 acres in San Diego for $93 million. This flow of capital south draws money away from Canada. Profits generated in Canada should be used for the benefit of Canadians.
The same trend can be seen elsewhere in the economy. Inco has made money at the expense of the workers in Sudbury and the people of that community for a decade. Now it is investing its profits in Guatemala and Indonesia. The same pattern of dependence, exploitation and the exporting of jobs and wealth is going on in the urban and real estate sectors.
We in the New Democratic Party feel the price of land must be controlled, as well as profit speculation and cost of money. In order to deal directly with the housing problems facing Canadians, those matters must be controlled. Our attitude toward land must change. Land should be seen as a resource which needs the protection of public policy. It is too valuable a resource to be left solely in the hands of private developers. The entire development industry was created from the idea
March 6, 1979

that urban land and buildings are private property which should be used, owned and developed by the corporate sector.
But urban land has been and always should be considered as one of Canada's natural resources. It provides a basic need- shelter. The need for shelter should not be subject to profiteering. We cannot allow land to be taken off the market and held by a developer until he or his company feels the land will bring the desired price. We should provide encouragement to the non-profit, co-operative and municipal sectors of housing. The leading builder in Toronto today is the city of Toronto. I am proud to say that city has had the guts and ability to get into the housing market. It has attempted to deal with the high cost of housing in its own way.
In relation to public land assembly, our proposal has been rejected consistently by the government. We need to reduce the cost of mortgages. That has been the proposal of my party since 1973. Mortgage rates are too high; bank profits are astronomical.
Why does the government not have the ability, guts or integrity to deal with these problems and put them together in a very simple equation? I think the people of Canada would be behind the government if it said to the banks: "Do something about mortgage rates and take the cost out of excess profits".
We need amendments to the Bank Act and to the National Housing Act not only to allow the government to offer mortgages at 8 per cent, but to force banks to do the same for Canadian families that are earning less then $25,000 a year. This is not a public subsidy. We are not the last of the big time spenders, like the Conservatives and Liberals seem to want to be with their tax exemptions and allowances for the people. This is something that will be coming from the banks' excess profits which have been hurting the people of Canada. Let us not forget that bank profits last year were $1 billion. Let us not forget that a good part of this, according to information provided to us by the banks themselves, is simply a windfall produced by increasing the spread between the Bank of Canada rate and the banks' prime rate. Such a windfall has even been admitted to by major spokesmen of the banking community, as I have said.
I do not see why the banks should be allowed to benefit, and I do not see why we as taxpayers and interest payers-and we are all taxpayers and interest payers; certainly I am-should continue to allow ourselves to subsidize these monuments of marble and glass when we cannot affort to buy adequate housing for our children. The Bank of Canada's attitude toward restraint is perhaps best revealed by the building it has just constructed for itself across the way.
Should we not start talking more of the waste and excess profits and misuse of our social resources? The difference in monthly payments between a mortgage of $50,000 at 11 'A per cent and a mortgage of $50,000 at 8 per cent is over $100 a month, or $1,200 a year which could be going back into the pockets of the Canadian people, not at the expense of their brothers, some home owners or another taxpayer, but at the
Housing
expense of those people who have been living off the backs of the Canadian people. That is a significant saving.
This government should deal with mortgage interest rates, problems in relation to profits and significant savings. It should not go round the circle and brush aside the problem, but should get at the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is the fact that interest rates are too high, bank profits are too high and land costs are too high.
If the government wants to deal with these problems directly, then it should deal with them directly by assembling land and providing it at no profit to the Canadian people. I think the slogan for the voting public in this election year should be "let the buyer beware". It would be easy enough for us in this party, as the other parties have done, to play the game of cheque book politics. Cheque book politics will not necessarily solve problems in housing. We have seen what the Tories have proposed to buy votes. I think I said earlier in a speech outside this House that rather than buying votes, the Liberal party only wants to rent them, and that is the proposal it has been putting forward. This is a strategy that has been followed by the minister. He says we might have a tax shelter, and we might do something about our unfair tax system that will be of benefit to more than 30 per cent of the people, but on the other hand we might not. This government does not even have the courage to propose something and let the people decide. The fact of the matter is that buying votes will not make it easier for one single Canadian to buy a house. That is the key to the problem. We need to keep the cost of land down and we need to keep the cost of money down. I say, why not take the bull by the horns and do it directly?


Mr. Hal Herbert (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just one comment concerning the remarks of the last speaker who made reference to the slow passage of this bill. I can only say that the bill has now been before the House for second reading for some two weeks. In fact, during these two weeks I am led to believe that the hon. member who has just spoken has been able to go away on vacation, come back and still speak on second reading. I feel that probably one of the problems in this House is the amount of time we spend on second reading.


An hon. Member:: Abolish the House. Do away with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was our third speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: Guillotine the House. Shut it down. Pass it by executive fiat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor for the purpose of making a speech, and I suggest we listen.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I hope those remarks appear on the record, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: I hope so.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Frankly, if the member is suggesting that every bill which comes into this House should take up two

March 6, 1979
Housing
weeks' time on second reading, he should recognize that we are really not going to get very much legislation through this House. I would refer him to the British Parliamentary system, which so many of his colleagues suggest in many cases we should imitate, where with almost three times as many members it takes only two or three days at most on second reading to put their party position on record.
Let me now talk about the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Thomas Herbert: Bill C-29 is a carefully prepared and thought out response to the housing situation as it exists in Canada today. It is quite obvious, as has been mentioned many times, that Canadians are among the best housed people in the world. For that reason it becomes even more important to address ourselves to the needs of those people among us who still have problems in getting access to housing that is appropriate to their needs and within their means.
The new non-profit and co-operative housing programs set out in this bill are a practical and workable solution to the problem of generating housing for low income people at an affordable cost. I am particularly pleased that these programs, more than ever before, will involve the private sector of the economy in the provision of social housing. There is no reason that social housing should be the exclusive responsibility of government, and it seems apparent that private investors are now willing and desirous of becoming involved.
Under the non-profit and co-operative programs, and by several other parts of this bill, private lenders will be allowed to provide capital in projects which up until now were financed from government resources. That policy is consistent with the relationship the government has always encouraged between the private and public sectors.
The government is not in the business of constructing houses. The most efficient and economical way to get houses built is by private enterprise within a free and competitive market economy. When the private marketplace is working as it should, most Canadians will be able to deal with their own housing problem. That is why an important part of the government's participation in housing has been devoted to encouraging the maintenance of a healthy housing industry in Canada.
Mortgage insurance was introduced soon after the end of World War II to encourage private lenders, particularly banks, to increase their investment in residential construction, to make more money available to finance the building of housing at a time when mortgages did not seem to be such an attractive kind of investment. That one program, mortgage insurance, has probably dome more than any other measure to establish and maintain a healthy housing market. It has been modified from time to time to conform with changing needs.
In recent years the government has followed the pattern of introducing publicly funded and supported housing programs and then, as they became familiar and acceptable, modifying

them in such a way as to permit them to be supported by the private sector. Two notable examples have been the assisted home ownership program and the assisted rental program which initially involved both federal government loans and federal government subsidies to put good housing within reach of people who needed it.
Those two programs were among the most successful and popular ever introduced. These programs were later modified, first, to permit them to be financed with private capital rather than government loans and, second, to replace government subsidies with a system of repayable, interest reducing loans. The logical extension of this pattern is the new graduated payment mortgage, a private loan which allows borrowers to make lower payments during the early years when they are getting established in a new home.
I am not suggesting that the private sector of the housing industry should be expected on its own to take care of all the housing needs of all Canadians. The Government of Canada through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has always had an important role to play, in partnership with private enterprise, to ensure that Canadians have good housing at affordable cost.
There are two ways in which the government will continue to fulfil that obligation. One way is to provide subsidies for the construction and acquisition of housing which fulfils a social need. This bill provides for generous assistance to non-profit groups and co-operative associations that are prepared to make housing available to people who need it. This assistance will be provided in a way that eliminates overlapping administration by various levels of government and allows the provinces to fulfil their own objectives according to their own priorities in an area that is essentially within provincial jurisdiction.
The second way in which the federal government interacts with the private sector to ensure adequate annual production of housing is through the mortgage insurance program. When we ask private investors to make money available for social housing, or for rehabilitation, or through the graduated payment mortgage, we encourage them to do so by making mortgage insurance available.
This bill extends the benefits of mortgage insurance to a number of new situations not previously covered-for instance, mortgage loans to non-profit organizations for the acquisition and improvement of existing housing; for loans to landlords who are prepared to rehabilitate their rental properties to acceptable standards of health and safety; and, for the first time, for housing loans to Indians living on reserves.
One of the most encouraging aspects of this legislation is that it strengthens the partnership between government and private enterprise in the housing industry, making the best possible use of the resources of each sector. This housing legislation gives further support to the provision of housing to people of low income. I am referring to co-operative housing, which has become increasingly popular in recent years as Canadians have come to understand and accept the idea of
March 6, 1979

collective action to solve individual housing problems. The co-operative movement in housing had to overcome many obstacles before receiving the recognition it is given today. It is now considered to be an important alternative approach to meeting low-income shelter needs.
Support for co-operative housing is another indication of federal adaptation to new situations and shifting demands. Canada in 1979 is not the same as the Canada of 1946, and the National Housing Act is not the same instrument it was 30 years ago. At that time the primary task was to rebuild a housing industry that had been virtually closed down by the priorities of a country at war.
The changes since then have been dramatic and comprehensive. It was recognized at the outset that relying on the free market system for the production of housing does not automatically assure an equitable distribution of that production. Without a degree of government intervention, lower income households could face the problem of either spending a large portion of their income to obtain adequate and suitable shelter or paying lower rents for inadequate and unsuitable shelter. As a result, housing legislation over the years has responded to two primary needs: to assist families who were in need of housing but had affordability problems; and to assist builders to supply an adequate volume of good, moderately-priced housing.
An important change in social policy was marked in 1949 when the act first incorporated provisions for public housing. At that time CMHC contributed 75 per cent of the cost of construction and the province paid 25 per cent. The project was owned in partnership by the federal and provincial governments and operating losses were shared on a 75-25 per cent basis.
Just 15 years ago, in 1964, the act was again amended to give the provinces another option in providing housing for low income families. The new provision called for CMHC to make 90 per cent loans to provinces and municipalities to provide public housing. Provinces paid the remaining 10 per cent, and operating losses were shared by the federal government and the provinces on a 50-50 basis. During this time and, in fact, up until 1973 co-operative housing was treated as just another form of home ownership and received the same treatment and benefits as a single applicant for a home owner loan.
1 might point out that there are two types of housing co-operatives. One is called the building co-operatives, in which a group of people simply pool their resources to build their housing at the same time, with each member of the group owning his unit outright. A continuing co-operative, on the other hand, is a non-profit group that provides housing for its members. The co-operative itself owns the housing and each member has a share in the project. None of the units in such a co-operative can be sold for a profit.
Up until 1973, although building co-operatives received some assistance, continuing co-operatives under group ownership had great difficulty getting recognition and acceptance under the act. One problem was that legislation did not provide for co-operatives to obtain loans for low rental hous-
Housing
ing, except as the sponsor for a project in which residents did not have to be members. In other words, low income people could have housing provided for them but they could not own it through a co-operative.
Another problem was that co-operatives could obtain funding only for new projects, not for existing housing, nor even for the rehabilitation of existing housing. As a result, people in a rental project could not get an NHA loan to buy it co-operatively even if the landlord wished to sell it to them. This made it difficult to mount a strong national program of co-operative housing.
In 1973, however, new housing legislation helped co-operatives to develop fully as another housing alternative for low income Canadians. The two most important provisions in the new legislation at that time were first, that housing co-operatives could qualify for 100 per cent loans for non-profit, low rental housing; and, secondly, loans would be available for both the purchase and rehabilitation of existing housing. That new legislation did, in effect, start a new form of co-operative, one in which the members are collectively owners but individually are in a leasehold position. On one hand they have the proprietary rights of a landlord, and on the other hand the rights and advantages of tenants.
As the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has mentioned, extensive discussions recently between his ministry and the co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada have produced an agreement regarding the administration of subsidies and charges to occupants of housing units that serve mutual objectives. The new agreement provides for fewer controls by CMHC on actual project development, and allows co-operatives to have the opportunity to use a wider range of procurement techniques based on the group's experience. Greater latitude is also given to co-operative groups in choosing between the acquisition of existing developments and the construction of new projects. The agreement provides, as well, for a significant increase in federal financial support to co-operative projects, and continued application of the residential rehabilitation assistance program.
There is no doubt that the new program will result in much higher production of this much needed type of accommodation. Federal assistance will be almost doubled, and private lending institutions indicate their willingness to invest as much as $500 million during the next few years in support of co-operative housing. This means that the number of people living in co-operative housing could easily double in a few years, going from the present level of about 50,000 to more than 100,000.
I am pleased that the government is giving support to co-operative housing as another means of offering another choice of housing tenure to families of various incomes. The new program will assist members of the co-operative housing program to build even more housing that they can afford and of which they can be proud.

March 6, 1979
Housing
I am particularly pleased that this bill preserves and extends one of the most important housing measures ever put forward in Canada. I am referring to the residential rehabilitation assistance program-RRAP. Restrictions have been removed from this program and its benefits are no longer limited to housing in certain specially designated areas. With the passage of this legislation, all Canadians will become eligible for RRAP assistance, within the terms of the program, and I have no doubt that the funds available to support it will be applied to the most pressing needs, wherever they may occur in Canada.
It is not surprising that the RRAP program met with such an immediate and enthusiastic response from the people of Canada. Since the program was introduced in 1973, CMHC has been assisting in the rehabilitation of some 20,000 units per year. As the program is broadened and municipal officials become more familiar with its application, that annual rate will increase. The number of homes that can be rehabilitated in any year depends a lot upon the capacity of municipal organizations to manage and implement the program.
All of the demographic trends, economic projections, and our shifting social values suggest that rehabilitation is going to be a more significant activity for at least the rest of this century. The government, in bringing forth these amendments, recognizing the importance of rehabilitation and conservation, has reaffirmed its intention to continue to support it in a tangible way.
I have a few comments concerning the deductibility of mortgage interest, Mr. Speaker. The Tory mortgage interest tax proposal is unjust and unnecessary. Furthermore, the taxpayer cannot afford it.
I should like to put some relevant statistics on the record which show that 62 per cent of Canadian families, some 4.4 million, are home owners while 38 per cent, or 2.4 million, rent their homes.
I should like for a moment to comment on living styles. In Quebec, 50 per cent of the people are home owners compared to 66 per cent in Ontario, 65 per cent in Alberta and 69 per cent in British Columbia. Francophones are only approximately 45 per cent home owners by living style, 55 per cent living in rented accommodation.
I stress this point, Mr. Speaker, because the Tory program makes no attempt to recognize the difference in living styles between Canadians in the province of Quebec and Canadians in the wealthier provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. The program is designed to aid to a much greater degree persons living in those two wealthier provinces of Alberta and British Columbia.


John Carnell Crosbie: You will swallow anything.


Harold Thomas Herbert: As long as the hon. member opposite is making comments, that may be one of the reasons why the opposition party has never fared too well in elections in the province of Quebec.


John Carnell Crosbie: Call the election and we will see. Sixty seats minimum.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Among home owners, 35 per cent have incomes below $10,000, 45 per cent between $10,000 and $20,000 and the rest earn over $20,000. Because marginal rates increase with income, the higher income earner benefits more. The 35 per cent of home owners who have a family income under $10,000 pay about 14 per cent of the total mortgage interest payments whereas the 20 per cent with incomes over $20,000 pay 33 per cent of the total mortgage interest payments.
High income earners are in a better position to borrow and these persons, together with those with debt-free homes choosing to benefit from the program, would receive preference from lending institutions. Lower income groups would face increased difficulty in securing funds.
In Quebec, the average family income for home owners is $19,300 whereas the average in Ontario is $22,500, in Alberta, $21,200 and in British Columbia $22,100. Thus, the marginal rate is higher in the wealthier provinces.
Lost revenues to the federal government would also entail losses to the provinces as fewer funds would be available for transfer. The provinces would have to raise taxes in order to replace these losses.
The amount of the downpayment is often the major problem for young couples wishing to buy houses. The increase in demand for mortgage money by those refinancing their homes with new or increased mortgages would tend to raise the amount of the downpayment required.
Those who have saved to increase the equity in their homes, either by increasing the downpayment or paying off part of the mortgage, will receive less benefit than those who have the minimum investment in their homes.
Tenants who choose not to buy a house or tenants who cannot buy a home would be obligated as taxpayers to contribute to the cost of a plan in which they do not choose to participate or are unable to participate.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-National Revenue-Reason detailed income tax returns placed in custody of Statistics Canada; the hon. member for Halton (Mr. March 6, 1979

Philbrook)-Post Office-Steps to improve door to door delivery; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- Post Office-Effect of cutbacks on mail delivery.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be unanimous consent that we proceed to the consideration of Bill C-215 and that the preceding bills be allowed to stand in the same order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we proceed to the consideration of Bill C-215 and that all other bills preceding this number stand without losing any of their rights?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CITIZENSHIP ACT
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre) moved: that Bill C-215, respecting war criminals in Canada, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on December 31, 1979, which is the end of this year, unless the German government acts to change its law, the statute of limitations in Germany will bar any further prosecution of Nazi war criminals. In that country the statute of limitations has been extended once already in connection with the commission of war crimes. In the public debate that was held in the German parliament I understand there was a mixed feeling and there is only a slight majority in favour of the further extension of the statute of limitations for war crimes.
The United States congress and some other national governments and legislatures around the world have unanimously passed resolutions urging the German government to extend its statute of limitations. I hope that at some early date this parliament will act similarly and pass a resolution by unani-
War Criminals
mous consent along the lines of those passed by others urging the Germans to extend their statute of limitations. If no action is taken by Germany we may then face the appalling spectacle of persons coming forward to publish and to sell memoirs of their World War II war crime commissions. Judging by the success of other books written by other sorts of criminals, we can anticipate that these books will make a lot of money for their authors. I very much regret to note that according to the record, a well established record, some of these books about war crimes could be written by Canadian citizens.
World War II was a trauma in history which we must seek to keep alive in everyone's memory. There are lessons to be learned from it about the values of democracy and society, and as well about the dangers of fascism and racism. These are lessons too important to be forgotten and yet too easily forgotten. Already there are those who seek to write this history for their own purposes. One needs to go no further than to give as an example the statement of a candidate in a recent federal by-election by the name of Roger Delorme, who denied that six million Jews, as well as many others, were murdered during World War II, and who claimed that the number was less than one million. I believe that we should fight against this re-writing of history. We must not forget. Canada has too much of a stake in World War II history. There were too many lives lost to allow what happened at that time to be forgotten.
What can we do to help keep intact our history of that war? One thing is to prosecute war criminals who are living in this country. I am proposing in this bill that if these people are prosecuted and convicted, their Canadian citizenship will be taken from them. It is clear that we have the jurisdiction to prosecute people guilty of war crimes here in Canada, even though the crimes may have been committed elsewhere in the world. We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions Act and there are precedents, five cases that I know of, in which Canadian courts prosecuted persons for committing war crimes that occurred in Europe. Our courts have already been prepared to assume jurisdiction in cases of war crimes.
My bill attempts a measure of justice to the memory of World War II. Millions of people have come to Canada who were victims of that war. These people have come from Europe as well as from other parts of the world. They have come looking for the opportunity to establish a better life. In most cases they have become citizens pursuant to the laws that were established by this parliament. Under our laws citizenship has always been discretionary, in the sense that there are tests to be met and criteria applied. But above and beyond these things the government has had the discretion to withhold citizenship in appropriate cases.
I understand that for a fairly long period in our recent history we inquired into communist affiliations and activity by would-be Canadian citizens. If we were satisfied that they were members of a communist or fascist government or had close ties with one, we took steps to withhold Canadian citizenship from them. I understand also that in some cases, by misrepresentation in citizenship applications, citizenship was wrongly obtained by some individuals.
3874

March 6, 1979
War Criminals
There are safeguards provided in the Citizenship Act. There is a procedure provided whereby an individual who obtains Canadian citizenship by false representation or fraud can have his Canadian citizenship revoked. To my knowledge we fail to press the matter of war crimes as diligently as we pressed the matter of communist affiliation. We did not press the question: Was the individual involved in the commission of war crimes? Opinions have been given that those who have obtained Canadian citizenship and were guilty of war crimes but who represented otherwise may well be entitled to keep Canadian citizenship.
There are, of course, other legal opinions. In the preparation of my brief remarks today I read a legal opinion setting out grounds under which Canadian citizenship might be revoked. These grounds were non-disclosure of the commission of war crimes. Unless we take some positive action and amend our legislation we will have no recourse against these individuals.
Hon. members may ask who I am talking about. I do not intend to name names in this chamber. However, it is well known that there are over one dozen individuals in this category in Canada. Witnesses are available from among the Ukrainian and Jewish population who have come from Europe who can give evidence against these individuals. In my opinion they ought to do so and may do so if the provision such as the one I am proposing is introduced.
I have been somewhat vague in my reference to the term "war criminals" and to its definition. I have not used the term "war criminals" in my bill. The term used is "an offence pursuant to section 3 of the Geneva Conventions Act". That refers to grave breaches which include, among other things, wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. I am ascerting that it is well known that there are people in Canada who come within that definition by virtue of their conduct. I am suggesting that action ought to be taken against them and the bill which I have proposed, if enacted, will make it easier and more likely to do so.
I want to add one other matter which I have covered in this bill. In my opinion, it is not fair that the bill be restricted in its effect only to those who have acquired Canadian citizenship by naturalization and not to those Canadian born. I am not proposing that any distinction be drawn. It is conceivable that a born Canadian was in Europe or in another theatre of war and committed a crime within the definition I have put forward. The bill provides that his citizenship also is subject to revocation, not only the citizenship of an immigrant. I am not in favour of making any more differences between Canadians who have acquired their citizenship by birth and those who have acquired their citizenship by naturalization. If implemented, this bill will operate equally against both, whether naturalized or born in Canada.
This provision is not limited only to World War II. God knows, we have evidence of the commission of war crimes in

all wars. The amendment I am suggesting here would be applicable to those circumstances as well. It is by no means limited, although I began my remarks talking about the World War II experience and the holocaust.
This is a simple bill. It is easy to understand. It is timely because of what is now happening in Germany. It can be taken as an example and demonstration of the strong feelings Canadians have that we not forget what happened in World War II, and that we not allow those who were responsible for serious crimes during that war to go unpunished. Canadian citizenship should not continue to be held by those who are guilty of war crimes.
I look forward to learning whether the government favours or does not favour the principle of the bill. Whether it does or not, I hope that my colleagues on all sides of the House will make it possible for this important measure to be referred to the justice committee so that evidence can be led on its effect and the need for it. Because I assert that this is a bill that is needed and is needed now.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) for bringing this matter forward for discussion in the House this afternoon. I agree with many of the sentiments he expressed, but I do not agree with the vehicle of Bill C-215. It proposes to take a very drastic course on the part of the Government of Canada. I hope to develop arguments in the next few minutes as to why it should not be pursued.
The subject matter is important. Because of the remarks made by my colleague from York Centre I personally would agree to having the subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I agree with my colleague that the Government of Canada should urge the West German government to extend its statute of limitations for prosecution of war crimes. I understand it will run out later this year. The magnitude of the atrocities in the Second World War by war crime elements is such that this statute of limitations should be allowed to be extended so that justice may pursue many of those who have eluded authority since the Second World War. In that sense I fully support the hon. member for York Centre.
I also support his general premise that today, almost 35 years after the end of the Second World War, we should not allow the lessons learned in that war to be forgotten. I grew up in post-war England, in central London, where the effects of the war were very apparent upon families which lost many lives in the bombing and went to school with kids whose fathers did not come home.
The war had a very profound effect on me even though I was born a year after it ended. It is something that will stay with me for the rest of my life. One of the most moving days in the year, even before I became a politician, was November 11 and our Remembrance Day ceremonies. We of all generations must do our utmost to ensure that the lessons of the Second World War do not go unheeded for future generations. In that
March 6, 1979

sense I fully support the hon. member for York Centre and his intentions.
The bill as projected by the hon. member would place severe constraints upon Canadian law. I wish to develop these arguments now. The bill proposes that the Citizenship Act be amended so that any Canadian citizen convicted of war crimes in World War II should automatically cease to be a Canadian. The hon. member did not use those words, but that is what would happen. He talked in terms of section 9(1) being amended by the following words:
Notwithstanding any other Act, every person convicted of an offence pursuant to section 3 of the Geneva Conventions Act thereby ceases to be a Canadian citizen.
Its effect is to amend the Citizenship Act so that any Canadian citizen convicted of war crimes in the Second World War should automatically cease to be a Canadian. What the amendment seeks to do is entirely outside the philosophy of the Citizenship Act and the very liberal approach taken in this country towards citizenship, especially in the last few years, but historically. In that sense the hon. member for York Centre has good intentions but is somewhat misguided in the remedy he seeks to place before the House.
The Citizenship Act of February 15, 1977 is unique in the world. I wish to quote the former secretary of state, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner), when speaking on February 24, 1976. He said:
What makes this bill unique and a leader among nationality laws of the world? ... it treats absolutely everyone equally... This quality is rare in citizenship law. But,... the new Citizenship Act... clearly lays down certain steps the applicant must follow and certain qualifications the applicant must satisfy. Upon satisfaction of those conditions, then citizenship shall follow as a right.
In other words, the Citizenship Act recognizes that a person has a right to be a citizen of Canada after he or she has met the requirements set forth in the Citizenship Act and has completed the application procedures, including a person to person interview with a citizenship judge and the taking of the oath of citizenship in court. Not only is the Citizenship Act designed to be equitable in the acquisition of citizenship but also in the loss of it. That is an essential point to remember; equity in acceptance and equity in terms of losing citizenship. Already, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can see how anomalous the amendment proposed in Bill C-215 would be in the Citizenship Act. We must, however, press on to other facts.
Citizenship may be revoked if, after being lawfully admitted to Canada, it is proven that the person entered Canada by false representation, fraud, or by concealing material circumstances or by obtaining citizenship by the same means. My colleague acknowledges that point. The governor in council, upon a report from the Secretary of State, has had to revoke citizenship from time to time. However, in order to do so, it must have been able positively to identify individuals in the records of citizenship registration which have been kept since 1868. To date, the citizenship branch has been unable to identify individuals alleged to be war criminals since, in all probability, most would have changed their identity before entering Canada. How then, would the branch be in any better
War Criminals
position to identify individuals in its records for the purpose of Bill C-215?
It must also be borne in mind that under the Citizenship Act the citizen may request that, before the minister makes a report to the governor in council requesting revocation of his citizenship, his case be referred to the trial division of the Federal Court of Canada. But Bill C-215, if passed, would mean that individuals convicted under section 3 of the Geneva Convention Act, 1965, would have no recourse in law to plead that their citizenship should not be revoked, and would be at an extreme disadvantage vis-a-vis other Canadian citizens. Here we see the essential liberal philosophy which has underlined our legal sense since 1867 being skirted. At one stroke, Canadians affected by Bill C-215 would be stripped of their equality before the law and the their right to Canadian citizenship.
To introduce this automatic loss provision would remove the right of some Canadians either to voluntarily relinquish citizenship or to state their case before the Federal Court. Above all, adoption of Bill C-215 would make a partial, if not total, mockery of Canada's Human Rights Act. I am sure the hon. member for York Centre, who is an ardent proponent of human rights and a strong supporter of the human rights legislation passed by this parliament, would not want his bill to contravene the spirit of the Human Rights Act.
Another factor which must be considered is that both the Geneva conventions of 1948 and 1965 and the Canadian act respecting Geneva conventions for the protection of war victims are not retroactive to 1939. Their intent is to prevent the kinds of crime which led up to Nuremberg. The intent of Bill C-215 is, of course, to strike off the register of Canadian citizens all who are convicted of war crimes in the 1939-1945 conflict in Nazi-occupied territory. Under the Citizenship Act, the judge is precluded from questioning applicants on their activity prior to entry to Canada, including war activity. The citizenship judge may consider only criminal activity which has occurred in Canada within the three years immediately preceding the date of the application. This provision in the Citizenship Act, therefore, renders the amendment useless in practice.
As well as being in contravention of our Human Rights Act and diametrically opposed to the spririt and intent of the Citizenship Act, the implementation of Bill C-215 could create stateless persons. Particularly liable to this fate would be the former nationals or citizens of countries which no longer exist. In addition, it could affect persons born in Canada who have no other nationality. Canada, again in the spirit of human rights, signed on October 15, 1978, the United Nations convention on the reduction of statelessness. Canada has thus pledged to presume that every person is entitled to a nationality regardless of any crimes he or she may have committted.
A couple of months ago the whole concept of citizenship was brought up by the return to Canada of FLQ members involved in certain events in Quebec in the early 1970s. In particular,

March 6, 1979
War Criminals
the Cossette-Trudels came here. I know their case is before the courts and I do not want to reflect upon their guilt or innocence, but these people have been charged by the Crown with committing certain criminal acts and they will be brought to trial. Many people in my constituency had an instant reaction along these lines: why would we want these people back in Canada; why not leave them in France or in Cuba? Of course, these people were prejudging guilt, but the essence of this issue is that, notwithstanding any crimes which the accused may have committed, they did not revoke their citizenship upon leaving Canada. I do not know whether this was a specific intent of the minister of justice at the time or whether it was stipulated as part of the arrangement when these people went into exile, when they were given free passage to leave Canada, but it was always understood that the Crown alleged they had committed certain crimes and should they come back to Canada the accused would have to face justice.
I can defend the right of these people to return to this country as a right to face the Canadian justice system. It is important when we talk about revoking the right of citizenship that we keep in mind Canada's commitment to the United Nations and our pledge that every person is entitled to nationality irrespective of any crimes or misdemeanours that he or she might have engaged in. Canada has agreed to uphold article 8(1) of the convention, which states:
A contracting state shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.
In certain circumstances, such as treason, the convention permits the contracting state to deprive a person of citizenship, even though the person would then become stateless. Even then, though, the convention rules that the deprivation must be in accordance with the law "which shall provide for the person concerned the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body". But Bill C-215 provides for automatic loss of citizenship in contravention of the convention on the reduction of statelessness.
Just suppose, in spite of all the arguments we have presented, the bill passes and the stateless person, or national of some other country, is extradited. Where shall the person go? To a communist bloc country with whom Canada has no extradition treaty? To a country which no longer exists?
Mr. Speaker, the adoption of Bill C-215 would be in direct conflict with the spirit and intent of the Citizenship Act. Furthermore, it contravenes what Canada has already agreed to, the provisions of the convention on the reduction of statelessness. For these reasons, I oppose the bill.
Nevertheless, for the reasons which I outlined earlier, I believe this whole subject of lessons to be learned from the holocaust, the crimes committed in the Second World War, the pursuit of war criminals and the importance of West Germany continuing its statute of limitations, should lead us to think that this would be a very good subject matter for reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and I will certainly support such a move if it is agreeable to hon. members.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, like the preceding speaker, and in spite of the reservations I have about it and on which I shall elaborate later, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) for sponsoring this bill. This bill is indeed inspired by a commendable ideal and, like the preceding speaker, I am convinced that the House will probably feel the need one day to draw lessons from history and do its utmost to prevent the reoccurence of misfortunes such as those which happened at the time.
To come to grasps, since we must, with the contents of Bill C-215, an act respecting war criminals in Canada, I would like, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to examine with the House some of the implications the implementation of this bill would have both domestically and for our commitments to the international community.
Bill C-215 would add new section 9.1 immediately after section 9 of the Citizenship Act found in the Statutes of Canada 1974-75-76, chapter 108. The new section would provide that any person convicted of an offence pursuant to section 3 of the Geneva Conventions Act, chapter G-3 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, would thereby cease to be a Canadian citizen.
What are these Geneva conventions? It might be a good idea to find out what we are talking about. The above-mentioned act approves the four Geneva conventions on the protection of war victims signed in Geneva on August 12, 1949. These four conventions are: first, the convention for the relief of the wounded and sick in armies in the field; second, the convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded, sick and the shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea; third, the convention on the treatment of war prisoners; finally, four, the convention on the protection of civilian persons in time of war.
Section 3 of the act stipulates that any "grave breach" of any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as therein defined, that would, if committed in Canada, be an offence under any provision of the Criminal Code or other act of the Parliament of Canada, is an offence under such provision of the Criminal Code or other act if committed outside Canada. "Grave breach" is defined in the four conventions as follows: first, in that on the armed forces in the field, at article 50; second, in that on the armed forces at sea, at article 51; third, in that on the prisoners of war, at article 130; and four, in that on civilian persons, at article 147.
Grave breaches include the following crimes which are committed on persons or property protected by the Conventions, namely, wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; the massive
March 6, 1979

destruction and appropriation of property unless it is justified by military imperatives and made legally and wisely.
Section 3 grants extra-territorial jurisdiction to Canadian courts with regard to crimes committed outside Canada when they fall within the limits set forth in the four conventions mentioned earlier. Those crimes fall within the jurisdiction of the court where the accused is located, and that is where he will be judged and punished if proved guilty. Still, the attorney general must given his consent in writing before legal procedures can get under way.
What would be the effect of the implementation of Bill C-215 within the territorial limits of Canada? My colleague, the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), enumerated a while ago some of the legal consequences under the Citizenship Act; I should like to come back to that because it strikes me as being fundamental.
The Citizenship Act of 1976, which replaced that of 1970 found in chapter 19 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, makes it easier to acquire the Canadian citizenship and keep it. It is the right of those who are protected by the act, and can only be lost or withdrawn under the terms of the second part of the act. And there are three ways to lose Canadian citizenship: first, by renunciation as provided in section 8; second, by order of the governor in council, where the citizenship was obtained by fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances as provided in section 9; and third, by the fact, for a person who was born in a country other than Canada from at least one Canadian parent, of not having asked to retain his Canadian citizenship or nor having registered and gone to live in Canada during at least one year before the age of 28, as provided in section 7.
The deprivation of citizenship because of conviction for a criminal offence is inconsistent with the spirit of the act which reduced the number of reasons justifying the deprivation of citizenship. Such deprivation can be an extreme punishment by making the person concerned stateless, and I shall come back on this matter a little later. This is what would happen to the person born in Canada without having another citizenship or to the person born outside Canada who would have lost his or her original citizenship by becoming a Canadian citizen.
Although it looks simplistic, that bill would have very serious effects as regards the international commitments we freely agreed to make. The nationality which encompasses citizenship is an important factor in international law because it is the very basis of the international protection granted by a state to one of its citizens. Furthermore, diplomatic immunity abroad is also based on the nationality.
The United Nations took an active part in establishing everyone's right to a nationality. On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly, then made up of 58 countries, adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Forty-eight countries voted for it, eight abstained and two were not represented.
War Criminals
None voted against it. Here is what article 15 of the declaration says, and I quote:
(1)	Everyone has the right to a nationality;
(2)	No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
As the declaration is not a treaty, there was no need to have it signed or ratified. However, it remains a statement of principle of the highest moral authority. Called the Great Charter, it spells out a common objective for all countries and nations and as far as I know Canada endorses these objectives.
Moreover, and to be more specific, certain international conventions emanating from the United Nations deal with nationality in a very specific way. The convention relating to the status of stateless persons adopted on September 28, 1954 and in force since June 6, 1960, to which Canada is not party, provides the following in article 32 entitled Naturalization:
The contracting states shall, inasmuch as possible, facilitate the assimilation and the naturalization of stateless persons. They shall endeavour in particular to accelerate the naturalization process and to reduce inasmuch as possible the fees and costs involved.
On the other hand, the convention on the reduction of statelessness adopted on August 30, 1961, in force since December 13, 1975 and ratified by Canada on October 15, 1978, provides the following in article 8(1):
The contracting states shall not deprive any individual from his nationality were that deprivation to make him stateless.
The mover clearly stated his intention not to make any distinction between withdrawal of nationality from people who have had another nationality in the past and who have settled in Canada and Canadians who were born in Canada and who would be submitted to the same arbitrary judgment. Obviously, in the second case, this approach would directly result in making these people stateless persons.
That obligation, as stipulated in article 8 of the convention on the reduction of statelessness, is ineffective, however, when the nationality has been obtained by means of a false statement or any other fraudulent act or when the individual has resided in a foreign country for a period of time not inferior to seven consecutive years without informing the proper authorities of his intention to retain his nationality or when the individual has allowed one full year to elapse from the date of his majority without establishing a residence on the territory of the state or without registering with the proper authorities of that state.
There again, Mr. Speaker, there is no mention about the problem of Canadians born in Canada who would be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality.
The International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted on December 21, 1965, in force since January 4, 1969 and ratified by Canada on October 14, 1970, stipulates, at section 5(d) (iii), and I quote:

March 6, 1979
War Criminals
Pursuant to the fundamental obligations set out in section 2 of this Convention, the Member States agree to prohibit and eliminate all forms of racial discrimination and guarantee to everyone the right to equality before the law regardless of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, especially for the enjoyment of the following rights:
In particular, subsection (d):
(d) Other civil rights, especially:
In particular, also, paragraph (iii)
(iii) The right to a nationality;
One can therefore see in this section a direct cause and effect relationship between nationality and discrimination.
Revocation of citizenship on the grounds of conviction for an offense is incompatible with the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as we have seen, and is a direct breach by Canada of its international commitments pursuant to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Even when it is not on racial grounds, revocation of citizenship is a direct breach of the spirit embodied in the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Also, such a revocation would go against the United Nations' efforts to improve the quality of life for stateless persons. It is therefore obvious, Mr. Speaker, that on an international level, Bill C-215 would have major negative effects and would force Canada to renege on commitments it freely agreed to by ratifying certain treaties, in particular those I referred to.
Finally, the third negative effect that I see in the implementation of Bill C-215, if it was passed in its present form, concerns criminal law. The revocation of the citizenship of a person convicted of grave breach of one of the articles of the Geneva convention would result in a different treatment, depending whether such person had committed his or her crime in Canada or elsewhere. This would result in a further punishment for the person who had acted outside Canada. This situation would be inconsistent with the Latin maxim nemo debet bis puniri pro uno delicto; in other words, no one should be liable to be punished more than once for the same offence. This same maxim is expressed differently in section 11 of the Criminal Code.
The revocation of citizenship is therefore foreign to our Criminal Code where a convicted person may be either imprisoned, fined or given a suspended sentence with a recommendation for probation. But nowhere is there mention of revocation of citizenship. It could be argued that such a penalty would impose a cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of section 2(b) of our Bill of rights which is found in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill or at least its intent is contrary to the Canadian policies in the area of citizenship and criminal law, as well as our international commitments. However, I would like to reconsider the fact

that there is now a popular movement for the remembrance of what happened in the Second World War. I was not then a politician but I am conscious of course of the entirely negative impact of that war and more especially for those who experienced harsh treatment in the hands of Nazi authorities.
The whole debate dealing with the statute of limitation in Germany must necessarily be carefully followed here. This is why in spite of my serious reservations about the mechanism of Bill C-215, which if it was passed in its present form, would compel Canada to review some agreements at the international level and on the other hand, to review some basic principles, more especially the principle stating that one cannot be condemned twice for the same crime and other legislation, more particularly the immigration legislation which does not provide for such penalty and finally would compel parliament to review its basic philosophy underlying the comprehension citizenship issue, one of the most liberal with a small "1" in the world even if I have very serious reservations, I still think that because of the concern of the member and of other Canadians toward this matter of the war criminals and the fact that the memory of the atrocities committed during World War II that must be kept alive, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) I would accept, Mr. Speaker, that a motion be presented so that this bill be withdrawn and its subject matter referred to the committee on justice and legal affairs so that the members of that committee may discuss together means and mechanisms which would enable us to see to it that the lesson of the Second World War be well remembered by Canadians and that we may try to find means to avoid that these horrors be repeated once again.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in this debate, and I begin by reiterating some of the comments of the previous speaker, the hon. member for Lafon-taine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance). I should like to remind hon. members and Canadians of the awful experience humanity has faced in the last 50 years. Also, it is good to remind people of what took place between 1939 and 1945. The abuse and cruelty some people were subjected to during those difficult years are fresh in the minds of those who participated in that conflict.
I will not deal with the legal aspect of Bill C-215 as some of my colleagues have done so already, but I should like to add another dimension in the first few words of my contribution. [Translation]
The tragedies which mankind experienced all too often, Mr. Speaker, are still too fresh in the memory of a great many Canadians. However, for those of our fellow citizens who have not experienced what is a total war such as that of 1939-45, such a concept is so remote from the mind of these people that they find it difficult to truly perceive what these people who have lived through the war have endured, be they those people
March 6, 1979

who lived on the continent or in England, our enemies or our allies. It is an experience, Mr. Speaker, which left a mark on all of us who have contributed in some manner or who have actually participated in that conflict and it is a story which should be regularly reminded, as I mentioned earlier, so that no one may forget the memory of these trying times humanity went through.
As French-speaking Canadians from the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, when reference is made to Canadian citizenship we ascribe, or at least I do, a great value to a citizenship which we hold so dear to our hearts.
The purpose of this bill is to take away from the known war criminals this great privilege of going about freely posing as Canadians and enjoying Canadian citizenship. Mr. Speaker, war criminals, those who have been found or who will be found guilty of war crimes against whichever nationality, and incidentally, some 15 of them are said to live in Canada, should be denounced, they should be stripped of their Canadian citizenship so that mankind may know that once and for all there is no longer any room in this modern world for this kind of abuse, such atrocities and acts of violence.
This is even more important, Mr. Speaker, when we consider the situation throughout the world and the great temptation that certain politicians have to use violence occasionally to get what they want. In view of what goes on at the present time and since I have seen this much more directly, Mr. Speaker, for having passed the three months of the Third Assembly of the United Nations in New York, I was able to see and hear every day reports of serious incidents involving violence where people have lost their lives or been tortured in certain countries to meet the objectives of others.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, will help warn everyone, and especially those who would be tempted to use violence to serve their own interests, that you must always be ready to face the consequences of your actions. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that Germany and the German people will have no objection if their compatriots who brought so much shame on the noble German people are denounced and have to pay for their crimes.
It seems that two or three other countries have passed similar legislation to ensure that all those who are found guilty of crimes against the Jews will be punished fairly and according to the best legal practices. As I say, two or three countries have already passed similar legislation to ensure that those who fled Germany at the last minute to avoid being held responsible for their actions will be prosecuted and will serve their sentences.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that my interest in this legislation lies mostly in wanting to ensure that everyone will remember the terrible ills of war and the hardship that certain races or nations faced because of these conflicts. What is most important, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation will remind us that we are always responsible for our actions and that those
War Criminals
who have not yet been prosecuted should be as soon as possible. I understand that another of my colleagues would like to contribute to this debate, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the time which was allotted to me.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to become involved in this matter only briefly. The hon. member who introduced the bill made the point at the beginning of discussing statutory limitation, saying that statutory limitation for murder has been discussed with increasing frequency in this and other countries of the world. In other western countries almost the only question is whether murders committed during the Nazi era come under the statute of limitations. The federal government of Germany, in my opinion, has so far failed to put before the public in Canada and in other countries the facts about this particular matter.
Since in Britain and in the United States, in particular, the statute of limitations, is for the most part an unknown facet of the law, many people tend to see the expiry of that period as a general amnesty. Hardly anybody in these countries is aware that currently over 3,000 cases involving probable Nazi crimes are the subject of legal proceedings of one form or another in West Germany, and that about 4,000 cases involving investigatory proceedings are to be completed by the year 2000. Nor have Canadians and Americans been made aware of the fact that in the ten years since 1969, when the period of statutory limitation was extended from 20 to 30 years, only three offenders have been convicted. Some of the condemnation then of the Federal Republic of Germany and its statute of limitations that we hear in the west would not have been forthcoming if the federal government of Germany had done its duty and saw to it that the necessary information was made available.
I make that point particularly when our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been such a close friend of the Chancellor of Germany over the past few years, during which time, at meetings between the Prime Minister and Mr. Schmidt, the points raised this afternoon in the hon. member's bill must have been mentioned.
In the meantime, the chairman of the SPD parliamentary party, the party that has formed the government in Germany, has also joined in the debate. This man, with his attitude at a time when Stalin was committing wholesale murder, can hardly have a claim to be heard on this of all problems. He calls MPs in Germany not in favour of dispensing with the statute of limitations "injudicious". His intervention has poisoned the opinion of parliamentary parties, and the leaders of the government cannot seem to make him stop these comments which have made it, frankly, doubtful, as the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) says, whether a majority can be mustered to scrap the statute of limitations.
As a member of the official opposition, in lending some support to the hon. member for York Centre I should like to point out that I have colleagues in West Germany in a similar

March 6, 1979
War Criminals
minded party who are included to favour the abolition of the statute of limitations, but they see themselves in the company of a man whose own standards have been called into question, which indeed prejudices their position in the matter.
I thought that in these few moments I should make the point that in fact the socialist government in Germany has not taken the steps it should and could have taken, to make this matter so much more clear cut and, therefore, make it so much easier to adopt abolition completely, which would have overcome the necessity for a bill such as the one introduced by the hon. member for York Centre. I understand that, for a change, the hon. member for York Centre has induced his government colleagues to allow the content of the bill to go to the committee. It might appear I am standing here with the possibility of talking it out, but I assure you that I have given my word to the hon. member that I will not do that. I will now sit down and allow the bill to go to the committee.


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Speaker, before you call it six o'clock, and since hon. members are pretty well agreed that this course should be taken, I would move that Bill C-215 be withdrawn, that the order be discharged and that the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the best procedure to follow would be an amendment to the motion and, if the hon. member agrees, I will read it, and then if he wants to put his name to it as the mover, and suggest a seconder, I would put it to the House. The motion would then be in the following form:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-215, an act respecting war criminals in Canada, be not now read a second time, but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Would that satisfy the hon. member?


Samuel Victor Railton: Very good, and I thank you Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then I propose that the amendment be moved by Mr. Railton, seconded by Mr. Ellis-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The members present have all spoken. I guess I am the only one left who can second it. I do so, Mr. Speaker.


Samuel Victor Railton: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-215, an act respecting war criminals in Canada, be not now read the second time, but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion as amended. Shall the motion as amended carry?
[Mr. Ellis.)


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly the order is discharged, the bill is withdrawn, and the subject matter is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-29, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make other related amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At five o'clock the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Herbert) had the floor.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted by the clock at 5 p.m. I was talking about the Tory program of mortgage interest deductibility and I was listing some points I considered that should be brought to the attention of the population of Canada. If these points were better understood by Canadians, it might eliminate some of the popularity of this program which exists at the present time.
I had outlined several items, and it is from that point I would like to continue. For example, I turn now to the problem senior citizens will encounter with the Tory scheme. I am speaking of those senior citizens who own their own homes and have long since paid off their mortgages. Because of their age, and despite their equity positions, they will find that lending institutions will be unwilling to provide funds that would enable them to take advantage of the tax benefits in the scheme. It is well known that lending institutions are often reluctant to lend moneys to elderly people for home mortgages.
March 6, 1979

Those who have small mortgages or no mortgages at all will find themselves in the impossible position of not being able to borrow funds in order to take advantage of the Tory deductibility plan. People who can afford to increase their mortgages can use the moneys raised for other purposes, that is, to buy goods or pleasures. They can do this at the expense of the taxpayers generally, many of whom cannot afford a home and certainly cannot afford the extras that will be bought with the tax subsidized proceeds. If a person with little or no mortgage wants to take a trip around the world, that person can very easily increase his mortgage or take out a mortgage on his home and use these funds for whatever purpose he wants, perhaps to purchase a car or to finance a trip. This person can then deduct the interest on these borrowed funds and gain the benefits from the Tory plan.
Home building of the kind that would benefit from this program has always been strong. A look at the statistics would indicate that in the case of single family residences there has been no fall off in construction of this type of house in Canada, with the exception of the province of Quebec. In that province the fall off has been fairly appreciable because of political reasons. The strength in the building of this type of home would illustrate that this is not the kind of construction that needs further boosting.
The United States permits mortgage interest deductibility. A comparison with the United States shows that Canada's record of home building, on a per capita basis, is and always has been vastly superior to that in the United States. At this point I would like to cite some figures. In the ten-year period from 1967 to 1976 one can see that whilst the high in 1972 in the U.S. was some 2,379,000 homes built, the low in 1975 was 1,171,000 homes, and the average is somewhere about 1.5 million homes built per annum. In Canada for the same period the high recorded in 1976 was 273,203 homes built, and the low was 190,528 homes built in 1970, giving an average of approximately 250,000 homes built per annum. This would indicate on a rough ten for one basis-the population of the United States being approximately ten times that of the population of Canada-that home building in Canada has been substantially stronger than home building in the United States. In fact, home building in Canada on a per capita basis has been in the order of 60 per cent higher than that in the United States.
The Carter Royal Commission on Taxation said that the tax system should avoid tax concessions to particular kinds of income, that such tax concessions are always inequitable. I suggest that the Tory proposition is about as inequitable a tax system as they could come up with. Since we have been talking of comparisons between Canada and the United States, I should mention that profit on the sale of a house in Canada is free of capital gains tax. This is not so in the United States. This Tory program will probably cause some major disruptions in the financial market, especially in its initial stages.
There is one other point I wish to mention in the remaining time I have. It deals with the Tory allegations of excessive defaults in the Assisted Home Ownership Program. AHOP
Housing
loans in arrears do not automatically constitute a default. As of December last year only 1.62 per cent of direct AHOP loans administered by CMHC were in arrears three months or more. One year previously the rate was 1.31 per cent. One can translate that into percentages and come up with a fairly large increase. I would guess it would amount to something in the order of 20 per cent or 25 per cent. However, the default rate is still 1.31 per cent.
The percentage for all NHA insured loans in arrears three months or more as of December 31, 1978, was 0.99 per cent, that is, less than 1 per cent. The Conservatives are making a lot of noise about this because they are able to apply the percentage of AHOP defaults against the percentage of regular defaults. If we look at the figures we will see that very little of the moneys which have been put into the insurance of mortgages has been used. In other words, the losses have been almost negligible.
The application of a percentage to AHOP defaults against regular NHA insured loan defaults will give an obviously false impression. I would suggest it would be a good thing if we used some of the large fund which has been built up from insurance moneys received by CMHC to ensure the construction of additional homes for people with low incomes.
In closing may I reiterate a point which I think is most important. As I said earlier, the average income in Quebec is $19,300 per annum for home owners compared to a figure of $22,500 in Ontario, $21,200 in Alberta, and $22,100 in British Columbia, meaning that the Albertan home owner's income is $2,000 more than that of the Quebecker, and in Ontario and British Columbia approximately $3,000 more.
As I mentioned before, 33 per cent of total mortgage interest payments are paid by those with incomes over $20,000. Since Francophones in Quebec are only approximately 45 per cent home owners compared to 69 per cent in British Columbia, 66 per cent in Ontario and 65 per cent in Alberta, the discrimination between the wealthier provinces of Alberta and British Columbia compared to the people living in Quebec must be obvious to everyone.
As I suggested earlier, it is this discrimination that I find most unjust in the Tory proposal. I would like to hear from some of the Tories how they are going to account for this attitude toward the people of Quebec who have lower incomes and who do not have as many homes on a percentage basis as in English Canada. Because of their lower incomes they are paying lower rates of income tax. Therefore, their total benefit per capita is going to be substantially less than for those in Alberta and British Columbia, the two wealthier provinces in this country.
I am not speaking against the riches of the west of this country. It is good for our country as a whole. However, when we talk so often about what is going into the province of Quebec, I suggest that the Tory scheme is going in exactly the reverse direction. I would ask them sincerely to reconsider
3882

March 6, 1979
Housing
their attitude toward the Francophone home owner in the province of Quebec.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the main subject of my remarks on this legislation, I just want to refer to the parliamentary secretary's remarks which have obviously been prepared or certainly vetted by somebody in the department of urban affairs because they were pretty urbane.


Harold Thomas Herbert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I prepared my own remarks.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the hon. member prepared his own remarks, they are still urbane. They are not germane. As far as AHOP is concerned, the best thing this government can do is AHOP to the polls because we are tired of waiting for that crowd to put their record on the line, instead of getting up in this House with all their dreary arguments against the mortgage deductibility scheme. To see you hon. gentlemen trying to crawl through the head of a pin, trying to argue against the mortgage interest deductibility, is really remarkable.
The hon. member now pretends it is a sinister scheme against the Francophones. What he won't stoop to in order to try to hold his seat in Quebec. That shows we are likely to get 60 seats. They are worried about their seats in Quebec. The hon. member says it is a sinister plot against the Francophones that we are going to make mortgage interest deductible. Have you ever in your life heard anything more ridiculous than that statement?
The parliamentary secretary got up and he started bleating about the fact that we had taken two weeks. He bleated piteously that we had taken two weeks to discuss housing amendments in this chamber. Two weeks is not long enough to discuss housing amendments if they are serious amendments. However, I discovered that the parliamentary secretary did not know what he was talking about. It was not a big discovery. I suspected it.
I had my researcher check the record. Here it is. We have not been ten days, eight days, six days or five days. We have been merely four days discussing housing amendments. Friday, February 23, two hours, 10 minutes, Monday, February 26, all day; Wednesday, February 28, 40 measly minutes; Thursday, March 1, all day; Friday, March 2, 20 minutes. The hon. gentleman did not want us to spend 20 minutes on it. Monday, March 5, all day, and today. To date we have had three days. If you take three parts of days it gets us up to four days of debate, not two weeks. If this government cannot stand having its legislation scrutinized in this chamber for four days, it should get out of office.
Where is the minister tonight, the minister who announced all these amendments six or eight months ago? The minister announced the amendments and he is not even here to listen to our comments and learn something. He is cowering somewhere. He is worried about the Francophones being attacked badly by a mortgage interest deductibility in Quebec. That is what he is doing.
Let me just say this. Methinks the hon. parliamentary secretary doth protest too much. What is so bad about mort-

gage interest deductibility that we cannot have it in Canada, that the fabric of our society and the Francophone element are going to be trampled underfoot and ruined altogether if we have mortgage interest deductibility up to an amount of $5,000 per year phased in over four years with $1,000 a year municipal taxes also made deductible?
The people in my district of St. John's West want it. Those who are not home owners are renters and they want it because they are going to become home owners. They are not worried about all of these things that the hon. gentleman points out. They know they have had it in the United States for years and the social fabric has not disintegrated in that country. They also know they have had it in other countries. Let us not hear any more of these piteous Liberal whines because they did not have the courage and the audacity to bring forward this imaginative tax reform themselves. This alone is enough to win me a huge majority in St. John's West. The more Liberals that come down there Fighting and attacking this, the better off we will be.
Have you ever seen a government with a majority that so mealy-mouthed its way around the House of Commons as this one? They cannot control the time of the House for some reason. It is the fault of the opposition that this bill does not come forward. It is the fault of the opposition if that bill does not come forward. It is the fault of the opposition if four days are spent on this. It is the fault of the opposition if two days are spent on that, or two weeks on something else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: What do they want? Do they want all 265 seats? Is that what they want? Well, sir, they are never going to get that. They may have come close to it in the past, but they have had it this time. I am going to leave the parliamentary secretary limp, dangling in defeat, with his 35 minutes forgotten about, because I demolished his whole argument in merely three or four minutes, and I will now come to this bill.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was once a fine institution, strong, a good housing agency. However, it has been molested. This government should be arrested for Central Mortgage molesting, just like the child molesters. It is this government that has molested CMHC. It has brought it from a high platform, from an institution that was respected till today, to the slingy, grey, dim stage that it is today, with scandal after scandal running across the country in CMHC offices, just like an attack of the measles across this country. That is what has happened by political interference by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, politically interfering and molesting CMHC. It has brought it to the position that everywhere you look there is a scandal. I am going to deal with one in my own constituency in a few minutes.
They have despoiled Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It used to be well thought of across the country, respected everywhere, but this political interference, this patronage fount, has turned it into a fount of patronage.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.
March 6, 1979


John Carnell Crosbie: I will prove it; just wait a few minutes. The minister of state for graftology, I call him, the minister in charge of urban affairs. Now they are going to do away with urban affairs and molest it behind the scenes. They had been molesting it in public. Now they are going to do away with the department and do it quietly.
It's the ministry of state for poltroonery, Mr. Speaker, that's what it is. It's the ministry of state for political affairs. It's the ministry of state for "spoil the party friends." Every Liberal lawyer in the country has his tongue lapping out, hoping it will lap up some of those fees that they get, the legal fees and the emoluments that are given by the Liberal government which appoints them to act on CMHC mortgages.
I have given you this aphorism before, and I will repeat it: you might as well open an oyster without a knife as a lawyer's mouth without a fee. But I can tell the House that the Liberal lawyers of this country have got their mouths open. The oysters are all on this side. We cannot get a pea out of it. No way one looks at it, it is patronage gone putrid. It is dingy purse-cutting for political reasons. It is the ministry of state for purse-cutting that cut the purses out of the Canadian people in this institution. They have brought it down from a vibrant, dynamic, well-recognized, leading housing authority, to this slingy object that we see before us whenever we look at the newspaper and look at CMHC. It is not the fault of the people who work there, the permanent civil servants, Crown employees or whatever they are called. It is because of the Liberal government of this country that they have been brought to such a low estate.
Now, what makes me say that? I do not like to say that. I do not like to have to say this. What makes me say it is the fact that everywhere one looks in the country, these kinds of things are breaking out. From the Rudnicki affair-Rudnicki, the man treated shamefully by the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs-to urban transportation, to luxury hotels being financed by CMHC when there is no place for it. Anyone building a luxury hotel should be able to finance it himself through private means. There is York Place, Virginia Park in St. John's East. There is AHOP. AHOP is a living scandal, a running sore across the country. That is what AHOP is, with dingy contractors getting into CMHC and getting finances to build substandard hovels that are falling apart right across this country. They are subsidized by the Liberal government.


Mr. Olivier:: Name one.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am naming one now, Virginia Park, and I am going to name another one in a few minutes.


An hon. Member:: Name a hundred, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is Quigley Road, the whole thing. Everywhere one looks, the RCMP is probing here and probing there. We will not have a report until after the election, I
Housing
suppose. That is what is going on with CMHC across this country. It has come to this. Even now when we come to ordinary administrative detail, CMHC has weakened. They are weakened by the interference that they have had from this government. Everyone in the government should get at least ten years as a CMHC interferer, despoilers and molesters of CMHC.
Let us look at the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP. It was introduced in 1973. This will illustrate the cynicism of this government, the crass cynicism. My God, I wish they would go to the people tomorrow so that we could get them before the public and get them out before their cynicism spoils us all.


Mr. Whiteway:: Right on.


John Carnell Crosbie: It was introduced in 1973 to provide federal loans and grants to assist in the improvement and repair of substandard dwellings. It was an excellent program. Loans, part of which could be forgiven, were available to home owners and landlords who owned land in a particular neighbourhood improvement area or a specially designated area of the country. It was excellent to rehabilitate present housing stock. That was in 1973. Then it is announced that there are going to be some changes. It is announced by the government because it knows there is a big demand across the country for this. The government wants to pretend it is now going to become available to everyone, no matter where they live. So, the minister made a dramatic announcement that from now on the program is going to be universal, and there are several other changes. Landlords get done in a bit. They are not going to get direct loans, and they are not going to get as much forgiveness as before. Otherwise the program is going to carry on, but it is going to be universal.
When some members of the public hear that, they naturally expect "universal" means that everyone is going to be entitled to get a RRAP home improvement loan of $10,000 with $3,750 forgiveness, no matter where he lives; that one no longer has to live in a NIP area. That is the impression given by the minister of state for urbane affairs or profane affairs.
Then our astute housing critic comes across a memorandum from R. V. Hession, who is in charge of CMHC, to the hon. minister, dated January 3. It gives the lie to what the minister has said and shows the utter depravity of this government. It is a depraved government. I hate to mention that to you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to shock you, sir. You do not realize, sir, what you have been associating with.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Carnell Crosbie: What did Mr. Hession say to the minister? He said this:
The 1979 capital budget is $56 million. We will need $37 million to maintain activity in the existing designated areas where work has already begun. A further $3 million will be needed to deal with areas already designated but where work has not started.
That is $40 million. He continues:
This leaves $16 million of the 1979 budget for new initiatives.

March 6, 1979
Housing
How far will $16 million go across the great Dominion of Canada to bring the RRAP program to the rest of the housing areas of Canada? He goes on to say:
However, 68 areas have submitted final applications for designation under the 1978 rules. After the new law comes into effect, they will not need order in council designation, but they will warrant some priority attention. These 68 areas will require at least $7 million. Thus only $9 million for some 2,250 units remains for work under the terms of the new program-
So, this is not a universal program. There is enough money in 1979 for 2,250 units, outside those already committed. It is a fairly modest amount, which Mr. Hession says it is. He points out that neither the industry nor the municipal delivery system can deal with a universal program, and that in a specific sense, anyone any day of the week cannot walk into a municipal office and be served.
When the minister got this memorandum on January 3, did he come out with a release the next day to tell Canadian people this truth? He did not. He continued his deception. He continued his false impressions. He continued his falsehoods until this was brought out by our housing critic, the lady who is going to be the minister of housing in our new great administration and bring into the House the mortgage interest deductibility. Herself and our finance minister will be fighting to the death to see who introduces it first. Maybe they will do it both together.
The letter goes on and talks about the number of units we need. Over two million housing units are in need of modernization. Over a ten-year period there are 200,000 to 400,000 which need serious upgrading, units occupied by lower income people. The letter goes on to say that we can do about 20,000 units a year. So, that is ten years just for just 200,000, not to talk about the two million, the two million homes where the minister has tried to give the impression that they are going to be eligible immediately for RRAP assistance: $10,000 to repair the home and $3,750 forgiveness. That is the kind of sleevenery with which this government hopes to stay in power. Well, it is not going to work. Mr. Hession goes on in his letter to talk about recent CMHC staff cuts which would make the servicing in municipalities very, very difficult. Therefore, 1979 will need to be devoted carefully to making inroads in existing designated areas, not new areas.
This is the most astounding document ever produced to refute and show how a minister attempted to deceive parliament and the Canadian people, and the man is still in the cabinet. That gentleman is still in the Government of Canada, in the cabinet. That shows the standards the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has. When one of his ministers is revealed to be deceiving the Canadian public and parliament, he allows him to stay in his cabinet, and then has attached a ten-year plan to modernize and rehabilitate Canada's housing stock.
Mr. Hession further goes into the details. One can see here a public servant who is trying to do his job, surrounded by depravity and deception and deceit. He is trying to do his job. He sets out the problem. At page 2 of his letter he said the following:

Accordingly, the policy of universal eligibility in urban areas has been adopted by the federal government. This will come into effect after Parliament has passed the bill-
He goes on to say:
It should be stressed that universal eligibility does not mean that anyone in Canada who feels they are in need of aid will automatically be served. At the moment, some 20,000 units are being rehabilitated annually. Rehabilitation is a complex process in which inspection, cost management, and consumer protection must all be undertaken with great care.
He goes on to point out how there is no possible way that there could be a universal program, and that they must assign priority and deal with those with the greatest needs first. He sets out three factors. 1 have not got the time to go into all of this. He sets out a ten-year plan to rehabilitate and modernize Canada's housing stock, following consultation with the provinces and so on.
The president of CMHC is an honest man trying to do his job. He is treading through the mire. He is treading through the muck, the worst kind of political chicanery that a government of Canada ever went through or ever put public servants through. He ends up with "this all sounds technical". It is not technical. It all sounds truthful. So, that is what we are dealing with in RRAP.
I tell the people of Newfoundland now, "You are not eligible for RRAP. They haven't got the money to give you the RRAP. It is only you people who are already in designated areas that have any chance of getting it this year. So, forget the lies that you have been told. There is no such program available to you."
Just before passing on to some incidents in my own district, I want to read this concoction from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). It was delivered on February 19, 1979 at the annual meeting of HUDAC. HUDAC? HUDAC was the minister. He was speaking of HUDAC. This is what he said at page 21. He was trying to argue that the mortgage interest deductibility policy of the Progressive Conservative party, the new policy of the new government of Canada, should not be carried into effect. He is green with envy, so he trots out a tax credit scheme. I did not see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) dancing around the country shouting, "Billions for the tax credit scheme. This is going to be $5 billion or $6 billion." No, he certainly kept his mouth shut about that one.
After talking about this great tax credit scheme, which will not make any distinction between owners and tenants because none of them are going to get it, there never will be a scheme, he said this:
To introduce any general program, however, that seeks to redistribute income for shelter purposes, requires a very substantial commitment of government funds.
This is the first peak of truthfulness we see in this speech.
As a minister of the government in power, I do not have the advantage of being able to advocate prodigality on the one hand and retrenchment and restraint on the other.
Why not? Every other minister in the government is doing it. Is this the only minister forbidden to make these little
March 6, 1979

distinctions, to advocate prodigality on one hand and retrenchment on the other? But he says:
I do believe that in the near future, as soon as our economy permits-
That is a way out, Mr. Speaker, because if this crew were kept in power the economy would never permit this to be done. He went on to say:
-we should adopt a shelter allowance system that will provide assistance to home owner and tenant alike, through payment of a tax credit for shelter expenditures exceeding a certain percentage of income.
He is a wizard of weaseling, a weasel hoarding wizard of the cabinet when he can try to pretend to be introducing a great tax credit program and then say we will adopt it in the near future, as soon as our economy permits. We should adopt it so that when they are re-elected, if they are re-elected, they can say they never promised it in the first place because everybody knew the economy would never improve with them in power. That is as despicable as what that minister and his predecessors have done to what was once an excellent housing corporation. The Minister of Defence (Mr. Danson) was once the minister of state for urban affairs. The rot set in when he was there, and it has become far worse. I must say it has become even worse after the minister left. He is now Minister of National Defence, and the rot has set in there.
Now I want to come to AHOP. My friend, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), has put before the House what happened in Virginia Park and the AHOP program. He spoke about the fantastic conditions, the brick deterioration, the absolute lack of any standards of upkeep, of maintenance, of the housing that was put up in this area under AHOP by CMHC. When their inspectors had passed these inferior materials and standards, it was an insult to offer the people in Virginia Park, the low income residents there, additional loans to have their houses repaired so they would be in the state in which they should have been in the first place when the contractor sold them their homes financed by CMHC. They were going to charge them an interest rate on the loans. Well, that will not happen. They will get a far better offer than CMHC is making them before this is all over. These people have been put upon by the national housing agency which should never have permitted those units to be sold unless they were in proper condition to be sold.
It may be that private entrepreneurs can get away with it by saying, "Let the buyer beware." The private seller might be able to get away by using that old slogan, but the government cannot say "let the buyer beware" when the government is involved, and when the government has inspectors. The people of this country think that a CMHC inspector inspects and that what has been inspected is fit and proper when they buy it and assume a CMHC mortgage.
So I support my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, and I support the Virginia Park Home Owners Association when they say that CMHC should put these dwellings into proper condition no matter what it costs them, without them lending any money to these people, with no increase in their mortgages or their responsibilities. There are serious allegations that the contractor, Brenjay Construction, bribed
Housing
CMHC inspectors. That is even a greater reason for this to be the case. When a contractor uses a corporation to do one job and a second corporation to do another job, and third corporation to do still another job, it is no good CMHC saying they can do nothing about it. These people now can only sue the corporation which built those homes, without the assets, and nothing left in it.
CMHC can police that, because they can say to the contractor, "You did a shobby job. You have incorporated another company, but never come to us for a mortgage loan again or mortgage financing until you have fixed up the first project." That is all they have to do. They should tell them, "Never again will you get CMHC financing until you have fixed up the situation which you have created in Virginia Park." That is all they need to do. Never mind the legalities, the legal struggle. CMHC is responsible, CMHC has to fix up the Virginia Park situation of the home owners who have been taken to the cleaners in purchasing these dwellings and assuming mortgages from CMHC, believing that CMHC had done a proper job.
It is not the old CMHC, Mr. Speaker, now that its morale is gone, with the hot-shot builders looking around their shoulders for hot-shot ideas from their political bosses. They have been ruined in every political sense of the word, and changed from a star agency to one for which we now feel sorry. They no longer seem able to administer properly even the humdrum task they have in my own district of St. John's West, in Kilbride in the Gould's. There is an instance here when in January some 150 to 250 home owners who bought AHOP homes in Kilbride suddenly got a notice from CMHC telling them that their monthly mortgage payments were increasing up to $80 a month because the municipal taxes had increased. When this was looked into, it was found that the municipal taxes had not increased at all, there had been no increase in either municipal assessment or taxes over the last three years in the St. John's metropolitan board area under which Kilbride comes.
What had happened was that originally someone got the wrong information that taxes were going to be $96 to $126 a year on these homes. When the tax bills were sent a year later for the true amount of the tax, in some cases it was $254 a year, CMHC paid the taxes to the St. John's metropolitan area board but did not pass this on to the mortgagors and did not let them know. They let it go for three years. Then, in January of 1979, they gave these home owners notice that starting April 1 they had to pay vastly increased monthly amounts on their mortgage until all the arrears in their municipal taxes, of which they knew nothing, were repaid. They told them they had to repay all the arrears this year, in 1979.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are people in straitened economic circumstances who took over these homes because of the Assisted Home Ownership Program. These are low income and lower middle income people. In some cases when the true municipal taxes are added to what they have to pay, they are no longer even eligible for the AHOP assistance because they do not have sufficient income for that. But along comes

March 6, 1979
Housing
CMEIC, having made this mistake-it is a mistake of the computers or a mistake in the office, but it is their mistake- and they say, "We want you to start paying on April 1 vastly increased monthly payments. We want you to pay interest on the arrears in municipal taxes that you have not known about for three years."
Think of the audacity of that, Mr. Speaker. They are telling these people, "We did not tell you about these municipal taxes, we gave you the wrong figures, we did not collect them from you, we paid them. Now we are going to charge you interest on those arrears that you owe us." These people did not know there were arrears. These are innocent mortgagors, and they want them to pay the arrears back in 12 months.
I have written to the minister today and, if he has any sense, he can give me an affirmative answer to my letter or this bill will not be going through for months yet. Never mind a week or two weeks, a month, six months. If I could save some innocent 150 home owners in Newfoundland $1 a month, I would keep this bill going for six months, and no amount of squealing by the hon. gentlemen opposite would change my course. I would filibuster within the rules of the Elouse and I would have the House leader of the NDP advise me on the rules. I would be the first speaker to answer the government on third reading and 1 would go on for ten weeks, easily. I can tell you that, Mr. Speaker. I would check every house from here to Vancouver.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another Rodriguez.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have asked the minister to put off the date of April 1 because it is too soon. Every one of these people has to meet with CMHC officials and go over their accounts, have them verify them and check them with the municipal authorities, so they cannot start paying for the increase on April 1. They should forget their arrears and interest on taxes which they never knew they owed. The arrears and the interest should be forgotten about. In some cases these people should be given two years, and in other cases five years, in which to pay their arrears on taxes, depending on their income, if in fact they should pay any arrears on taxes. They are certainly going to be arguing that they should not be paying any of these arrears because they are the fault of CMHC and its administrative practices.
What has CMHC come to? It has been so overburdened by government changes of policy, by the introduction and cancellation of haphazard programs that the administrative processes of the organization, an admirable organization at one time and still capable of being so, are breaking down. Everywhere you look across the country there is a breakdown in the simple administrative processes of this important government agency, and it is hon. members opposite who have allowed and caused this to happen.
In the particular case I am talking about now there was another amusing incident, I suppose you could call it: CMHC did not pay municipal taxes on time and was assessed interest

by the municipality. Then CMHC sent the bill to the people down there who I shall be asking to vote for me in a few days or a few weeks or a few months, if this government ever gets up enough guts to go to the Governor General and get a dissolution so that we can put an end to their miserable tenure. They sent bills to the tenants asking them to pay the interest the corporation had to pay to the municipality because it was late in paying its taxes. Mr. Speaker, they can forget it. They are not going to get these interest payments because CMHC did not pay the municipality on time.
There is another problem I have discovered; it is similar to that of the Virginia Park Home Owners Association. I am told now that the quality of the workmanship in these homes is atrocious. The roofs leak, there is condensation inside and outside the walls, there is water everywhere, the windows don't fit, the doors won't close, and CMHC inspectors do not want to have anything to do with it. So there is another group of AHOP homes where the people who bought them are extremely dissatisfied. In some cases the contractor took the telephones and installed them against a beaverboard wall with nothing behind it. When you dialed a few numbers on your first day in the house the telephone fell off the wall. I suppose 1 cannot hold the minister responsible for that although I would like to. Was he down there at the time, I wonder? This is the kind of thing that is happening.
Why should lower income people who are being assisted to own their own homes have all this happen to them? It happened to them because there was not sufficient inspection by CMHC, because they moved into the program too quickly, because they did not take enough care, because the whole administrative structure of CMHC appears to be floundering.
I have written to the minister. He will get this letter tomorrow. I am hoping his parliamentary secretary is making notes and will see that this matter is looked into. When we get into committee, when I get back here on Thursday, I hope I shall receive some kind of "billet doux" so that I can tell these people who are going to see officials of CMHC on March 19, 20 and 24 just what attitude the minister is taking. CMHC has said they cannot do these things unless directed by the government.
NIP is a program which was very much used in St. John's, Newfoundland. They took good advantage of it, and in my own district of St. John's West several NIP programs have turned out very well. There have been others in mid-town St. John's and in St. John's East. Now NIP has gone and we are to have something called Community Services. But this will come in very slowly and there is a lot of discontent across the country at the way in which the government tried to fool the governments and the municipalities with regard to the new Community Services program. They tried to pretend it would be a vast expansion of the NIP program, but it was not. They nipped the NIP program; there is not going to be as much in the Community Services program as there was in the NIP program, though there will be more in future years when this government will not be here to be accountable for its promises-or there is going to be more if we can find any money
March 6, 1979

in the treasury to make sure that these promises are kept. One thing is for sure: the Liberal government will not be keeping them.
When I was getting ready for this debate I wanted to look up a quotation on housing from some kind of eminent gentleman. As hon. members know, 1 speak Chinese fluently. So, looking through my volumes of Chinese literature I came across this saying of Confucius-it seems to me I heard something from a confused lady on the other side of the House. I said "Confucius", not "confused".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are going to miss the hon. lady in the next parliament. She is not going to be here.


Simma Holt: You will miss me because you won't be here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Is that a threat? Anyway, the quotation reads, "The strength of a nation is derived from the integrity of its homes." Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is correct, our nation has become pretty darned weak because our homes do not have too much integrity unless we have built them ourselves and got our own money for doing it. But if we are members of the struggling working class or the lower middle class and we had to go to an AHOP housing program to get a roof over our heads, to move out of an apartment, then the integrity of our homes is very much in question. I have heard members from right across this nation, from British Columbia to Manitoba to Newfoundland, describe what is happening to their electorate under the AHOP program. No wonder there is a high rate of foreclosures in connection with that program. I am hoping I have enough time to allow me to continue.


An hon. Member:: Go on!


John Carnell Crosbie: The RRAP program I was discussing earlier sets a maximum of $10,000-that is all you are allowed to spend on any one home. Some months ago I suggested to the minister that $10,000 was not enough, especially in the case of an older home which needed to be renovated and repaired, and that the ceiling should be raised to $15,000. This has been the experience in St. John's.
I also drew attention to some crazy CMHC regulations having to do with certain building materials. Those regulations should be changed. I do not have the name immediately available to me but there is a building material, some kind of plaster you have to mix with water, and there is a factory here in Ottawa which manufactures it. CMHC stipulates you have to bring it to Newfoundland mixed with Ontario water; we are not allowed to mix it with Newfoundland water. So we have to pay a couple of hundred dollars in freight charges to ship this material, instead of paying $20. In other words, freight rates are about ten times as much as they should be because we have to pay to bring in a lot of Ontario water. I pointed out to the minister that there is one commodity we have a plentiful supply of in Newfoundland, and that is water. We do not need
Housing
to pay freight charges on Ontario water. We get watered on enough by Ontario. I have not had an answer saying whether the regulations will be changed or not. As I say, Mr. Speaker, the maximum amount available under the program should be raised if the scheme is to be effective.
There is another program I want to talk about-the CHIP program, the "Canadians hosed by parliament" program as I call it. This is one of the home insulation programs. That is the program one of the hon. members opposite was talking about. He tried to make out that mortgage interest deductibility was somehow anti-French-Canadian. It is a funny thing, everything we do on this side is supposed to be anti-the-French-fact or anti-French-Canadian or anti-Quebec. These gentlemen who are so much in favour of national unity never stop trying to spread their poison, whether in this chamber or outside. When it came to this CHIP program, what did they do? They arranged it so that the program in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island was different from that applicable to the rest of Canada.
Did we get up and say it was an anti-French-fact program, an anti-Quebecois program, an anti-bilingual program because Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia were being treated differently? We did not. We do not want to slither our way into power by playing that game. They introduced a program which discriminates against eight provinces in favour of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. If you live in Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island you can get a grant to help you instal insulation in your home, but if you live in the other provinces you get a loan which you have to pay back. I do not have time to discuss all these programs.
That is what I call a discriminatory program, not a mortgage interest deductibility program that is going to apply to every householder in Canada no matter where he lives. How can that be said to be discriminatory? A program is discriminatory that lays down one set of rules for one province and a different set for the other. That is the 1977 program which has been an immeasurable failure, Mr. Speaker. You get a taxable grant of up to $350 to insulate your home, that is in eight provinces, but down in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island you get a $500 grant, non-taxable. That is discrimination. If you want to talk about whether the Quebe-cois home owner is being discriminated against, yes, he is. This government discriminated against him because this government said, "If you want to insulate your home and you live in Quebec you are going to get $350 in a grant to help you, taxable; you have to add it to your taxable income. But, if you live in Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island you are going to get a $500 grant non-taxable, not added to your taxable income, and you do not have to pay tax on it." The result of this program was that the demand was far short of expectations.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie) says he has got an energy program. This is supposed to be part of it,

March 6, 1979
Housing
the conservation program, this disgrace, this CEIIP program. I suppose it was a chip program, Mr. Speaker. It was a gyp program, it was a gyp against the eight other provinces. We hear that the hon. gentleman wants to make energy an issue. The government wants to make energy an issue. I hope they do make energy an issue, Mr. Speaker. They will wish that they had not. I hope they make housing an issue.
So this is the sorry story that we have to speak about here tonight, Mr. Speaker, with failure after failure by this government, caused by political interference of every sort and description. We have the York Place affair in Hamilton with bribery, political intervention, cover-up, questionable lending practices, and we have not heard the last of that yet. That is in the courts and being investigated. It always takes years to investigate these. We have the hotel stories where people's money went. Imagine a government housing agency lending money to a luxury hotel, the Quai d'Orsay here in Ottawa, and on and on it goes. All the hotels we were promised were in good financial shape and they have gone bankrupt one after the other. The new Howard Johnson Hotel in Montreal, insured by CMHC, went into bankruptcy. On and on it goes, and whenever you ask the minister a question all he does is double talk.
The minister has got the most twisted mind I have ever come across, if it could be called a mind. Whatever it is, it is twisted, badly injured; it is damaged, it is a mind that has been used to molest CMHC.
There is the Cloverdale Park housing complex in Montreal where again there are a lot of low income earners, and again a lot of difficulty. CMHC is selling the complex to the private sector, and nobody knows about that until they see it in the newspaper. I have mentioned Virginia Park. I mentioned Kilbride and what happened there to 150 home owners, and the CHIP program, a disaster. Then we have the denial of civil rights to Walter Rudnicki, who was fired in 1973, a complete and utter denial of civil rights for he was successful in a lawsuit, was to be reinstated and found to be wrongfully dismissed. This government does not care about somebody being wrongfully dismissed. This government does not care about anybody's civil rights being trod on. It does not care at all.
Urban transportation-we won't even mention that because that is again political cynicism at its greatest. We have the minister letting Liberal MPs and politicians announce when loans are going to be made, or funds are going to be given to a riding, or grants under the municipal incentives grants program. No wonder-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, any housing policies should have begun, instead of after the fact legislation such as this, with objectives and premises whose projections into the future were based on a clear assessment of the present situation in which we now find ourselves. Too often I have heard objectives stated in the negative, determined from limitations and reduced expectations, in the hope that Canadians will happily settle for, not necessarily the form of shelter that they desire, but rather some limited grey matchbox shelter which this government says they should want to live in. Too often I hear politicians and bureaucrats say that the cost of land, labour, capital, and taxes makes it unrealistic to expect that most young Canadians will ever have an opportunity to own their own homes. Governments then, given this premise, began to mass produce multiple matchboxes in order to meet dwelling number targets. This process needs to be reversed.
I say to young people, "Yes, within the productive span of your life, if home ownership is your goal, and I hope that it is the goal of every young Canadian, then the opportunity for you to reach that goal will be made available to you." We are a nation of vast opportunities and a nation with all the raw materials required for the building of housing to meet this objective of young people. We have much lumber for our houses, in fact so much that we export most of it. We have iron for nails, and sand for glass and insulation, and we have skilled labour, much of which sits idly unemployed. We have all these things in a country with one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Of course we say, "Young man, go out and build your house; build a home in which you can raise a family and help to build this country. You can do it," we say to our young people, "that is provided, of course, provincial, municipal and federal governments and bureaucracies can be cleared out of your way."
My father built his first house out of prairie sod. My grandfather built his first house out of the rocks he picked off the land before he began to cultivate it. Believe it or not, somehow my father and my grandfather managed without the help of a zoning by-law, a land-use contract, a design panel, a building permit, a certified architect, an engineer, an electrical inspector, a plumbing inspector, and a framing inspector. Somehow they even managed without underground wiring, ornamental street lighting, 66-foot paved roads and five-foot concrete sidewalks. In fact, believe it or not, they even managed to move into their homes without first obtaining an occupancy permit from the local government.
Naturally they had other hardships. As well as governments and bureaucracies to do without, they also managed to do without paying 45 per cent of their disposable income to the government in taxes. Although it has, of course, had a few wires and central heating added, my grandfather's house still stands today, a symbol of individual initiative and integrity of both those who dreamed it and those who built it, and I can assure this House that my grandfather's house will be standing long after these AHOP disasters have crumbled into dust.
March 6, 1979

I am not suggesting that we go back to those days as such, obviously not. What I am saying is that government bureaucracy and over-regulation have destroyed individual initiative, incentive, and inhibited the individual's capacity to build. Integrity and quality craftsmanship, so lacking in today's AHOP home, are not values that are necessarily dead. They are in fact taught and learned values that can be rekindled. In our time integrity and quality craftsmanship can best be ensured through the principle of builders' long-term guarantees or warranties, as opposed to expensive, sand in the gears government inspection and regulatory bureaucracies.
My colleague just spoke and said a lot of faults in AHOP housing units relate to the fact that inspection was inadequate. We would not have required that inspection if, in fact, those houses had warranties with them, and had builders who were willing to stand behind their products. That is the kind of thing we need, not more and more sand in the gears bureaucracy which requires inspection after inspection after inspection. We require builders with integrity who will provide guarantees and stand behind the houses they are building.
The expression buyer beware can be made more meaningful through consumer education in the longer term, and in the shorter term moral suasion could be used, in other words the withdrawal of funding from offenders. We have heard tales here tonight from Newfoundland and I will be telling of people in British Columbia who have built their homes, and have tried to call the builder only to find out that the builder has moved on. We need a new bankruptcy act to prevent that old shell game.
We also need measures that will strengthen buyer protection. Mortgage money could be facilitated through a mortgage exchange corporation and by allowing and encouraging insurance, trust and pension funds to expand their investment portfolios into mortgages. More disposable income could be put into the hands of buyers through mortgage deductibility. Bureaucracy could be dismantled and deregulated, and duplication of effort between governments could be negotiated out of existence. I say, "could be". Apprenticeship programs and school curriculums could be revamped to create more competent and knowledgeable craftsmen. Municipalities could be assisted in land assembly, in the financing of trunk sewer and water lines. And the list of what could be done goes on and on.
Instead of the government trying to create an environment wherein the individual is competent to buy or build his own home, an environment where individual enterprise finds incentive through removal of government barricades and the availability of capital, particularly capital from the private sector, the government continues to interfere in the market place with consistent bungling and blundering. The AHOP program has to be the most classic example.
I would like to tell hon. members of a couple of such examples which exist in my own community. I met John Godmaire of Surrey the other night just as he was preparing to
Housing
take his son out to the scout troop which he leads. John took me through his house and showed me the wall between the kitchen and the living room and how that wall had pulled away from the ceiling and dropped. I have seen normal settlement to the extent of a hairline crack along the top of the plaster or which necessitated some minor adjustment to the wall, but what I saw in John's house was that the wall between the kitchen and the living room had dropped more than one inch. This house is an AHOP house, and this was only one of the problems.
In addition to the wall falling, the conduit wire leading from the electrical heating unit was drooped over the copper water pipes. This wire came down from a register through the floor and was wrapped completely around the copper water pipe tubing. The copper water pipe tubing, by the way, was wet with condensation. One does not have to be an engineer to know the danger which is inherent in that type of construction.
I cannot understand how it could have happened. I cannot understand how a builder could have been so negligent, let alone it being inspected. No one could have inspected this house, because it just is not possible. The next door neighbour could not have inspected it.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: The dog did not inspect it.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: No, the dog did not inspect it, because even a dog would have known better. The wiring which should have run through the plates and through the studs, instead was jammed in right behind the plaster board, and the plaster board was bulging out. Not only was the plaster board bulging, but it was absolutely wet from condensation. The windows were frosted over. I once lived in an older home on the prairies and I can remember waking up in the morning to find frost a half inch thick on windows, and I took it for granted that houses were built that way. But a modern house built today should not have an inch of frost on the windows, especially if it is a house located in British Columbia where the climate is not very cold and where there is very little frost.
I have documented this case and I have slides to illustrate this disaster. There was inadequate ventilation. The previous speaker talked about the phone which pulled out of the wall. In this case there was a railing going down the stairs which was merely screwed into the plaster board. There were no studs behind the screws, and the first time someone walked down these stairs they put their hand on this rail and it fell off. They were lucky they were not injured. These are little things which a contractor with any skill at all would have seen and corrected.
All John wanted for his family, Mr. Speaker, was a decent, sound, but inexpensive home in which to raise his family, and built in such a way so that he could go out at night and get involved in the community and the organizations, to work in a very good way and be the good kind of citizen his parents taught him to be. All he received, however, was a compounding debt, a depreciating investment, and shoddy, cheap and inadequate workmanship.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Liberal workmanship.

March 6, 1979
Housing


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Yes, Liberal workmanship, the responsibility of this government and of this minister opposite,


Simma Holt: Is the government also to blame if a marriage breaks up?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I am glad that the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) has put her remarks on record in my speech, because I am going to send them out to British Columbia and say, "That is the attitude this government has." That is why these houses are built in this manner, because of this kind of sarcastic, non-caring attitude. Is she intending to go out and fix this house? I invite you to come to Surrey with me and I will show you this disgrace because I would like to see what you would do about it. Will she stand up and speak-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite the hon. member to address himself to the Chair.


An hon. Member:: Who built the house?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Listen to the sarcastic ministers over there and let Hansard record their response.
Sheridan Myers is a railway worker in his late thirties and father of three young children. Sheridan and his wife Betty, salt-of-the earth Canadians, assumed a $39,500 mortgage plus a CMHC loan of $5,900 to buy their AHOP home in Mission, B.C. They put in a great deal of gardening, and they really worked hard and cared for their house. If one walks into that yard, they will see the loving care which went into that garden and how they tried to make that house in such a way that they could be proud of it as most Canadians want to be proud of their house. After a great deal of hard gardening and $17,000 in monthly payments, Sheridan and Betty found that CMHC was selling houses which had defaulted under AHOP next door, the same house that they had paid $39,500 for was now going for $32,000. Next month Sheridan's monthly mortgage payments will go up to $408 and then up by another $120. Unfortunately he finds himself temporarily unemployed, like thousands of other Canadians. He had great hopes for his home; then he found that his payments would be going up and his disposable income going down.
The frustration of Sheridan is undoubtedly shared by many AHOP home owners whose incomes are not rising with inflation and whose equity is falling. Up until a few months ago the Vancouver CMHC office did not have a market analysis branch, so 15 per cent of the units built between 1973 and 1978 are unsold today.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Would you say that again?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: It amounted to 15 per cent of the units built. It is not a one-year mistake, but they kept making it year after year and, as a result 15 per cent of the units built between 1973 and 1978 are sitting unsold.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Empty.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: As a result of the overbuilding and the inflationary price rise in moderately priced housing due to

AHOP, people who bought an AHOP home have no equity at all despite having made payments of several thousands of dollars.
To add insult to injury, CMHC sold a house in Sheridan's development, the same type of house for which he paid $40,000, for $32,000. Two weeks later the speculator who bought the house for $32,000 sold it for $37,000. The government gave away $5,000. Fortunately, Sheridan was able to sell his house for $38,000 and get out with only a slight loss-a slight loss in dollar bills, but what kind of a loss in human and social circumstances? What kind of loss of hope for him? He took the responsible attitude. While so many others just walked out of their homes and left the government with the burden, he stayed and paid.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is going to be done about this nightmare? The Sheridans and the Johns and thousands of others across the country are disappointed, frustrated, bitter. The builder does not seem to care. He has received his money and has probably started a new project under a new company name in order to escape the responsibility for poor workmanship. He says, "That company is now broke; we cannot guarantee your warranty or bring your house up even to the basic standards." After the fact, CMHC comes in and says there is nothing they can do because the builder is now bankrupt-or says he is. When they are told the builder is in business across the street they reply, "There is nothing we can do about that; that is a different company." The builder does not care. He is not going to do anything for them. He is not going to take that wire and unwrap it from that water pipe; he is not going to fix that rail on the wall.
What about the lender? surely the person who put up the money is concerned about the shoddy job? The lender pays little attention. He has not bothered about the risk because, if they walk out, what is the difference to him? Central Mortgage and Housing has guaranteed his risk. The person who loaned the original money does not care and is not going to put any more money in the house. When he gets his out, that is all he cares about.
Central Mortgage and Housing should care, but they cannot do anything about it. They do not really care because they can go on subsidizing with magnanimous indifference. They can subsidize again and again, pick up loss after loss, then walk out of it. What are we left with, Mr. Speaker? The person in the house has been done a serious wrong. He knows he has been wronged, and every Liberal on the other side of the House knows that the man I speak of has been wronged. Mr. Speaker, you know he has been wronged.


Marc Lalonde: Do you?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: You are darned right. Mr. Speaker has been paying attention and he knows. If the minister has not, he should. I hope he knows, because I would not want Mr. Speaker to get caught in one of these AHOP housing deals and
March 6, 1979

see it fall around him. Mr. Speaker, you had better listen. You had better pay attention.
We leave the poor Central Mortgage and Housing person-


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: And the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) laughs.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Of course the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) laughs. He sees no injustice in this.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: He does not care.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: He does not care. He lives in a big house. Why does he not listen to his constituents and hear some of these people cry? They do not have a bank to go to for credit. Their credit is being destroyed and they have to walk out of these houses. To appeal, they go to Central Mortgage and Housing where the poor civil servant is left holding the bag behind the desk. He hears their complaints and makes some suggestions, but the suggestions are no good because he cannot give them money or rebuild their house. He can do nothing for them. The government leaves the poor civil servant to take all the flack and all the agony of these people.
I hope that everyone sitting in an AHOP house tonight that is built in an inferior manner will hear me and go and see their member of parliament, or write to the minister or to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), inviting them to come and see their houses. I hope every one of them will do that. They should not call Central Mortgage and Housing but rather their member of parliament so that we can get some action on the floor of this House right now.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Call the Minister of Justice.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Call the Minister of Justice and say, "Where is this just society?" The only just opportunity is just an opportunity to make extra payment.


An hon. Member:: That is silly.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: It wouldn't be so silly if it was you.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: You are worse than he is.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the government and the future opposition thinks I am terrible. I am mad, Mr. Speaker. I am mad as can be that these poor, honest, upright Canadians are carrying the bag for this government once again. I can tell you it is so.


An hon. Member:: What nonsense.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: If the government thinks it can sweep this problem under the carpet by simply terminating the program and omitting any corrective response in this legislation-if it thinks it can get away with that, it is mistaken. Some 130,000 homes were built under the AHOP program of which perhaps 53,000 are still empty, and more are becoming empty every day as people walk out of them.
Housing
Some Canadians are still satisfied because, fortunately, within that 130,000-and not because of the government- there were some responsible builders who wanted to make sure the quality of their houses was good. They built their houses strongly and well. If some houses can be built strongly and well for $47,000 in Vancouver, there is no reason why the house next door cannot be built to the same standard for the same price.
Many thousands of builders are unhappy, and many thousands of owners in AHOP houses tonight are unhappy. Many realtors are also unhappy. Their name has been sullied because of the houses and they are now taking the flack. They are just beginning to understand the problems. The walking out is just beginning. The problem will not go away, Mr. Speaker. Corrective measures will have to be taken by this government. Who will do the repairs or finance the corrections that are required to John's home and his neighbours' homes? Will these Canadians have to learn the hard way that their fate in the Liberal government was misplaced?
I should like to quote from an interview I had with Mr. Myers when I asked him:
Is this story that you're telling me your story only or typical of all the people in this subdivision who are having the same problem?
He replied:
That's right. If I walk away from here I'm just out and I have to rent for the rest of my life or until five or six years is up and they forget about my credit.
Well, there are a lot of people who have put a lot of work in a lot of houses. You look at some of them ... These are the people who are staying here and they are the people who are going to shoulder it and by rights we have just been taken to the cleaners.
I then asked him:
In other words, you are going to carry the mistake of the government. The government won't lose but you will.
He replied:
Yes, isn't that the way it always is?
Mr. Speaker, that is the way it always has been. That does not mean it is the way it is going to be or the way it has to be. If this government will not make the corrections in the next few days in this House, then they will have to be thrown out of office. Let this be one of the reasons that they are thrown out. Let the Johns and the Sheridans stand up and say they have had enough of this government.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: We will make it right.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: We will make it right. We will not leave the people to carry the burden of the government.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: We care. They do not care.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The AHOP program was predicated on three factors, first, that inflation would assure that the value of a house would rise rapidly; second, that an individual's disposable income would increase, and third, that market demand would be such that an oversupply would not result and therefore devalue the price of AHOP homes. None of these factors turned out to be true. Inflation rose but house prices generally,

March 6, 1979
Housing
and specifically AHOP house prices, dropped. The individuals' income rose but so did his taxes. The hon. member who spoke ahead of me dealt with how taxes have risen. The taxes rose, the government failed to pay them, and now the owner is supposed to pay a penalty on top. His family expenses that were supposed to be in control relative to his disposable income have increased. In fact as his family grew it probably became more expensive to keep them month after month, not less expensive. His monthly house payments increased faster and faster as his disposable income failed to increase.
Market demand for all types of housing, particularly AHOP, softened, and because AHOP was the only game in town supply outstripped demand, lowering the value of AHOPs already purchased as well as over saturating the market with a product for which there was declining demand. The odds were stacked against the Sheridans and the Johns from the beginning because they had to bet on inflation. Their purchase was predicated on factors that might not necessarily occur and that in fact that did not occur.
The Fraser Institute of Vancouver did a critical study of AHOP houses. The results were very negative, Mr. Speaker. The major drawback to the program was the fact that in many instances interest indebtedness accumulated faster than principal payments. Because of this the borrower's underlying security might be marginally in excess of his total liability.
Let me give you a specific actuarial example. I have given you first of all the humanistic example of John and Sheridan. 1 have told you about their individual problems, and generally how they repeated them to me. But this is how accountants look at the matter. For example, take a housing unit costing $47,000 to purchase, with a $45,115 mortgage. The borrower, at the end of the first year, would have paid $5,210.76 in monthly mortgage payments. Of that amount $361.92 would be applied to the outstanding principal, leaving a balance of $44,753.08. This would be somewhat less than the original $45,000 the borrower paid. Meanwhile an interest reduction loan would have been secured during that same period. That is where the catch comes in. An interest reduction loan of $1,080 is secured bringing his total liability at the end of the first year to $45,833.
It is hard for the man in the street to realize that he can buy a house costing $45,115 at the beginning of the year and at the end of the year, after having paid $5,200 toward it, he suddenly finds he owes more than he paid at the beginning, which was $45,833. In the second year the outstanding mortgage balance would be $44,303 while his interest reduction loan would be increased to $1,944. This now brings the total indebtedness to $46,247. Bear in mind the original cost of the house was $45,115. By the end of the fifth year the mortgage outstanding would have decreased $42,769.23 while the home owner's total liability, which included the interest reduction loan of now $3,240, would be $46,009. After five years the owners' equity in the House would in fact be less. Fiver years later, after he has paid his payments faithfully month after

month, he now owes $46,009 on a house which he purchased originally for $45,115. He now wonders how that is possible.
Then comes the tragedy that this $45,000 debt has dropped in value to perhaps $32,000. If that is the case, as it was in the example I stated, the man has lost $16,000. He cannot reclaim it. He is stuck. He cannot move. All he can do is walk out, and leave the government holding the bag. At the same time he will be ruining his credit and losing hope of owning a home. We might say "Buyer Beware. He knew what he was getting into." But unfortunately Canadians do not understand the whys and wherefores of mortgages. What he got into was government deception. This situation occurs in all cases unless houses of this type appreciate in value.
This combination of rising total indebtedness with a minimum downpayment could place purchasers who are forced to sell in the untenable position of having insufficient equity to handle the transaction costs which include lawyers fees and agents costs. In other words, to get out of the situation, even if the individual walks out of the house, and tries to sell, he must still pay agents and lawyers fees over and beyond the debt he has accumulated on the housing unit.
A few years ago when housing prices were generally increasing, this was not a problem. If householders could not keep up the payments because of a change in economic circumstances, such as the loss of employment or perhaps lower than expected income increments, or perhaps they experienced a shift in social arrangements, for example, divorce or separation, these owners could just sell. But now with stable or depreciating house values in some markets, owners will have little in capital value on which to fall back.
As one builder who was delighted to sell his units by first renting them, said, "I know some of these families just have enough income to pay rent in much lower priced accommodation. There is no way they can handle the basic monthly mortgage requirement on a $47,000 home, much less all the other costs of home ownership, such as taxes, heat, water, and minimum maintenance, so I am happy to sell my units. But how the government can be a party to this is beyond me." How can the government allow someone to get so far over his head?
The combination of unsatisfactory improvements in equity and limited down payment-in Canada 86.4 per cent of AHOP purchasers secured ownership on the minimum downpayment of 5 per cent or less-left marginal purchasers with very little cushion and less opportunity for error. The hope, and for that matter their collateral, was the possibility that their homes would rise at a rate equal to or in excess of the rate by which assistance was withdrawn. Backing their trust in the future was an unwillingness to believe that anything could go wrong. People believed that somehow this government would give leadership. These people went along with the blind faith that nothing could go wrong. A program was set up on that basis. People surmised that property values would surely increase sufficiently to offset increased liabilities. One might have thought so, but practice has proven otherwise.
Again, to correct these weaknesses, the government revised the program. They have revised it so many times that not only
March 6, 1979

do the home owners not know that they are doing but neither does Central Mortgage and Housing, nor this parliament, nor the minister. No one knows what is going on. The person who knows is the individual who sees his house crumbling beneath him. He is the one who sees his debt increasing, his payments increasing, and the value of his house dropping. But they do not care.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) does not care.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Does the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) care? I hope he cares but I hear him say that he does not care. Perhaps hon. members say people should look before buying.


An hon. Member:: He does care.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: He does care.


Jean Robert Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I hope that the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott), who is the official critic for the opposition, could at least have the courtesy of not following members around as they speak just to get a few cheap political points on television.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised the hon. member did not stand up to say that he, as a Liberal, cares about these people. But he stood up to care a little bit about politics. He has just made his maiden speech. I hope the hon. member and some of the other Liberals will care enough to stand up and speak out against the problems of AHOP housing. That is the kind of standing up that is demanded in this House. Stand up for these little Canadians and show them you care.
I could talk about the problems of AHOP 1978, but I see that I am running out of time.


An hon. Member:: Take all the time you want.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Listen to them over there. I say that 1 am running out of time, and they say good. I am pleased to hear hon. members say that, because they are worried. They know it hurts and they know I am right. They know there are thousands of people across Canada who are living in AHOP houses saying tonight, "Maybe we can get some help yet. Maybe there is some hope, and maybe things are not at a dead end." But hon. members over there do not care. The Liberals do not care.
It is evident that several families will be in a no-exit situation in these AHOP homes unless there occurs what a Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation official prescribes. This is the answer of the government. This is what Central Mortgage and Housing says, "Home owners, don't worry because there may be a sudden gust of inflation or a sharp reversal of present economic trends." I do not expect there will be a sharp gust of inflation. But the official was
Housing
right when he said there will be a sharp reversal of economic trends. That sharp reversal will come when the government on the other side is replaced.
For some home owners just walking away is cheaper than sticking around to try to pull out of the financial quagmire. The more vexing question is what will CMHC, as the carrier for insurance for nearly 100 per cent of these loans, do? The AHOP default rate is now running at 10 per cent and growing. What will they do with 15 per cent or 20 per cent? The minister hides the figures. I tried to get them for two years and could not. Either they did not know or they were hiding them.
If a 10 per cent default ratio is any indication of what can be expected under more severe economic conditions, CMHC will no doubt find itself with thousands of unwanted and unpaid for homes sitting on their doorstep. Since the only way to minimize this eventuality is to improve the marketability of AHOP units, they are trying to devise other items like graduated mortgage payment plans. That is just trying to buy time. It is trying to buy the people beyond an election, letting them think that they will somehow, through some magic formula, not have to pay the whole price of a house, that they can delay the payments forever, not recognizing that all it means is that their debt and interest are piling up greater and greater and they are getting further and further in. I can see the former minister smiling.


Mr. Danson:: I am not smiling.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: No, he is not smiling; he is crying. He should be crying because, unfortunately, he devised the program. I hope he is crying as he is listening to this speech. If he is crying, it may be that he cares a little bit, and that is what Canadians want to see from that side of the House, a little bit of caring, a little bit of correction.
What are they going to recommend now? Who is going to rebuild these houses. Who will finance them? Will they do something constructive like set up a bit of a fund and allow the people to repair their own homes to bring them up to a minimum, not maximum, CMHC standard? Will you give John Godmaire enough just to correct the mistakes the CMHC inspector did not see? Will you let him pay an electrician to come in and take the electric wire that is wrapped around the copper pipe with the water dripping from it, and change it so that his family can be safe and the house will not burn to the ground with the family in it? Will you do that little bit?
Don't just sit there shouting at me to tell you what to do. I am giving you some ideas. Where are your ideas? What are you going to do? You created all of these AHOP problems; how are you going to get us out of them? Don't delay the graduated mortgage program. Don't wait for a gust of inflation. Let's not keep hoping on the false premise that destroyed the program. It has not worked. Do not keep hoping that some day there will be a reversal and one day they will come through.

March 6, 1979
Housing
Don't just shove this program under the carpet. Don't just tell the people not to worry because we do not have AHOP any more and, therefore, there will be no more AHOP mistakes. That is what we keep assuring the people. What about the 130,000 homes already built? What about the 53,000 unoccupied? What are you going to do with them? What are you going to do for these people?
I agree with the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) that this bill should not go through this House until the government has come up with a method to help these people who have been cheated and deceived by this government, and who are receiving inferior workmanship and craftsmanship. I do not ask you to rebuild the houses. Just work a little bit on the ventilation and the heating.
Just give these people a little assistance and they will stay in their homes. In spite of the mistakes that have been made by the government, they will stay in them. They will care. Stop the roof from leaking and they will stay in the home. They would make the repairs, but they do not have the money to do it. The reason is that their monthly payment is going up this month to a rate they cannot afford because their disposable income did not reach that much this month.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I would ask for unanimous consent to continue because this tragedy is continuing in this land.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After consultation, there seems to be agreement on three very specific points. First, it is felt the debate on second reading on Bill C-29 is over; second, the motion for second reading will not be put tonight; and third, calling it ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions to this effect. We think it would be all right to go along.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, we agree that would be a reasonable course.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I to understand that I am not putting the question tonight but calling it ten o'clock, that it is agreed and ordered that the next time this order is brought before the House, the question will be put immediately on second reading? Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Yvon Pinard: As the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) is on his way to the House and is not here yet, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is here, in view of the hour I ask for the unanimous consent to proceed with the third motion, that in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, and then come back to the others after. While I was speaking, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Central Nova came in so we can proceed with the first.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as far as the response to my question regarding the Statistics Canada matter on February 23 was concerned, the minister stated at that time "our files are kept in strictest confidence". That may be true if you conveniently forget the fact that there is an ongoing responsibility for the files and the data under Section 23 of the Statistics Act, and while the minister in charge of Statistics Canada has acknowledged this from the beginning, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) seems more concerned with trying to evade his responsibility which is clearly set out in Section 23 of the Statistics Act.
The Minister of National Revenue should keep in mind that it is not that long ago that radio personalities were able to extract taxpayers' information from computers under the control of his department. Others share my misgivings, including the prestigious and respected Edmonton Journal which, in an editorial only a few days ago, made the following comment:
The prospect of Tory MP Elmer MacKay rooting through confidential government documents probably gives the Trudeau government nightmares.
What he found last week in the basement of a Statistics Canada office building ought to give us all a nightmare: 60 cardboard boxes full of tax returns and other documents, all marked "Confidential-to be destroyed."-
Industry Minister Jack Horner's observation in the House of Commons that "(Statistics) are taken and collected under the strictest and most confidential methods possible" may be quite correct. It's what happens later that has us worried.
Deputy Prime Minister Allan MacEachen's promise to investigate the incident was vital, as will be the government's assurances that Mr. MacKay's discovery revealed an isolated lapse of security that will not be repeated.
Canadians are concerned about Statistics Canada's incessant demands for information, its legal right to compel responses and the expanding use of social insurance numbers for identification. Proper guarantees of confidentiality are
March 6, 1979

timely and a prerequisite if this information-gathering system is to continue to function.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) has another responsibility. I am quoting from the Statistics Act, Section 23:
For the purposes of this act... the Minister of National Revenue shall cause to be sent to the Chief Statistician returns of imports and exports into and from Canada and details of the means of transportation used therefor, in such manner and at such times as the governor in council may prescribe upon the recommendation of the minister and the Minister of National Revenue.
I think it is important that the Minister of National Revenue, who is obviously making attempts to establish himself as a cutting and controversial figure, as evidenced by the memos he writes to himself, is spending more time trying to play Tiny Tim to his seatmate Burt Reynolds that in trying to get to the bottom of some of these difficulties mentioned in the Edmonton Journal. It is obvious, when you look at the data which has been supplied to the then minister over the years, that there has been an ongoing lapse of responsibility not, I suggest, as it has turned out, by the incumbent as far as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) is concerned but basically by the personnel and indirectly by the minister responsible for Statistics Canada.
I have here a report sent to the then minister some years ago by a man who is still, I believe, in the employ of Statistics Canada. It is a very comprehensive report and it deals with the types of security procedure which have been found so wanting recently. It talks about the storage and security of mental health statistics documents, it deals with the question of whether security precautions are necessary, it covers several pages, and I intend to make it available to the minister so that he can endeavour to find out what happened to this document which was submitted on August 22, 1966, outlining the same conditions as are causing Canadians such concern today.
This situation did not arise yesterday. Mental health records which are demanded by Statistics Canada are another matter of great concern, probably of even greater concern, on balance, than income tax information. I want to talk about the situation in which a letter was sent to a former minister, Jean-Luc Pepin. It stated that cards dating back to at least 1931 had been kept in an unlocked, unguarded room. This is in the same building as the forms I came across were in. They were piled helter skelter, freely available for inspection by any citizen. More recent cards have been stored in unlocked filing cabinets.
In 1968 the health and welfare division of DBS moved to No. 5 temporary building, the letter goes on to say. Some mental morbidity cards were stored in a room even though a vault was available a few feet away. More current cards were kept, as before, in unlocked filing cabinets. The door to room 2141 was kept open. A few flimsy cardboard boxes, lids open and containing notifiable cards, were also kept in this room. The question is, what has been done and what is the Minister of National Revenue going to do to exercise his responsibilities under the act. I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker. Has my time expired?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister reminded hon. members this afternoon, under the law Statistics Canada must have access to tax returns and the underlying principle of that requirement should be easily understandable.
In our system of government, Statistics Canada is the agency responsible for gathering and publishing statistical information on all aspects of Canadian society. The federal government, provincial governments and the private sector need reliable information on hundreds of aspects of our society.
The most important measure for a society is no doubt its income and the distribution of that income. Personal and corporate income tax forms sent to National Revenue for tax purposes are the best and most reliable source of information on incomes. If Statistics Canada were forbidden access to those returns, that agency would have to make major and costly surveys to gather the same information once again.
The general principle of the Statistics Act and even of the Income Tax Act is that an individual's business is his own business. If an individual has to provide information for tax or statistical purposes, the government must make sure that information is not made public.
On the other hand, governments and other organizations need over-all revenue information developed by the statistics system from income tax returns.
Therefore, parliament in its wisdom specifically provided that:
The chief statistician or a person so authorized by him may examine all reports, certificates, statements, documents or other records obtained for the Minister of National Revenue for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.
But since parliament also had a concern for the confidentiality of information submitted to Statistics Canada, it provided further that such information, when communicated to Statistics Canada, are subject to the same security rules as applied when they are collected.
Clearly, Statistics Canada employees must comply with the drastic confidentiality rules set under the National Revenue Act, which sets up penalties for officials or authorized persons who knowingly communicate or allow to be communicated information obtained for the purposes of the National Revenue Act.
For this reason Statistics Canada only publishes information on group revenues, without disclosing individuals' fiscal information. Those are legal provisions set forth in the National Revenue Act and the Statistics Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

March 6, 1979
Adjournment Debate


POST OFFICE-STEPS TO IMPROVE DOOR TO DOOR DELIVERY
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked a question of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamon-tagne) on door to door mail delivery, a problem which in the last two or three years has become a festering sore for myself and my constituents. I must say that the Postmaster General has been very understanding and very supportive on this point. I am glad to see in the House tonight my good friend and colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General (Mr. Collenette), to respond to my question.
Essentially the answer was that there is the problem of restraint in government spending, as we have been told before. We all appreciate this, and we all support the concept of government restraint. But in this case the problem is somewhat different from any other. It is the question of a basic service that is not being provided to some Canadians. Also, there is the question of reallocation within particular departments. In this case it is the Post Office budget. Perhaps these things are not easy, but they are not impossible.
This situation is a rather unfortunate one in a number of ways. The business of not providing door to door mail delivery to some people, when the majority in the same area or neighbourhood are receiving this service, must be called discriminatory. In fact these people are making contributions to society. They are paying their taxes through the same tax system, but they are not receiving the same services which their neighbours receive who, in many cases, are just across the road. This is unfortunate in a time when we are concerned about the high unemployment rate, and when there are many, many programs at great expense to create employment, sometimes with difficulty. This is a natural situation in which to help the employment situation with the hiring of more letter carriers. This type of work is considered regular in our society. It would not be a short-term artificial creation of jobs through job creation programs. Also, there is a general feeling about the postal service these days. Admittedly there have been many problems, but in the case of door to door delivery it is an area which can be remedied easily.
I am informed the total cost would be approximately $24 million to hire enough extra letter carriers across the country to provide service for everyone. That may seem like a lot of money in individual terms, but it is relatively modest and not a large sum in terms of total government spending which amounts at the federal level to somewhat over $50 billion. There are a number of areas of possible savings. Many job creation programs come under the Department of Employment and Immigration. Of course they could be rearranged to provide some or all of this money. Something unusual which happened recently in government programs-and coincidentally the amount of money would be the same-was the proposal to provide perhaps $18 million to $20 million for professional NHL hockey arenas. It seems that is not a matter of very high

priority, certainly not compared to providing regular mail service.
All these matters would apply especially to constituencies like Halton. It is a typical suburban riding with a great many new addresses, subdivisions, and people upset about not receiving door to door mail delivery. The people of Halton voluntarily and good naturedly gave up the government job creation program, Canada Works, with the idea that it was not needed there as much as in some other areas. Yet, door to door mail delivery is an area of particular need. Other members of parliament have expressed this concern and have suggested remedies.
I feel justified in speaking at this time during adjournment debate because I have spoken at all levels: in this House, at various caucuses, and so on. We are at the point where something must be done. At this time of year there are more complaints because of the weather, the breaking up of winter. This is particularly difficult for old people and young children. For example, today I received a complaint from a constituent who said, "If we cannot get this kind of help, at least let's make the most of the situation."
Could some level of government perhaps not provide platforms, catwalks, wastebaskets and this type of thing until we can hire more letter carriers? The Postmaster General in his answer to me said this was a matter of high priority for him, and it was simply a matter now of money. He said it was up to the Treasury Board and the cabinet, and people are becoming very impatient, with good reason, some having waited up to two years. Some MPs suggest even longer. I think now it is time to stop talking about it, and time to act. I hope the parliamentary secretary can help in this respect. I hope the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) takes particular note.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) for his concern in respect of this particular matter. I am not sure my answer this evening will do anything to allay his fears. In a sense he answered the question in his own statement. I am not sure what encouraging words I can give.
It is well-known that suburban areas in this country have expanded rapidly in the last three or four years, and generally in these new developments there are alternative services to door to door delivery. These services take the form of group boxes or general delivery. Therefore, the people living in these area like Halton are not without mail service, they merely have a different form of the service. It is obviously not the best service that we could hope for, but certainly it is the best possible service the Post Office can provide at this point in time while the Post Office takes steps to make improvements which Canadians in the rest of the country desire.
Though it is not possible to make any definite announcements at this time, the Post Office is looking carefully at those
March 6, 1979

areas in Canada which are most affected by the restraint on door to door delivery with a view to providing whatever service we can, best suited to each community. The Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) is not insensitive to the hon. member's respresentations or those of his colleagues, the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne), the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott), the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson), the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell), and others from the metropolitan Toronto area. There are many in the suburban fringes of Toronto who are faced with the same problem as the hon. member for Halton. Perhaps it is most acute in Halton, but it is something about which the Postmaster General is most concerned.
The problem the hon. member raised is one which I know the minister is looking at most seriously. We are trying to juggle resources in order to come up with some effective compromises. There are Canadians right across the country, not just in the metropolitan Toronto area, who do not have door to door service. The minister has mentioned on several occasions that the policy is national in scope and affects the ridings of many hon. members. I am sure the hon. member for Halton appreciates, as do most Ontario members in this House, that individual regions cannot necessarily be treated individually. One must have a national policy and apply it right across the board. All members are familiar with the restraint program of the government which affects the expenditures of all departments. In the Post Office, unfortunately, it is most visible, because door to door delivery in areas which are beyond existing letter carrier routes are the services which are affected.
I would like to assure the hon. member that the government has been exploring ways and means by which to provide this very visible service, as it does affect every riding in the country. There are no funds available at this time, but the Postmaster General is taking the matter up with his colleagues, and hopefully something can be done to improve the situation in the very near future.


POST OFFICE-EFFECT OF CUTBACKS ON MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked on March 1 is very similar to the question asked by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook). I put it to the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) in the following terms:
In every city in Canada there are tens of thousands of people living in newly built areas in the suburbs who do not get door to door delivery. Some of them have been waiting for three or four years.
I urged the minister to use his influence to try to persuade the government to allow him to hire people to deliver on a door to door basis; perhaps the 1,850 employees by which he proposes to reduce the number of employees in the Post Office department in the coming year.
Adjournment Debate
The minister's answer to me was very much like the answer he has given other hon. members. He said as reported at page 3711 of Hansard:
-I am aware of the fact that many growing areas, especially suburban areas, are without door to door service. I am also aware that in Scarborough, Calgary and other areas there is restraint in door to door delivery. I can assure the hon. member, as I said before, that as soon as money is available it will be my top priority in these urban areas to give Canadians door to door delivery.
I am not satisfied with the answer which the minister gave to me or the answer which was given to the hon. member for Halton by the parliamentary secretary. The fact is that there are tens of thousands of homes across the country in suburban areas which are not getting door to door delivery. I have been told that in the city of Edmonton there are 35,000 homes which are not getting door to door delivery. In the city of Calgary there are apparently 18,000 homes which are not getting door to door delivery. In my city of Winnipeg there are between 7,000 homes and 8,000 homes which are not getting door to door mail delivery. I do not have the figures for other major cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax or Dartmouth, but I am sure that we are talking of several hundreds of thousands of homes. The people who have purchased homes in the newer areas of cities, not just my city of Winnipeg, but in every city across Canada, pay substantial amounts of money for those homes. In the last few years these people have probably paid more money than people who purchased homes in the older parts of cities. I do not believe that the people living in the newer parts of the cities should be considered as second-class citizens, but that is how they are being treated as a result of this phony policy of restraint of this government.
The parliamentary secretary and the minister have said that these people have service because they have the boxes. I wish the parliamentary secretary would come to Winnipeg in November, December, January or February, because he would see the kinds of conditions which these people must put up with, the minus 30 degree temperatures, three feet of snow, and a 25 or 30 mile an hour wind. Going to the boxes for the mail is no easy chore.
There are also the cases where these people receive registered letters and, as a result, must trot down to some post office which often closes at 3.30 in the afternoon and, as it frequently happens, both the husband and the wife are working from eight in the morning to four in the afternoon. When there is a parcel these people with boxes often travel three, four or five miles in order to get it from some regional post office.
The parliamentary secretary in reply to the hon. member for Halton said that the people in Halton were not the only people adversely affected, and he is right. He said that this freeze was part of a national policy. I want to say to the parliamentary secretary that a national policy which provides for a freeze on the hiring of letter carriers after tens of thousands of people have moved into these newer areas is dead wrong. I do not accept, nor will I ever accept, that there are people in this

March 6, 1979
Adjournment Debate
country who must be treated as second-class and third-class citizens.
The hon. member for Halton said that it would cost $20 million to provide letter carrier service for all the urban areas in Canada. I do not know if that figure is correct, but I intend to pursue that matter in the committee which deals with the estimates of the Post Office. However, the parliamentary secretary knows, as do myself and the hon. member for Halton, that there are many ways in which the government can save money if it must, but one of the worst ways of saving money would be not to expand the letter carrier service. I think that the people in the suburban areas, some of whom have waited as long as four years for letter carrier service, have waited too long, and I call upon the government to rescind the freeze order on the provision of letter carrier service, and to provide the people of these new areas with the same service as other urban citizens are getting from one end of Canada to the other.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I was quite prepared to answer the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on an entirely different matter. I assumed that he was raising this evening the question which he brought up last night at the transport committee meeting about the 136 letters which were addressed to NDP members and which took some time in arriving at their destination. The hon. member has not pursued that matter, but has reiterated some of the points which the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) has made.


David Orlikow: Which I made on March 1.


David Michael Collenette: Looking through the record I see that on February 22, I answered a similar question in response to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). It is quite apparent that there is a different approach to this from the three major parties in the House. My colleague from Halton was most reasonable in talking about the problem and understood the constraints upon the system. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) spoke on this a couple of weeks ago. The Conservative party talks restraint, but when it comes down to the crunch it starts talking about deficits and providing mail service, notwithstanding the restraint program of the government. This clearly shows where the real sentiments of the Conservative party lie.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the hon. member for Winnipeg North giving the NDP view. The NDP view is-it is the classic NDP approach-that because we have a restraint program and because we recognize that not all people are getting the same quality of service, some are automatically second class citizens. That is the way the NDP gets votes across this country-by creating class division. That is an approach that I completely reject, but it is typical of the New Democratic Party. They do not recognize that there is a certain limit to the financial resources of the country. During the minority government of 1972-1974, the NDP pushed the government into all kinds of costly programs from which we are now extricating ourselves.
I think the hon. member would do a much better service to the cause of providing adequate mail service and letter carrier service across the country if he would adopt the moderate approach taken by my colleagues on this side of the House, especially that of the hon. member for Halton, who recognizes the constraints on government spending. He recognizes that these are difficult economic times and there is not enough money to pay for all the services we would like.
We have been cutting back in health, in transportation, and in mail service. Since 1975 there has been constraint on the letter carrier service. It has been applied fairly and equally across the country. It is a shame that people on one side of a street in a settled part of a city like Winnipeg, and certainly Toronto, have door to door delivery, while people on the other side of the street have to go to the box.
Governing the country is a difficult business, Mr. Speaker. All kinds of interests have to be reconciled. The one solution of the NDP is to throw money around. There are a lot more services that I would support if we had the money-pension increases, for instance. I notice that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is in the House. There are priorities, and we have to decide where to put our money. The Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) realizes that proper mail service is fundamental, but he is operating within the general constraints of the financial restraint program. There are social programs and other programs of the government which certainly deserve the money equally, or perhaps more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.

Wednesday, March 7, 1979