1979-11-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun):: 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.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) admitted last week, before the coalition of provincial organizations of handicapped, that the handicapped must face many difficulties in the areas of employment, transport, housing and recreation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin):
Thai the House ask the government to introduce positive and immediate measures to correct the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OIL TANKER IN CANSO STRAIT DESTINED FOR ITALY-CALL FOR INVESTIGATION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Yesterday afternoon, a 100,000-ton oil freighter called Grey Fighter left the Canso Strait area of Nova Scotia sailing for Italy with a cargo of oil. This oil freighter had entered light at Port Hawkesbury, on the Strait of Canso, on November 25. The word "light" at ports, I am
told, is a jargon word for "empty". As recently as yesterday we had been told-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a motion to propose, he should do it forthwith.


Andrew Hogan: In view of the fact that last year Imperial Oil diverted oil from Nova Scotia, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Andrew Hogan: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources quickly investigate the situation of the Grey Fighter and report to the House tomorrow on what could be a very serious situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion can be introduced at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In the interests of western farmers, I hope this proposal will receive the non-partisan, unanimous consent of the House.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is now making an adjustment payment to prairie farmers totalling some $145 million on grain delivered early in this crop year before the initial price was raised, in view of the fact that a good portion of the grain delivered at that time was delivered on a "cash deferred basis", whereby many farmers have elected deliberately and consciously to defer receiving payment for that grain until into the next taxation year, 1980, as an income and tax planning device provided for in the Canadian Wheat Board Act itself, and in view of the fact that much of the planning on the part of many farmers may be defeated by this payment coming unexpectedly in the last two or three weeks of the 1979 tax year, I move, seconded by the hon.
1782

November 28, 1979
member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Romp-key):
That this House instructs the Minister of National Revenue to issue the appropriate order deeming that portion of the current CWB adjustment payment which relates to grain delivered on a "cash deferred basis" as income in 1980- as farmers had obviously intended and planned-and not income in 1979.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the alarming situation in Iran, given the threat to peace, given the position taken by the Government of Canada and the resulting danger that the parties involved might break off communications, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Government of Canada play an intermediary role in that conflict.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion can be put only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMONWEALTH JOINT STATEMENT APPEALING FOR RELEASE OF HOSTAGES IN IRAN-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of some urgency having to do with the capacity of free nations to operate within the framework of international law when resolving their differences. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That this House record its support for the Canadian initiative taken at the Commonwealth High Commissioners' meeting which resulted in the Commonwealth joint statement appealing for the release of hostages in Iran.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, further to the motion we have just heard and which was adopted, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House.
In view of the continuing violation by the government of Iran of fundamental international law, in contravention of the Vienna Convention, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That we, as the House of Commons of Canada, affirm our allegiance to the rule of international law as the only hope for peace and orderly relations between nation states, and unequivocally condemn the government of Iran for breaching that law by allowing and encouraging the taking of American diplomatic staff as hostages within that country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. The Canadian Press reported this morning that the Prime Minister said, after his marathon discussion yesterday, that the method of taxation on higher prices was the lone unsettled issue in the current energy negotiations with Premier Lougheed, but the same report quoted Premier Lougheed as saying that progress had been made but a new energy policy was not yet in hand. Therefore, could the Prime Minister tell us exactly what was accomplished at these discussions yesterday, and thus remove the uncertainty and doubt on the part of the public regarding this key issue of national policy? In particular, can he tell us, if

November 28, 1979

there was an agreement on a new oil price, exactly what it will be?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, during the meetings between representatives of the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta yesterday, there was agreement on all important principles regarding a pricing policy and the energy package. There was agreement on all major details, with the exception of the detail relating to the mechanism of a tax. It would be my intention to announce the full range of the proposal at the time there is also agreement on the details of the tax.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was not able to tell us when the agreement would come on the details of this tax so I want to ask him, how can there be a budget without first settling this taxation question, which is more than a detail? The Prime Minister said that it could involve more than $5 billion in additional revenue. Surely the Prime Minister is not saying that there can be a valid budget without first having a dear and public answer to this $5 billion question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the budget will set forth quite clearly the assumptions which we believe to be reliable as to the revenue that will come from the tax. All that is at issue is the mechanism of the tax, not its proceeds.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister why he is not using his authority and assuming his responsibilities to settle this matter now. How long does the country have to wait while he dithers?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: After all, there were disturbing reports last night and today about possible shortages of heating oil in some parts of Canada this winter.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, barely weeks ago other spokesmen of the Liberal party in this House were urging us not to move as quickly as we are. Now, in that fine Liberal tradition of inconsistency, the hon. member for Windsor West is saying that we are moving too fast.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are moving by agreement because we think the best way to resolve this matter, which involves both jurisdictions, is to proceed by agreement. 1 am pleased to repeat to the House and to assure the hon. member that yesterday we were able to reach agreement on all important principles and on all details with the exception of the mechanism of the tax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


PLAN TO HEAD OFF POSSIBLE OIL SHORTAGE THIS WINTER
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the report last evening to the effect that the National Energy Board has prepared new forecasts regarding the supply and demand of oil this winter, and that in the view of the board the situation and the shortage which was anticipated by the minister and his officials just a month ago, and described by the minister as being "fragile", in fact is worse now, will the minister assure the House that his officials are preparing a plan which will head off this shortage? Will the minister undertake to put this plan before us immediately?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and the opportunity it allows me. I saw the report on CTV last night which referred to a secret report of the National Energy Board. I inquired of the NEB with respect to this report and they said that it is simply non-existent, there is no secret report.
The last report put out by the NEB was at the beginning of this month. It indicated that we had a tight, but manageable, situation. They are now getting together the material for the report with respect to the month of November. That report and press release will be put out in the usual manner by the NEB at the end of this month.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the minister is saying that no plan is available. Considering the awful and almost unthinkable situation of a shortage of home heating fuel this winter, is the minister telling us that no effort is being prepared by his government to make available a more equal situation where supply will meet the demand for oil this winter in eastern Canada? Is he preparing a plan that will do this before we wake up some morning to find that people have frozen to death the night before?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that aside from his rather weak attempt at scare tactics, I take the matter very seriously. Indeed we are taking steps with respect to the emergency allocation supply board. We are now consulting with respect to the appointment of that board which in fact will be in place for us in the event that there is an emergency situation and in the event we have to rely on allocation.
I want to assure the hon. member that this government does take its responsibilities seriously in that regard. We are still confident we can get through, and we do not want to cause any undue alarm in respect of the situation. We are, in fact, taking steps to meet that situation and taking a number of initiatives that I have outlined to the House on previous occasions to assure supply over the course of this winter.

November 28, 1979
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Two sets of very disturbing figures have been announced within the past 24 hours. We learned this morning that food prices have gone up by more than 13 per cent, year over year, and yesterday we learned that average weekly earnings are increasing at only 8.6 per cent, well below increases in the cost of living.
While considering that the Prime Minister said inflation was public enemy number one, and considering that the government has already indicated that the forthcoming budget will be a "tough times" budget, will the Prime Minister indicate today one specific weapon he plans to use in fighting the war against his declared public enemy number one?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the actions taken in the budget and the actions taken by the government generally to bring down the deficit in Canada will certainly be one major instrument in moving the country toward a situation where we can begin to get inflation under control. I know the hon. member shares my understanding that it is not a simple or a new problem, but we are dealing directly with the impact upon inflation of extensive government deficits.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that that approach has not worked elsewhere, particularly in the kind of economic circumstances we have now. Even if it had some effect-which 1 do not concede-it would take many, many months to have any bearing on the effects of escalating prices for the ordinary Canadian.
I would like to ask him, in this context, considering that in the province of Ontario, in which this city is located, because of the gap between wage increases and escalating prices the ordinary worker is now losing more than $300 a year in real income, and considering that in the press today the treasurer of the province of Ontario is reported to be urging the Government of Canada to reject the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada, stating that interest rates should be brought down immediately by 2 per cent, will he at least consider this advice from Canada's largest province, even though he has rejected it from us?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the news reports to which the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party refers. 1 have not received any communication from the government of Ontario, nor has the Minister of Finance. In any event, it would not be our intention to take the action recommended, at least, by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister again today has made it clear he intends, as a government, not to act on any single measure to bring down the escalating cost of living in the near future. I would like to ask whether he will announce at least one measure that would have a direct beneficial effect for ordinary Canadians, or will he explain the

insensitivity and apparent hypocrisy of a party that favoured subsidies on certain food items before the election, in order to bring down the price of those items, but since the election has marched off completely in the opposite direction and done nothing to bring down the cost of living for the ordinary Canadian?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party will recognize and, I would hope, admit that there are no shortcuts to the economic problems the country now faces. It is the considered judgment of this government that, facing the extent of economic problems that we do now face, our primary obligation is to recognize that our problems are deeply ingrained and to bring forward in the budget, and in other measures that will come before this House of Commons, measures that are designed to deal with those basic problems. And that is what we intend to continue to do.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Could he tell the House what reassuring alternatives his government may have left to progress toward a solution in the matter of the American embassy in Iran?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's question concerns other actions, other alternatives now available to the government regarding the serious and deplorable situation in Iran. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself have stated many times, we have taken the lead among French-speaking countries and among Commonwealth countries with a view to ensuring the most effective influence on the authorities in Iran. Of course, if there is anything else we can do that would be effective, we will do so.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO REPATRIATE CANADIANS IN IRAN
Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, I introduced a moment ago a motion under Standing Order 43, which was rejected. It urged the government to play an intermediary role in this crisis.
In view of the far-reaching events the crisis seems to be leading to, I should like to ask whether the government of Canada now sees the necessity of repatriating Canadians now living in Iran?
November 28, 1979


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will keep on monitoring this situation, but for the time being we consider the Canadians in Iran can play a valuable role for Canada and for the world.


PETRO-CANADA GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS RESPECTING CORPORATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the government House leader indicated that the government was prepared to give careful consideration to the statements made by Mr. William Hopper before a House of Commons committee. Mr. Hopper, in that committee, indicated that the continued delay by the government in making a decision on Petro-Canada is causing a high turnover of staff, the passing up of major profitable projects and is generally working against the best interests of the owners of Petro-Canada, who are the people of Canada.
With that statement, can the Prime Minister indicate when the government intends to bring forward its specific proposals on Petro-Canada so that it will not work against the continued best interests of the Canadian people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, without accepting all the implications of that question, 1 am very pleased to receive the assurance of the hon. member- with all the influence that he has with his colleagues-that his party would be prepared to give as speedy as possible passage to measures that we might introduce to put Petro-Canada on a new and more effective footing. We expect to give the hon. member the opportunity to give that bill speedy passage. We hope to have either an announcement or a bill before the House before Christmas.
Once again, I want to express my appreciation and, I am sure, that of the employees of Petro-Canada to the hon. member for his assurance that we will receive speedy passage for those measures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 would remind the Prime Minister that, unlike the Conservatives, we do not give commitments blindly before we see the exact proposals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We are asking the Prime Minister, when does the government intend to quit dithering and delaying in the development of a proper energy policy? When does it intend to issue its proposals on Petro-Canada? And, just as seriously, when does it intend to make appointments to the energy supplies allocation board so that the board can begin responding to the really dire and emerging shortages of energy
Oral Questions
that are appearing in this country? When will the government begin taking some action, and quit simply talking?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that we recognized upon taking office that one of the great opportunities open to this country and ignored-or, at least, not taken full advantage of-by the former government was the opportunity to build upon the energy strength of this energy-rich nation in an energy-poor world.
It is for that reason that we have given such high priority to bringing together the first ministers of the provinces to meet with me, not simply to discuss the narrow question of price or the narrow question of petroleum but to begin to lay the basis of a genuine national energy program for Canada that can realize energy self-sufficiency by 1990. We are making considerable progress in that direction, and I look forward to being able to keep the House advised of developments. I also look forward to continued support from the House of Commons for that initiative to build on the strength of the country.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT KNOWS DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF ROUTE OF ALASKA OIL
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. According to today's news reports, President Carter has set tomorrow as the ultimate date on which he expects to announce to the American Congress his decision as to the route for the transportation of Alaska oil. On the other hand, the Prime Minister indicated last Friday during his press conference that he intended to phone President Carter to inform him of the route which Canada favours. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has indeed contacted President Carter? Was he aware of President Carter having changed the date for his announcement to the American Congress and, if so, when was he made aware of it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the time schedule of the American government. I was aware of this rumour, but I am advised that it is unfounded. There has been no change. We are preparing a discussion with President Carter concerning the pipelines.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL DISCUSS NORTHERN PIPELINE WITH PRESIDENT CARTER
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. Can the Prime Minister tell the House clearly and unequivocally that he indeed intends to make Canada's recommendations in this regard known to the President of the United

November 28, 1979
Oral Questions
States as quickly as possible? Will he assuredly and quickly phone President Carter? I think the issue is quite clear and Canada's preference is well known or at least should be. Is the Prime Minister ready to accept his responsibilities and assure the House that he indeed intends to phone President Carter without further delay, so that the United States is fully aware of Canada's views and that our interest is served?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Canada has repeatedly expressed its position to the United States. As I have often said in the House, I want to avail myself of the opportunity of discussing the matter directly with the president. Our embassy and the American embassy in Canada are trying to set up an opportunity for such discussion between the president and myself. I firmly intend, during this discussion, to reaffirm our preference for the Foothills route.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: My question is also for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. The figures released by Agriculture Canada today show that the current food price index is 13.1 per cent higher than a year ago, with energy costs, processing, transportation and distribution contributing significantly to that increase. If the government allows energy shortages to develop this winter, and if the oil price also escalates, this situation will get much worse and Canadians on low and moderate incomes particularly will suffer.
The Prime Minister has said that he is considering public policy measures to assist lower income Canadians. The Minister of Finance has said that they must suffer. Will the Prime Minister tell the House which is the policy of this government, and will he move urgently to relieve this anxiety on the part of lower income Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if there is, in fact, a danger of energy shortages this winter it is because the previous government did not act sufficiently to provide guaranteed supplies for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We continue to believe that those kinds of shortages will not occur this winter. But we certainly believe it would have been preferable three years ago for the government which the hon. member then supported to take action which they did not take. In relation to the measures we intend to help people who might be affected adversely or particularly seriously by energy price increases, those will be made clear in the budget.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same topic and is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I hope he is in a festive mood this afternoon, because the Minister of Agriculture has released a report which says there is a growing price spread between the retail price and the wholesale price for many commodities. He gave the example of turkey in Toronto, where the spread is some 37 cents per pound.
Has the minister investigated why there is such a large spread between the wholesale and the retail price of turkey? If he has, can he report his findings to the House and tell us what he will do to make sure we have reasonable turkey prices before Christmas?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with the festive season upon us, I am anxious not to lay an egg. Seriously, with the abolition of price controls and price monitoring by the previous administration, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has no mechanism with which to monitor or investigate that type of occurrence.
I suggest that the mandate of the department at the moment is to investigate price fixing and matters in relation to that. In relation to monitoring ordinary prices and the inflationary trend that is present in the western world today, I think that type of question would be better directed to the Minister of Finance.


AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I hope he will give us a better answer. In his press release this morning, the minister said that the largest increase came from fresh vegetables, an increase of about 5.5 per cent, and many of these vegetables we can produce in this country.
What measures is the minister going to propose to the House to increase Canadian production of vegetables, and can he tell us whether he plans to reinstate the grants program for storing vegetables that was cancelled by the Liberal government a few months ago?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pointed to the fact that there has been an increase in the food price index of 13.1 per cent over the last 12 months. If we compare this month's increase, however, with the last it is only .5 per cent. We have spoken about the items that have experienced increases; but at the same time beef has declined in price, there has been a decline in the price of pork and also a decline in the price of fresh and processed fruit
November 28, 1979

products. We must also bear in mind that we can buy more potatoes and more milk today, and even more steak today, with one hour's wages than we could ten months ago.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister advise the House what action he is taking through the Northern Canada Power Commission to restore power supplies to Inuvik, in the Northwest Territories, which has been largely without electricity for several days?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in stating that there has been a power failure in Inuvik. Of four feeder lines, there has been since Saturday only enough power for three. The department planned to airlift a gasoline generator from Yellowknife as a standby. I suppose we have to say that all of us deal with human frailty, however, because when the gasoline turbine was to be airlifted from Yellowknife, unfortunately it was damaged in transit. What is happening now is that the turbine in Inuvik is being repaired and should be back in place within eight or nine days.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his press conference of November 16 the Prime Minister defined the rule of law to mean that police actions have to be justified either in Parliament or in the courts. Is the Prime Minister aware that the tradition of our law is that the rule of law means the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts, to use the words of the great authority, Dicey, and that there is no room for executive or parliamentary discretion in criminal matters?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that erudite representation.


An hon. Member:: You need it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been skating around this question for months now: I think it is time he told this House, squarely, exactly what it is he has in mind. Does he not understand that removing an act from the ordi-
Oral Questions
nary purview of the law courts, and subjecting it to the parliamentary majority of the moment, is acting completely contrary to the rule of law, if ever he should get a parliamentry majority to pass such legislation, which God forbid?


An hon. Member:: Bring back Ron Basford.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question is, but if questions of that quality keep coming, we will have a majority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I ask him to tell the House that if we cannot have turkey on the table for Christmas, maybe we can encourage people to eat cod this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: With regard to over-the-side sales, the minister knows that fishermen in Chedabucto and Canso have had to throw squid overboard because they could not get sales for them. The same is true in other areas of the Atlantic provinces. I ask the minister what his policy will be with regard to over-the-side sales, what the conditions are, and is he going to announce his policy in time for next year so that fishermen will know that they will have a ready market for all the fish they can catch?


Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to let me know, when coming into the House, his intention to ask this question. First of all, as he well knows, with regard to the present situation there are high inventories at the present time in our freezers in Canada. As a result of that we have had to terminate any over-the-side sales activities.
With respect to the future I think the hon. member would agree with me that the technique of over-the-side sales is now a built-in part of our marketing. With respect to allocation, we are currently negotiating with the processors and the unions, and we will be making a determination well in advance of the season.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is with regard to the conversation the minister has had with the Newfoundland Fishermen and Food Allied Workers union. They have approached him again for the reissuance of the licence they had last year. They have been operating in areas where fish plants have been very sparse. Can he say now whether he is prepared to respond positively to the fishermen's union with regard to a licence for over-the-side sales for next year?

November 28, 1979
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, that is correct, I did meet with the president of the Newfoundland Fishermen and Food Allied Workers union. I may say that discussions are still taking place at the officials' level. I am unable to go any further than that at this time.

[Translation)


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I should like to know whether or not he endorses the decision of the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to cancel the program Les Affaires de I'Etat during the referendum campaign and substitute equal time to be shared between those who will vote "Yes" and those who will vote "No" in the referendum?


Hon. David MacDonald (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has stated her question I do not think it accords with the facts as I know them. Perhaps I could have an opportunity to discuss that matter with her, because I believe there was a fairly full exposition of his position before the standing committee last week.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I must remind the minister that the facts are exactly as I have stated them. The president of the CBC has suggested Les Affaires de I'Etat be cancelled during the referendum campaign. I asked him what would happen to that time-slot during which the various parties express their views to Canadians on what goes on in the House. Finally, I fail to see the logic in cancelling Les Affaires de I'Etat. It strikes me as logical to give equal time to proponents of the "Yes" and those of the "No", but I really cannot understand the decision to cancel the program altogether.
Can the minister, who is in a position to discuss the matter with the president of the CBC and should feel responsible for protecting the interests of this House, talk it over with him and ask him, as I did, to change his mind?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for elaborating her question in more detail. I still think that perhaps there is some misunderstanding, at least, between her perception of what was said and mine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: But I would be quite happy to look into the matter and communicate with her further, recog-

nizing, of course, the traditional and certainly the respect of the arm's length relationship that exists between the corporation and the Government of Canada.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is about his minister who is responsible for multiculturalism. As he may be aware, that minister has charged that the former government, in the administration of those responsibilities, acted in a politically partisan way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I want to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware, in his commitment to clean up the situation, that that minister has given a $100,000 contract, without tender, to a Toronto firm, Decima Research-which is not even in the Toronto phone book-whose principal is Allan Gregg who is presently the chairman of the program committee of the Progressive Conservative Party-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -on which he serves with Senator Lowell Murray and Bill Neville. Is the Prime Minister aware of this non-partisan position accorded his Minister of Multiculturalism?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular contract. I do agree with the hon. member that the Minister of Multiculturalism is very perceptive and accurate in his review of the conduct of his predecessors. I will look at the representations that have been made by the hon. member. If there is any action that needs to be taken, we will take it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would also take note of the fact, and look into it-also in this non-partisan manoeuvre-that the Minister of Multiculturalism has appointed the defeated Conservative candidate for the constituency of York Centre to the Multicultural Council.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Will he look into that? Would the Prime Minister not agree that a gesture like this is pure tokenism, and that Bill Schiavone should at least be given an engineering contract by the government, because not only is he a Canadian of Italian descent but he is an engineer?
November 28, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 will consider both of those representations, although I must say it now appears that the principle of patronage is so deeply ingrained in the Liberal party that it wants to practice it in all directions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are doing all right, Joe.


FINANCE
Mr.   Len. Gustafson@Assiniboia: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Due to the fact that home owners are under pressure both in urban centres and on the farm, will the mortgage interest tax deductible program apply to farm homes as well as to urban centres?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's concern for farmers is, I know, always pre-eminent in his mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The mortgage interest and property tax credit program will apply to farmers and their homes-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: -if the opposition co-operates and passes the bill before Christmas. If not, the farmers, as well as everyone else, will suffer again in the next year. They will lose $575 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to other questions asked today about the rising cost of vegetables, but it is also environmental. In view of the fact that the green bean crop in British Columbia, and the Norland potato crop in southern Ontario, have been damaged by air pollution to the degree that these crops can no longer be grown in these areas, what direction has the Minister of Agriculture given to his department to evalute the effect of acid rain and air pollution on these and other crops?
Oral Questions


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the question that the hon. member raises is certainly a very serious one. It is one that has been brought to our attention and, indeed, it is one that has occurred only within recent months. I want to assure the hon. member that I am extremely concerned about the problem. We have had discussions with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and the two departments will be working very closely together in an attempt to produce a solution.


FUNDS FOR RESEARCH INTO POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: My supplementary question is to the Minister of the Environment. I ask the minister what funds have been made available for research by his department to study the effects of atmospheric fall-out on agriculture. For example, have research programs been undertaken in co-operation with Agriculture Canada to determine which crops are particularly sensitive to atmospheric pollution, and have areas of Canada been identified where these sensitive crops can now be grown and where they are not being presently grown?
[DOT] (M50)


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: In answer to the hon. member, I must advise the House that no additional funds have so far been allotted. The matter the hon. member raises is one of very grave concern and his approach is consistent with the scientific reports which came out some weeks ago. They indicate that the acid rain problem is far more than a central or eastern Canadian problem, something which will have to be taken into account in the work which is now going on toward the international agreement with the United States that we hope to put in place.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State. It has to do with a blistering attack on the CBC by the MLA from Dalhousie, New Brunswick, with respect to the cavalier attitude of the corporation in that area. We held hearings in June with the CRTC in the Atlantic area and New Brunswick and were given certain assurances.
1 should like the minister to tell the House why this attitude exists. We saw evidence of it in the reporting of the May 22 general election. We saw it recently during the Grey Cup parade in Montreal. Could the minister tell us what he intends to do through legislation or other action to correct this problem?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am not sure what the hon. member is concerned about, whether it has to do with programming or
1790

November 28, 1979
Oral Questions
some other functioning of the CBC in that particular area of New Brunswick. If he wishes to communicate with me directly, I will be happy to make inquiries of the CBC on his behalf.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Last Friday, I asked the President of the Treasury Board whether there was any possibility of his forgetting budgetary restrictions in order to decrease the number of files involving veterans making claims to the Pension Commission. He replied: "Certainly, if there is a representation made to us asking for an increase in the budget."
Since the President of the Treasury Board appeared to be in such a good mood last week-I hope he is still in a good mood this week-I wonder whether the minister would make representations with a view to increasing the personnel engaged in this work, in the best interests of the veterans.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I seem to be continually making representations to the President of the Treasury Board to increase the staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs so as to enable us to give better service to veterans. I do not understand the point the hon. member was making about decreasing the number of files, but we do our best to render speedy service. I have a dedicated staff who are doing their best in the circumstances brought about because of the forward-looking legislation we have enacted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This matter, like the last, I think would be better pursued personally.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, members of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts had the pleasure of questioning the Minister of State for Fitness, Amateur Sport and Multicultur-alism. There was one question to which I did not get a satisfactory answer, and I should like to put it to the Prime Minister. What is the basic philosophy of the concept of multiculturalism of the present government, and how does this philosophy differ from that of the previous government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize, I know, that the limitations of the question period do not permit answering questions of a broad, philosophical nature.


PROPOSED STADIUM IN VANCOUVER AREA
Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Can the hon. gentleman tell the House what the government's policy is regarding financial assistance to a proposed sports stadium in the greater Vancouver area?


John Allen Fraser: I am not sure that the question the hon. member has asked should be directed to me. My department has no jurisdiction over the building of stadiums.


Mr. Speaker:: It would appear to me that the hon. member is asking a question which relates more to the minister's geo-grapical location than to his departmental responsibilities. Perhaps he would wish to direct it to the minister responsible for that program.


Mr. Lefebvre:: He was right first time.


Arthur Phillips: Perhaps, then, I could direct my question to the Prime Minister, since he did make some comments in Vancouver with respect to this matter. Could the right hon. gentleman explain more fully what he said at that time?


Charles Joseph Clark: I am quite happy to repeat in the House of Commons what 1 said in Vancouver. It is my understanding that the Premier of British Columbia recently appointed an individual well known to the hon. member to make a study of the stadium question. Naturally, we cannot indicate what our response would be to any request from the government of British Columbia until we know the nature of that request; and we shall not have that request, presumably, until the results of that study have been reported to the premier.


FINANCE
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Six weeks ago, in response to one of my questions, the Minister of Finance gave his unequivocal support to the governor of the Bank of Canada. At the press conference which the right hon. gentleman gave following the question period, he said he would expedite the decision with respect to the reappointment of the governor and make an announcement in the latter part of November or the early part of December. Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to tell us what decision has been taken with respect to governor Bouey's reappointment?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are not yet in a position to make that decision. I thank the hon. member for raising the matter. We do expect, though, to
November 28, 1979

announce that decision within the time parameters I set out during the press conference to which he referred.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it pertains to the importation of farm chemicals into Canada. Almost three years ago, in March, 1977, our border was closed to the importation of farm chemicals by withdrawing the user-permit provisions.
Would the minister be prepared to review the situation in the light of the original reason for which the border was closed, with a view to opening it to individual producers on a permit basis for chemicals that are licensed in Canada, so that our producers-particularly those in western Canada-can remain competitive in international markets?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I may say that the time the previous government made the decision to close the U.S. border it did, in its wisdom, appoint a monitoring committee made up of a cross-section of the total industry, with representation from the primary sector. That committee continues to function; indeed, it reports from time to time. 1 have studied its reports and, with few exceptions, very little discrepancy has been shown. However, I will admit that the few discrepancies which do appear relate specifically to price differentials between U.S. products and the same products in the province of Manitoba.
In view of the fact that the decision to close the border was made in the interests of the Canadian chemical industry, I have asked my officials to review the situation to determine what progress has been made in that area. I expect that report to be made available to me in the very near future. If the hon. member has information available to him which he believes the committee should have, I am certain it would be welcomed.


EDUCATION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. It concerns the three task forces-on student aid, bilingualism and satellite education-recently established by the Council of Ministers of Education in co-operation with the Secretary of State.
With particular reference to the task force on student aid, can the minister tell the House what the composition of the task force will be, who will co-chair it from his department
Oral Questions
and, most important, whether there will be a student representative on it from the National Union of Students, the principle of student representation having been supported by members of the Conservative party, in connection with the Canada student loans plenary group, when in opposition?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I thank the hon. member very much for that suggestion. This is, of course, an important matter and one which affects both student representatives and the various provinces as well as the federal government. A first meeting of officials is taking place this week to lay out the ground rules and establish a process for conducting an effective evaluation of the whole situation with respect to student aid and student assistance.
When I met with my officials on Monday of this week we examined particularly the way in which we could responsibly involve representatives of the Students Federation in order that there be a total input and involvement by them with respect to the final report and recommendations which would come forward. The hon. member will understand, of course, that it is a federal-provincial task force.
On the other part of the question, I believe we on our side will co-chair it with one of our assistant deputy ministers.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to one asked earlier by the hon. member for Western Arctic. This question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
My understanding is that the mayor of Inuvik has called for a local inquiry into the loss of power and the power requirements of her town and northern communities generally. I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us whether he has now received from the Northern Canada Power Commission a submission which would assist him in the development of his new northern energy policy, and at the same time whether he is giving serious consideration to asking the various northern communities to present to him their proposals along with their concerns about the power needs for the future.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Cochrane I want to indicate to him that, further to the question he has asked, power supplies are being put into place in Inuvik. Two technicians have been dispatched from Winnipeg to repair the generator which is in place there.
With regard to the larger question, that of power in northern Canada, the government is working out its comprehensive energy program and I am pleased that as part of that ongoing

November 28, 1979
Point of Order-Miss Begin
process a program for northern power-that is, the planning and competitive rates-is a component within the government's energy policy.
With regard to the question as to whether the communities will be consulted, I have spoken to the chairman of the NCPC and indicated to him that, while the mechanism is not in place, I feel it is vitally important that the communities not only be consulted but that their advice be followed because of the practical experience they have.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin) on a point of order.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank you for giving me the floor at this time. Yesterday we raised a matter of privilege regarding both the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie). They were supposed to tell us today why the Lazar report has not yet been tabled despite an order from the House enjoining them to do so one month and four days ago.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the only advice I have that 1 could offer to the hon. member and to the House is that the report, pursuant to standing order, was sent out for translation and printing. It is at the printing stage. It has been out of my hands for many weeks, so I cannot speak from any direct experience, but I understand it is now being printed.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I do not know if I am the spokesperson for this side of the House, but a report which was in the hands of the government for six months and which was sent to translation in late March by ourselves cannot still be in the printing process, so we would like to have a more serious answer. Perhaps we should give the minister time to consult his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), because this is a joint report, and perhaps the minister could give us a more thorough answer tomorrow.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be pleased to do that. As I indicated, the report has been out of the hands of my department now for many, many weeks. I understood it to be in translation and in printing. However, I will undertake to speak with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), and we will determine where the report is. I will give an answer to the House as soon as I can.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 92, 152, 170, 267, 466 and 477.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Allard: 1.	Since 1975, did the Department of Transport finance projects in the constituency of Rimouski 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. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: 1.	Yes
(a)	1976 (1) Light and lighthouse-Pointe-au-Pere
(2) An embankment around the reservoir- Pointe-au-Pere
1977 (1) Installation of lines and lights-Rimouski wharf
1979 (1) 3 additional buoys
(b)	(i) $51,300
(ii) 1976 (1) $25,200 (2) $1,900 1977 (1) $11,200 1979 (1) $13,000
(c)	Pointe-au-Pere and Rimouski
2.	Yes
(a)	Anticipated costs of planned projects $9,000
(b)	Range day marker-St. Fabien Range day marker-Rimouski Range day marker-Barnabe


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of the Canadian market for agricultural machinery was served by imports in (a) 1970 (b) 1974 (c) 1977?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: Statistics Canada reports that the percentage of the Canadian market for agricultural machinery served by imports was: 75.8 per cent in 1970 91.2 per cent in 1974 and 91.4 per cent in 1977
[Mr. Epp.J
November 28, 1979


Mr. Herbert: Since March 31, 1978, did the Post Office Department authorize the construction of any buildings for its use in the province of Quebec and, if so, in what locations and at what cost?
Motions for Papers 1977-1978- 12,199,083 1976-1977- 14,844,551 1975-1976- 26,050,188 1974-1975- 51,425,654


John Allen Fraser: Yes.
Location
Degelis Evain Grenville Les Escoumins Matane
Montreal "Pierrefonds" Quebec "Beauport" Ragueneau
St. Charles sur Richelieu Vercheres
Estimated Cost $
234.000
185.000
295.000 117,500
245.000
1.030.000
1.080.000 85,000
133.000
280.000
While approval has been given to Public Works Canada, the actual start of construction is dependent on regional priorities and the availability of funding.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: 
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, would you please be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 21 and 32?


Mr. Knowles: Has the Minister of Finance, or the inspector-general of Banks acting for the minister, since April 6, 1978, had any discussions with the chartered banks in which the point has been made that the pensions paid by the banks to their retired employees ought to be escalated annually by an amount at least equal to the rise in the cost of living and, if so, can the minister say whether the chartered banks are implementing this practice with respect to their retired employees and, if not, have they made any improvement in this regard since the last time there was a report thereon, as indicated on page 4203 of Hansard for April 6, 1978? April 6, 1978?


John Carnell Crosbie: No. It is not
government policy to impose conditions on private pension plans beyond those contained in the Pension Benefits Standards Act. I am, however, advised that the chartered banks are continuing to pursue the previously reported practice of making supplementary payments to their older pensioners with increases in the cost of living being the primary factor in the determination of the amount of the supplement.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past Five years, what amount was transferred to the Defence Production Revolving fund?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Supply and Services):: None.


Mr. Herbert: As at March 31 in each of the past five years, what amount was outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of the Defence Production Revolving fund?


Roch La Salle: 1978-1979-$11,087,811
TRANSPORT-AIR SAFETY Motion No. 21-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest study or investigation on air safety, air safety standards, air safety inspection and air safety regulations of the Department of Transport.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the answer of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is as follows: The documents requested are of a voluminous character and would require an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare. However, I invite the hon. member to visit the department at which time our files containing the required documents will be made available to him for perusal.
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Herbert:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
OFFSHORE RESOURCES Motion No. 32-Miss Nicholson:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, documents, telegrams and letters relative to the transfer to coastal provinces the jurisdiction over offshore resources since May 22, 1979.


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, a number of items coming within motion No. 32 have already been made public, and I take pleasure in tabling these now. The other material relates to ongoing negotiations with the provinces, and it would not be in the interest of those negotiations to table them at this time.
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw her motion.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the motion could be transferred for debate.

November 28, 1979
Private Members' Business


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, last week you requested that I look into the matter of the delay for translation purposes regarding motion for production of documents No. 20. 1 would like to report briefly on the status of that matter.
Having made an inquiry, I believe it is fair to say that there has been no attempt to delay on the part of the government or by any public servant. The document is 200 pages long, and I believe it will take until approximately December 19 to have it translated. We agreed to produce it before appreciating the translation problem, and then the problem resulted.
On the general principle, may 1 just say that in the future we will not agree to table documents until they have been fully prepared.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of the production of documents, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary can tell us what success he has had with his request of the government of the province of Quebec to get the release of documents which the government indicated some five weeks ago it was prepared to table if it had the approval of the government of the province of Quebec.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I am not able to give the hon. member any information on that today, but 1 will look into the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NEW PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS OFFICE

Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day 1 wish to advise the House on a matter of procedure.
Shortly after the appointment of Dr. Koester as the new Clerk of this House he set about to initiate a number of practices which might facilitate the operation of the business of the House. This has nothing to do with changes in procedures, discussions of possible changes in procedure, the white paper, for example, tabled by the government last Friday, or any of the work of the standing committee at all. It is not founded on any changes in procedure of any sort.
There is one of such initiatives, however, of Dr. Koester's which is now ready to be put in operation, and that is a private members' business office. It brings together the Deputy Speaker, one of the Table officers and an existing facility, which, within the existing regulations, will process the private members' business. It is strictly in order to facilitate further the conduct of private members' business that Dr. Koester is in the process of establishing the private members' business office. The function of the office will be to assist the Chair on procedural matters relating to private members' business and,
in addition, to advise and assist the members themselves in the conduct of that business.
1 might add that this decision is the result of several discussions which I have had with Dr. Koester and other officers of the House throughout the course of the fall, and it is intended to assist the House with respect to whatever arrangement the House might wish to follow regarding private members' business.
Members, therefore, should be able to avail themselves of this office in the future. It will become a clearing house, as it were, for private members' business, and it will also become a repository of what we hope will be a consistently collected body of opinion respecting procedural decisions from the Chair concerning private members' business.
As I said, it does not in any way change the rights of members to deal with private members' business and the rights of the House in any way. It is simply there to facilitate a collection of the existing jurisprudence on private members' business and to have a group involving the Chair, the Table, and members who are consistently involved in the conduct of private members' business. We hope that it will continue, under Dr. Koester's initiative, to serve the House better in the conduct of its business.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 27, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that Bill C-20, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) introduced Bill C-20 on November 19 last, he told us he was doing that to give financial help to home owners and people who wish to become home owners. He said, and I quote from page 1461 of Hansard:
This is not an income redistribution measure, this is not an income measure, this is a measure to do with home ownership; with owning a home and with assisting the people of Canada in becoming home owners . . .
Mr. Speaker, the minister is misleading himself stupidly or trying to mislead the House stupidly because in fact one has to be stupid to suggest that, considering the present economic situation, this bill will convince Canadians to buy houses. I think that the Minister of Finance is indeed an intelligent man, that he is not stupid. Therefore, I am led to conclude that he is

November 28, 1979

in fact bound by another election promise by his leader and that unfortunately he can only show off and waste public moneys under the cover of a noble purpose. Obviously it is a noble purpose to help people become home owners, but the Minister of Finance knows quite well that he is making an error by introducing this bill which in fact will encourage nobody to buy a house in such an economic situation. Indeed, editor James G. Ripley of Canadian Building described that situation quite well in his article for the October issue, and 1 quote:

The mortgage interest deductibility scheme, which raised such high expectations during the election campaign, has become as explosive as other hastily improvised "promises" of that time such as the embassy move to Jerusalem and the privatization of Petro-Canada. The reasons are the same: MID was a badly conceived idea, proposed for the wrong reasons, and introduced at the worst possible time.
MID has been condemned by virtually every serious study. Benefits are limited and temporary, but the costs are massive and perpetual. It is a cumbersome, discriminatory, and counterproductive allocation of capital resources. It will distort the tax structure, rental sector, and money markets. And it will increase house costs, interest rates, property taxes, inflation, individual debt and federal deficits.
The reason for this massive subsidy is unadulterated political patronage-the purchase of a few votes in the last election, and a stubborn insistence on paying the "debt" with public funds.
There is an hon. member on the other side who asked: "why did you not promise the same thing?" My answer is that we were more responsible and that we were not there to buy votes.


Mr. Friesen:: Tell that to Kaplan.


André Ouellet: The article goes on to read:
To keep this one promise, the government will be forced to renege on three much more important promises, namely:
-That MID would cost only (!) $1.6 billion a year-an impossible "promise"
even when it was made.
-That the federal deficit would be reduced-MID alone will increase it 25
per cent.
-That inflation control would be the government's top priority.
Building industry leaders were commendably restrained in their support of this latest handout. But even their main reservation-that someone else should pay for it-falls short of the discipline that will be necessary to maintain a healthy building industry.

Mr. Speaker, that irresponsible and shady promise of the Progressive Conservative leader is condemned by experts in both the private sector and the Canadian government. Indeed, in a recent study made by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the deduction of mortgage interest, the conclusions of those government experts are quite harsh for the Clark proposal, and I quote:

A program of mortgage interest deductibility will clearly have a number of implications affecting different sectors of the economy. Most of these appear to be undesirable, as noted.
The last sentence of this study, which has not yet been released by this so-called open government, reads as follows at page 23 of the report:
Mortgage Tax Credit
The recommendation emanating from the discussion of this paper is that a scheme of mortgage interest deductibility should not be introduced in Canada.

Such is the recommendation made by government experts. This, Mr. Speaker, would no doubt explain the rather surprising silence of the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The bill is being considered in the House since November 19 last. Today is November 28. However, the minister who is responsible for housing in Canada has not yet spoken on this bill, the bill which is supposed to be the most important measure of the new government to solve housing problems in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore wonder why the minister responsible for housing remains silent. Why has he not yet spoken about this bill? When will he do so? I know the answer. The minister does not want to speak because he does not believe in this bill. All the experts, the public servants and his provincial colleagues responsible for housing, have told him the same thing-this bill is wrong.
Unfortunately he is also shackled by the nonsensical promises of his leader. He must also support a government which has the audacity to introduce such unfair, useless and costly legislation. 1 have now noted that he has not spoken in this debate. Perhaps he will come to the House tomorrow or the day after to tell us reluctantly that he supports this bill and believes that it is a good bill, but this will be play-acting, Mr. Speaker. It will be simply a theatrical gesture such as the Minister of Finance is so good at doing.
The minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not delude us if he takes part in this debate because he inadvertently revealed his thoughts in committee to my colleague, the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), who asked him this question during consideration of the estimates of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation:
Mr. Minister, I would like to know whether you really intend to develop a true housing policy for Canada. When I speak about a true policy, I mean a policy which would consider not only home owners but also tenants, who account for nearly four million Canadians, because if we look at the mortgage tax credit and rebate policy, we can see that it is a policy strictly to the advantage of home owners and to the detriment of tenants.
Mr. Speaker, the minister replied quite candidly:

Well, that is true, sir. It certainly favours and discriminates towards those who own or want to own homes . . . when are we going to have a real housing policy in Canada? 1 think we have had a housing policy in this country that served us reasonably well to this point. As I said earlier, I think we can improve it.

November 28, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
In saying that he wanted to improve it, the minister does not say that he wants this piece of legislation to be passed. Here is what he said:
I think there are things that we can do to improve it.
He was talking about a national housing policy in Canada. He continued:
One of the things that you mentioned is important, and that is, what can we do to assist renters, which are particularly numerous in the province of Quebec, as you know.
That is the minister responsible for housing who should be supporting this piece of legislation, but has not yet found time to speak on this legislation. He continued:
I think one of the logical things there that we can work toward is some sort of shelter allowance. I am attracted by this concept. I think it can be used in the field of public housing as well in order to supplement the traditional approach that has existed up to this point.

Well, there it is. The minister told us what he really thinks and, I say so very openly, I congratulate him. He was honest enough to recognize the faults of this bill introduced by the Minister of Finance. He was shrewd enough to identify a logical and fair way of complementing this legislation, making it better, making it fairer and more useful.
1 now ask, will he have the courage to introduce amendments to this legislation to make it a truly efficient tool capable of solving the real housing problems in Canada? I look forward to that. I hope he will have the courage, and particularly the political clout, to convince his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that his bill is bad. For our part, Mr. Speaker, we are determined to fight this legislation. If the government wants to change its mind, if it wants to amend this legislation, if it wants to set up a comprehensive housing policy in Canada, here again we will be pleased and eager to support it. But in the meantime we are going to continue to say this is an unfair, a useless and particularly costly piece of legislation. This piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is unfair in that it is biased in favour of the privileged classes in society. Let us remember that the Tory leader made that darned promise on the eve of byelections in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Montreal urban and suburban ridings to get a few votes from suburban owners.
The tragedy, Mr. Speaker, is that this has been made into a national policy applicable to all Canadians, both urban and rural, owners and tenants alike, but suitable for only a small number, the richest, the most privileged in our society. That is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and I find it is absolutely typical of the Progressive Conservative Party, the party of the multinationals, the party of the oil companies, the party of the more privileged in our society. But I say it is an unfair piece of legislation because it does not meet the needs of too great a number of Canadians. This legislation is unfair to all tenants in my riding of Montreal-Papineau, unfair as well to all other tenants in Canada. It is unfair to all retired people who no longer have a mortgage, who have been able to pay back their

mortgages and who particularly today, at the end of their lives, do not intend to get into debt to benefit from this selective measure of a heartless but politically ambitious Conservative government.
This measure is also superfluous. With the rocketing interest rates it is even less necessary. When we were hit with a three to four per cent leap in interest rates, that meant that one million home owners were left out of the real estate market. They were not attracted to the real estate market as the Progressive Conservative Party, the present government, had hoped. They were excluded from the market because interest rates are much too high. In fact, we must remember this: about four months ago, a family anxious to buy a house with a mortgage of $60,000 needed a yearly income of about $24,000 to realize its dream. Today, to buy the same house, it needs an income of close to $32,000. Such is the result of the economic policy of Progressive Conservatives who allowed an indecent increase in interest rates in Canada. I say this measure is not necessary in the present economic conditions, but with one hand the Progressive Conservative government would like to give some home owners a few hundred dollars, to be exact at most $375 this year, but with the other hand would take away from the same owners $500 to $600 through the higher energy costs that they are arranging behind the scenes with Premier Lougheed of Alberta. So, for all these reasons, this measure is useless, failing as it does to meet the real needs in the housing field. It contains nothing for those who pay too much rent, for those who live in substandard dwellings. We know, for instance, that in urban sectors about 150,000 families are living in unduly small or inadequate dwellings. They cannot afford better shelter unless they spend more than 30 per cent of their income for that purpose. Only 73,000 of all families are living in dwellings that might be improved. Others would have to move to find a decent home. Canada also has about 383,000 decent and spacious units costing more than 30 per cent of income, but obviously that is too expensive. This proposal does not answer the problem.
In presenting this legislation, the Minister of Finance said that in 1982, the last phase of the program, it would cost $2.87 billion. It is much more than expected by the Progressive Conservative Party when it made that electoral promise. It is a shameful waste of public funds, particularly within a context of budgetary restrictions. It is absolutely unjustifiable when spending must be viewed from a thrifty angle. When answering the Minister of Finance, my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), made a proposal that would alleviate the housing problems of Canadians, help three times as many Canadians as would the proposal of the Minister of Finance and be half as costly as the Progressive Conservative program.
Briefly, here are the five major points in my colleague's proposal: a housing allowance program for senior citizens and
November 28, 1979

single parent families; a special assistance program for needy families to compensate for rising heating and electricity costs; a temporary reduction in interest rates paid by home owners who must renegotiate their mortgage-this is one of the major problems which this proposal does not answer adequately- assistance programs for buyers of new homes to stimulate the housing industry; and last, subsidies for the construction of rental units in metropolitan areas where the occupancy rate is very low.
Mr. Speaker, those are five proposals put forward by the official housing critic of the Liberal party, which in my opinion deal much more adequately with the present housing problems in Canada than that weird proposal by the Progressive Conservative government, a proposal which is a remnant of some hasty electoral promises put together and in a way forcing the Progressive Conservative government to act.
This government has had to beat a retreat on its promise to move the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. They are now looking for a compromise in order not to carry out their promise about Petro-Canada. They have already changed in part their general mortgage interest deductibility proposal. They have changed a very large part of the deductibility project to make it a tax credit. It is an important part already of that promise that has been changed. If the Progressive Conservatives are conscientious and courageous, they should recognize their error in this area as in others. What is called for is not a slight alteration in the promise, but outright recognition that the proposal does not meet the needs. The minister in charge of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation should be given an opportunity to put forward a genuine policy meeting Canada's housing needs, a policy that would indeed fill the needs of those who would like to have their own home, those who have an uncertain view of the future because of the astronomical increase in the interest rates, those who could get no better promise than the assurance that, were they to buy a house, they would not be charged interest rates higher than a given figure throughout the repayment period. Therefore the government could implement a program of so-called shelter allowance, a housing supplement assistance program that would help both rental dwellers and home owners keep housing costs in Canada at an acceptable level.
I am thinking of a system that could help rental dwellers by allowing them to deduct from their income tax rental costs above a certain proportion of their income, say 25 per cent, and also a program that could help home owners through income tax deduction of housing costs incurred in the form of mortgage interests, property taxes, heating costs and insurance premiums, also at that 25 per cent of income level. I feel that any sensible policy helping not only the residential housing industry in Canada but also giving confidence to any Canadian wanting to own his or her own house would be to establish a system under which the individual would know in advance that he or she would not be confronted three, four or five years
Mortgage Tax Credit
hence with excessive extra costs that cannot be met. It is a matter of common sense, therefore, that the Minister of Finance in no way satisfies the people's needs with this camouflaged proposal. All he is doing is giving some sort of income tax rebate to a privileged few. 1 have no objection to the Minister of Finance granting tax benefits to some Canadians, whether it be $375 this year or $750 next year. If he wants to let some Canadians pay less income tax, that is his privilege. But I do have serious objections to the fact that the Minister of Finance uses this technique to lower the income tax of certain people, not of all Canadian taxpayers, that he does not act frankly and unequivocally for everybody. If he wants to lower taxes, that is fine, but he should not, by the back door and underhandedly, try to favour a privileged few and at the same time try to convince us that what he is proposing is an adequate policy for solving Canada's housing problems.
In my view, that is just not good enough. Such a measure prevents the implementation of a real housing policy. It is unacceptable and inadequate, and it is something that we are subjected to only because the leader of the government, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, has made unacceptable election promises to gain a few votes in towns and suburbs around large Canadian cities. That is not worthy of the leader of a government. Now that he is Prime Minister of this country, he should be honest enough to recognize, as he did in the case of the embassy move to Jerusalem, that he made a mistake; and in this case, that he will amend the act and ask the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to introduce real amendments that will help solve the real housing problems in Canada. Then we shall be very happy to support an over-all housing policy in Canada, which should serve well not only a few privileged home owners who live in certain areas of the country but all Canadians, in all parts of the country, and benefit them whether they are owners or tenants, whether they live in cities or in rural areas; then we shall be only too happy to support the government, if it has the courage to do what it must.
But if it persists in pursuing this silly short-term policy, we will have no choice but to denounce it and say that this is horse trading, that this is a shameful policy, that we condemn this way of managing the affairs of the state, of squandering the taxpayers' money, of wasting it to favour only a few of the already privileged to the detriment of thousands of Canadians who are in need, really in need, of decent housing, at a reasonable price, and whom the Progressive Conservative Party completely ignores, for it is heartless: it has nothing but political debts.


Hon. Waiter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I see that the

November 28, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) is engaged in his usual amount of polemics, of fire and brimstone with respect to government actions. Perhaps he is learning at long last-and he is one of the swifter learners-the job of the opposition. I say that because what the hon. member has not said in all of the polemic is where he stands with respect to the bill. I wonder if the hon. member's neglect in mentioning his stand in his speech today breathes some life into the headline which I saw in The Globe and Mail this morning that perhaps the Liberal caucus is split on what to do with respect to this bill.
We have heard speaker after speaker say that they do not like the bill, that if they were in government they would do it a little differently. I am beginning to wonder, considering that they were in government for 16 years, just why they did not do it a little differently. This idea of a property tax credit or mortgage tax credit is not a new idea. It has been in existence in the United Kingdom and the United States for a great number of years. When I hear the hon. member for Papineau, who was once the minister responsible for housing in a government that has gone west into the sunset, so to speak,-


An hon. Member:: Not for long.


Walter David Baker: -I must ask the question: if an expansion of this bill was such a good thing, then where were they for the last 16 years?


Mr. Stollery:: It is a bad thing; 100 per cent bad.


Walter David Baker: Where was the former government when it became evident that, as a result of its policies, the burdens on home owners were becoming larger and larger, municipal taxes were becoming heavier and interest rates were going up? Why did they not bring forward, for instance, the bill that they chucked on the order paper at the last minute with respect to municipal grants? That bill died when this country went into an election. What did they do with respect to relief for home owners?
What is galling to this group, Mr. Speaker, is that my party and my leader, who they never believed could beat the invincible, came to office with a promise of relief to home owners. This debate when it is terminated will result in the passing of a bill that will, for the first time, give some relief to the home owners in this country. I do not know where the members of that party have been.


Peter A. Stollery: Penalize the poor.


Walter David Baker: I hear the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), who makes his best speeches sitting down and from somebody else's seat, as he is now.


Peter A. Stollery: You weren't here yesterday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I think that the House should extend to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) the courtesy of allowing him to complete his remarks. I noticed that the previous speaker, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), was not interrupted, and the same courtesy should be extended to the President of the Privy Council.


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can understand that the embarrassment of some hon. members would lead to a certain amount of heckling and, if it is sensible, I can take it. Unfortunately, the heckling by the hon. member was not very sensible, and if he would allow me to complete my speech I would be grateful. When he stands up to speak in this debate, I will listen to him. It is a matter of courtesy.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) has just said that when I get up to speak on this matter he will listen to me. If he took the time to read Hansard or visit the House from time to time when business of this nature is taking place, he would have noticed that I spoke for 30 minutes on this subject yesterday.


An hon. Member:: And nobody noticed.


Walter David Baker: Yes, as somebody said, nobody noticed.
The hon. member for Papineau said that this bill constituted a waste of public money. I hope that that is not the attitude of the Liberal party, that a reasonable amount of tax relief for a segment of the population of this country is a waste of public money. That is not the attitude of the entire Liberal party, but still the question must be asked; where does this party stand? How will this party vote on second reading? I have read and reread all the speeches up to yesterday, and I have heard hon. members opposite talk against the bill, but not one of them has said where they will stand when it comes to the vote on second reading. That is a very important thing for the people of this country to know.
I have heard nothing but expressions of anger, despair and so on from that party with respect to this bill. I would like someone in authority within the party-and not the member for Spadina, but somebody in authority-to stand today and tell us where the party stands. Perhaps it could be one of the leadership candidates.


Mr. Knowles:: Maybe he is one.


Walter David Baker: The Liberal party has been divided for some period of time on this issue. I can recall reading in The Globe and Mail comments made by a Mr. Greenspan-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Walter David Baker: Well, I will not mention him. 1 will mention the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). The hon. member for York Centre during the election campaign mentioned the idea of giving property owners a break with respect to municipal taxes. I can remember reading in The Globe and Mail that the member for York Centre, in trying to jump on the bandwagon, wanted to come to Ottawa to urge that policy upon the leadership of his party. I do not

November 28, 1979

know what has happened to the urgings of the hon. member, but at least the hon. member for Papineau is against this thing, although he has not told us how the party will vote.
After we hear all the speeches about the people of Canada being opposed to this legislation, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Phillips) has sent out a questionnaire to his constituents. The questionnaire is called "A Report from Parliament" and it is dated December, 1979. I do not know how some hon. members can sit on the fence without splitting the seat of their pants. They must come to a conclusion sometime because there will be a vote with respect to this bill very shortly. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre began his questionnaire:
The response to the questionnaire in our last newsletter has been tremendous-thank you for the many comments attached.
The latest results, dated December, 1979, from the Liberal riding of Vancouver Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not December yet.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that it is not December yet, but nonetheless that is the date on the questionnaire.
One of the questions in the questionnaire is:
Do you think mortgage interest should be deductible from taxable income?
The number of respondents who said yes to that question amounted to 60 per cent of the people who replied.
Other questionnaires conducted by other members of this party and parties on all sides of the House have indicated quite clearly that the Canadian people accept, as a beginning to a range of home owner benefits, the proposal for a property tax credit advanced by this party. That is what is concerning the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker. It is why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) said it was an exceedingly important bill for this government with respect to its commitments to the Canadian people.
We can find quotations to support both sides of this issue. There are economists and public commentators who have said the bill is unwise; there are an equal number of economists and public commentators who have said it is at least a worth-while experiment, and there are others who go beyond that and say it is a wise move and a good beginning to a legislative program that will help home owners. There are economists on all sides of the issue, but economists and tax experts do not make up the majority of the Canadian people.
I should like to recount an experience during the election campaign as 1 went door to door in a single family area of my
Mortgage Tax Credit
riding, known as Briargreen. As we were going up the street a man ran out of his house and greeted us. He said he was in the midst of making out his income tax return and, Mr. Speaker, he was furious. I was very happy at that point to be a member of the opposition rather than a member of the government. He had read about the property tax credit and the mortgage deductibility scheme. He said, "Mr. Baker, does your party mean to do this?" I replied, "Yes, we do. You can count on it." If that gentleman is listening, or if he reads Hansard, I should like to tell him that this bill is the answer to his question. We intend to deal with this piece of legislation.
There are some people who say this bill will not benefit people who live in apartments. That is right. Many people who would like to have a choice of housing are denied that choice because of a whole host of things, many of which are far beyond the control of government. Other people live in apartments because they like them, although many choose to move out of apartments if they can.
This bill will provide encouragement to the construction industry. It is not the end of the encouragement that can be provided, but it shows that the government cares about the proposition of home ownership as a beginning with respect to construction, leading ultimately to the shelter tax that everyone talks about. Who in this House will condemn the beginning of some relief for home owners? That is the issue, Mr. Speaker. No one on this side of the House has said that this bill constitutes the last word with respect to the alleviation of the problems of home ownership. It is one of the steps toward that end, and I ask my friends on all sides of the House to consider it from that point of view. I think this is important.
The hon. member for Papineau said that high interest rates in Canada make this proposition, and the government's approach, useless. Mr. Speaker, I think this makes it more relevant. How can anyone argue, when interest rates are rising, that anything designed to alleviate high interest rates is not important? When municipal taxes are rising, how can anyone argue that some alleviation is not important? I think it is becoming more relevant all the time.
In answer to questions in this House, the Minister of Finance has said he thinks that in the long run interest rates will come down. That is already evident in the mortgage market. If one accepts even part of the argument of the hon. member for Papineau, it is clear that as mortgage interest rates come down, this bill will have a greater effect.
This party did not choose the property tax approach by accident, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members on all sides of the House recognize the difficulty of dealing with the provinces in this matter. The property tax credit was the only way to deal with them. This method was chosen because it has impact on people in the lower income brackets to a greater degree than on people in the higher income bracket. I suppose that is why the Gallup poll has indicated that about 70 per cent of Canadians are behind the scheme. The poll does not discriminate between apartment dwellers and home owners. Colleagues of mine have received 80 per cent and 90 per cent returns in favour of the proposition. The hon. member for

November 28, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
Vancouver Centre found that 60 per cent of those replying thought it was a good proposition and worthy of support.
This is the first time that the tax system of the country has been used to give some relief to this segment of the community. There are a great number of programs for those who are disadvantaged. Indeed, I think this country is in the lead in programs for the disadvantaged. The really wealthy do not need programs in the way that the disadvantaged do. There is a group of Canadians who traditionally have borne a large portion of the cost for such programs, and that is middle income Canadians. As wages improve and the differential between wage groups and occupations decreases, that group is growing in number.
I hope there is no one in this House who will vote against this bill which is a first step toward relief of property taxes. The hon. member for Papineau referred to the statement of the minister responsible for housing, to the effect that we are working toward a shelter allowance. Of course we are. There would be a shelter allowance already but the fact is we do not have the fiscal stability to put this in place nor are we likely to have it for some time. But this is the first step in that direction. Surely to goodness no one in this House will vote against it. If they do, they are flying in the face of the opinion of most Canadians.
I want to address another aspect of the bill, Mr. Speaker, relating to my responsibility as Minister of National Revenue. It is up to the House whether this bill is passed, and this is a minority House. The bill would be administered by my department, and I should like to address certain technical aspects of the implementation of the program so that members on all sides of the House will know the position in which the government is placed.
A short time ago my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested, almost in an aside, that the government may already have printed the tax forms even though the debate had not begun. I want to tell the House that my hon. friend was quite correct, and I want to tell the House why. He has been here for a long time and he knew he was right when he put the question in the aside.
I do think it is appropriate that I leave the impression that the forms with respect to the property tax credit are ready, and had to be so. I want to tell members why that is the case so that they will understand. Canadian taxpayers will be receiving a form in a relatively few days which will contain the property tax credit deduction lines. I want to tell them as well so that they know about some innovations with respect to the form. As a result of the work of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie), the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Grafftey), in his former capacity as minister of state for social programs, and officials of my department, there is a simplified approach in the general form to the child tax credit provision. We hope that we will not run into problems that ail members have experienced with respect to the last matter in terms of the printing that has to be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question before he leaves that point?


Walter David Baker: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate his frankness in answering that question even though I asked it in a way which showed that I knew the answer. But does this mean, the forms having been designed and printed, that the government will not accept any amendments to the legislation?


Walter David Baker: Perhaps I could answer that question best by continuing my speech. If the hon. member is not satisfied with what occurs in it, he will see the position that we are in now.
Hon. members opposite made a picture of a printing press at the ready to incorporate their amendments into a new tax form to run off the returns the moment this bill has been given royal assent. They may suggest, since they have clearly declared their intention not to pass Bill C-20, that no returns should be mailed out. I anxiously await the pleasure of the House with respect to the bill, quite naturally, because my department will be administering it. Unfortunately, I cannot await the pleasure of the House with respect to the forms.
In a normal taxation year, labelling and enveloping of returns would start on October 8 and be delivered to the Post Office with mailing to be completed by the end of December. Processing of these returns would begin in early February, and refund cheques would begin to go out at that time. As a department our peak activity happens to be around mid-March.
There have been delays this year because a form had to be designed for a mortgage interest and property tax schedule. It had to be redesigned, printed and enveloped with the return. As well, the main form had to include a reference to that schedule so that the taxpayer, when he receives it, will receive a form that has the lines and the reference to the schedule to assist him in preparing the property tax credit aspect of that form. Therefore, this year enveloping started about November 21-not a significant delay having regard to the problems- and mailing must take place at the beginning of next week if delays are not built up. As the matter stands right now, refund cheques will be two weeks later than usual. If there is a delay in getting this bill through parliament, that refund period will be put back even further.
1 should give my friends in the House some indication of the volume that we are talking about. The printing of the tax forms is a huge task; it is a monumental task. There are 15 million packages now prepared, each one containing a label, a pre-addressed tax form containing a tax guide, a separate property tax schedule, and a return envelope. In addition to this, other forms must be made available through post offices across the country.
We gave consideration to the possibility of delaying the mailing of the forms until Bill C-20 passed, in case it did not pass. I want to tell the House that we gave consideration in the department to that. Recognizing that the bill might not pass,
November 28, 1979

we felt that in the interests of all taxpayers we could not introduce a long delay in the tax return cycle. Such a delay would be hard not only to those planning to apply for the new deductions, but also to all taxpayers.
This past year 11,370,000 refunds were issued for a total of $4.5 billion. Not all these refunds went to taxpayers in the strictest sense because these returns are sent in as part of the various income maintenance schemes across the country, both nationally and provincially. For example, in the federal child tax credit scheme there are about 800,000 of those. Then there is the Ontario property sales and pensioners' tax credits, the Manitoba cost of living and property tax credit, the Alberta rental assistance credit, the British Columbia rental tax credit, and a shelter tax credit in the province of Saskatchewan. The delay of the refunds would cause hardship for thousands of people for whom a refund is more than just a spring bonus.
I do not have to tell any member of this House how important is the child tax credit to many single parents. I do not have to tell any member of this House how important and how significant a delay can be. Therefore, as a government, we really had no alternative. In all probability, the April 30 deadline would have had to be extended. In some cases, some loss of income might result. Even if a delay in mailing the forms took place, the government would have been unable to do little if Bill C-20 were to be defeated by whatever means. The opening and restuffing of 15 million envelopes, or the reprinting of certain lines in the returns, is just not a practical alternative. For all of these reasons, the government has little choice but to mail the tax forms, and this will be done, as 1 have indicated, in the very near future.
Hon. members are probably aware that this has been done before in anticipation of eventual passage. Clearly the present situation with a minority government is different. I want to tell the House that by ordering the forms to be sent, I am not presuming passage of the bill. That does not lie with my department or me, it lies with members of this House of Commons. In fact, I have listened to and read speeches of hon. members opposite. Their determination not to pass the bill is quite evident. I felt, quite frankly, that I ought to come to the House and indicate to my colleagues on all sides of the House the situation and the circumstances behind it.
This obviously raises the question: what happens if the opposition is denying the tax deduction to the people of Canada, at least for the year 1979? I think the Minister of Finance made it clear, and we have made it clear, that we want this bill. The whole purpose of this bill is to apply it to the taxes of ratepayers, property owners, for the year 1979, which would be utilized by them in the spring of 1980 when they file their tax returns for 1979.
If there is a delay, that would require the Department of National Revenue to do several things. First, we would have to launch a publicity campaign telling the taxpayers to ignore the mortgage interest and property tax schedule. Quite frankly, I would regret this since the government is trying to cut back on advertising. I would say to you that we would not want to be flooded with several million returns claiming a deduction
Mortgage Tax Credit
which is just not there. So we would have no alternative but to embark on an advertising compaign. From my brief experience as Minister of National Revenue 1 can safely predict that an endless stream of correspondence about a tax deduction that never came about would have to be answered by me as the departmental minister responsible-and I would certainly answer all this correspondence truthfully, as hon. members would expect me to do.
Second, we would program the computer to ignore this particular deduction should it be claimed, and I predict that computers would be just as unpopular as would be the House of Commons, in particular some hon. members who are sitting over there on the other side.
I have to tell the House that the sending of the forms early next week arises from necessity and normal practice, and in no way denies the House the right to make a decision on this matter. If the opposition decides to defeat this measure I hope members over there will understand the need to conduct an advertizing campaign to prevent a build-up at taxation data centres of several million erroneous returns. I felt that in advance of a question period in the spring of 1980 1 should tell hon. members that right now. I am hopeful, of course, that the opposition will not deny this tax advantage to home owners in Canada.
I do not see anything wrong, in fact, I see a great deal that is right, in encouraging home ownership. Ownership of a home is a provision for the present and a protection for the future. Home ownership is not an unnatural desire among Canadians and it behoves the government, within the limits of its ability financially in any one year, to promote it.
This is the first step in a program which attempts to assist toward reaching a goal which we consider desirable, that is, home ownership, by at least giving the option, the choice, to Canadians. It is not just Canadians in the large cities, it is not just Canadians who live in apartments in large cities; it is Canadians who live on farms, Canadians who live in small towns and hamlets, Canadians everywhere who want the choice. They will have the benefits of this bill. However imperfect it may seem to be, that is the choice this government wants to begin to give. It was announced a long time ago. I think ownership of a home is a very tangible expression of accomplishment and of a commitment to community. It is an expression of it only; it is not a commitment but it is an expression of it and we think it is an expression worth fostering.
With respect to the amendment the hon. gentleman talked about, let me say this. He knows there are limitations which govern the moving of amendments, limitations under the rules with respect to the amending of tax bills. And they would apply to the bill before us. The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) indicated we were prepared to consider amendments. But I would have to say that to amend this scheme this year would so foul it up from the administration point of view as to render the whole process of this first step difficult. Indeed, in terms of

November 28, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
delay, it could become meaningless. 1 see no way by which we could amend this scheme today to bring in the shelter tax allowance scheme, if that is the kind of amendment members over there are talking about-I see the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) nodding his head. Physically, it could not be done.
1 want to say to the hon. member that he ought to regard this as a first step in a number of steps. The government is not unmindful of the reasonable comments which have be made with respect to the importance of the shelter tax allowance. I want to tell hon. members that through you, Mr. Speaker. But for the year 1979, both in terms of the ability of the government to pay and in the physical ability of the government to allow, it is just not feasible. There may be other amendments we can consider but they would have to be quite minor. I regret having to put that as being the position of the government, and I do so from the point of view of my responsibilities as Minister of National Revenue.
I am sure all hon. members, knowing the background of the Minister of Finance and knowing the concern he has for people and the fairness of the tax system, understand he would want to do everything he could with respect to the tax system if that was allowed to him. But the government is under certain constraints financially and that is not possible this year. 1 would not say it would not be possible in other years, nor do I say the government would not consider it in other years. As the hon. member for Papineau indicated in his speech, the minister responsible for housing is quoted as saying the government does have this matter under review. And, of course, it does. But this is a first step and, as a first step, I ask members in all quarters of the House to support it recognizing, as I do, the differences of opinion which may exist philosophically.
That is the reason I got into this debate, Mr. Speaker. 1 felt it was quite important that all members of the House of Commons should understand the unavoidable problems of the Department of National Revenue with respect to the preparation of the forms and the problems which will result to the Canadian taxpayer in the event that this bill is defeated. I really felt it would be unfair if that point was not made by me. Quite frankly, if I can, I want to avoid questions in the spring of 1980, if this bill is defeated, by telling the House in advance what the problems are-questions related to the delay in returns and these other matters. 1 want to thank hon. members for their attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I asked the minister what this did to the possibility of any amendments in committee. He has now answered that, of course. He has told us that when we are in Committee of the Whole, proposing amendments, we are just wasting our breath. Nothing is going to happen.
1 would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) how he squares this stance with the document he tabled the other day as President of the Privy Council in which he said it was the intention of the government to increase the importance of the House of Commons. How does he square that with an announcement which tells us that from here on
there is no meaning to our debate and, incidentally, no meaning at all to the debate which will follow in the other place?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not the maker of this situation and 1 do not want to be held as casting any doubt on the role of the opposition in the House. Remember, I recently came from the opposition. But I would have liked very much to have been able to introduce, as the first piece of legislation before the House following the throne speech debate, the property tax credit legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should have called Parliament a lot earlier.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member says we should have called Parliament together earlier, yet he voted to put us out of office shortly after we got here. He should be consistent, too. What I am saying, though, is that 1 should have liked to have called that measure. As a result of the position in which we were left when the last Parliament was dissolved for the May 22 election, hon. members will know we had the whole estimates process in front of us and we still have the main estimates process to go through; we had to clear up the question of the borrowing authority which had run out, and there were a certain number of allotted days to which the opposition was entitled. Really, whether we like it or not, the beginning of this debate was the first part of the debate on a new legislative program.
The answer to the question is that as grateful as I am, and I am grateful-and I suppose other Canadians are grateful for the speed with which the House dealt with the spouse's allowance-it was a piece of legislation with which most people agreed, and this is a piece of legislation which has caused some controversy. I recognize the time limits. 1 would have liked very much to have begun with that legislation at the beginning, but we could not do it, and we brought it forward at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Campbell (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister entertain another question?


Walter David Baker: Yes.


John Campbell: Mr. Speaker, 1 would appreciate it if the minister would comment-I understand that the cost of the credits to home owners will run at around $2.7 billion, and I was just wondering if the minister might want to comment as to where the government will obtain the money to pay those credits.
Second, when can the House expect the government to bring in future legislation with respect to tenants, who are being ignored in this present bill?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the figure of $2.7 billion is the figure which I believe applies at the end of the four-year cycle. As the hon. member knows, it comes in in
(Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton).]
November 28, 1979

that period of time. Quite frankly, we have confidence in the ability of the Canadian economy to accommodate itself to that. Given the mind of the Minister of Finance, I know it would not be done if that was not possible in the judgment of the Minister of Finance.
The hon. gentleman asked another question. I have forgotten what it was.


John Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that this was only a segment of the total legislation to be brought in by his government, and I am just wondering when the House can expect that further legislation could be brought in to enhance further the position of tenants, who are being ignored in this present bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: I would like to draw to the attention of the minister that his time has expired and that he would be able to answer the question only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated to the House in the course of my speech, there was a matter under study, and in that I was quoting the minister responsible for housing, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay). That is the case. I cannot be precise with respect to it, but I want the hon. member and all hon. members to know that we are quite optimistic about the long-run prospects for the economy. We are monitoring the development of the economy, heartened by the fact that interest rates and mortgage rates have dropped a point in some sources. That is likely to be followed by other reductions. We are heartened by the strengthening of the dollar, and we are heartened by the courage of the Minister of Finance in not falling prey to blandishments for band-aids with respect to interest rates.
It is our belief that if that resolution of the Minister of Finance is continued and we have a reasonable shot at reducing the size of the deficit of the government, which we believe we will have, we will have that kind of program available for the House sooner rather than later. If I tried to fix a date with respect to the hon. member's question, I would be misleading him, and I do not want to do that, but I want him to understand that the government regards this as a first step with respect to the expansion of benefits to home owners.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make in this debate before its conclusion and the calling of the vote, which the hon. minister has indicated he is looking forward to with such anxiety.
I was concerned when the minister who has just spoken indicated that one of the reasons, in his view, that this government is called upon to take the step it is taking now to assist home owners, about which he claims such great anxiety, is that municipal taxes are going up. Although that particular concern may be laudable in itself, I have grave concern that what he is attempting to do is draw the whole federal system into a
Mortgage Tax Credit
debate from time to time and on an annual basis with municipalities and municipal taxpayers as to whether or not the federal government should be called upon, on an annual basis, to come to the aid of municipal taxpayers every year and each time taxes go up, as an opportunity for the federal government to provide, via some side door if not the back door, more assistance to municipalities through this kind of tax credit system. I cannot believe we are getting ourselves into a system which would see the federal jurisdiction trying to provide funds, in effect, for the payment of municipal taxes.
I cannot believe the naivete which would lead us into a position where municipalities would be asking on an annual basis for increases in this kind of assistance which would properly reflect the increases in taxes and mill rates going on in all of the townships, towns, villages and cities in this country. I am concerned about what the true basis for moving forward with this kind of legislation might be.
The minister also said that he has grave concern about, and interest in, providing reasonable relief for some segment, and that he could not understand that the hon. member for Papi-neau (Mr. Ouellet) would call this a waste. The fact that there is some assistance given is not in itself a waste, but it is a waste when we are dealing with a limited resource and when we cannot conceive of trying to priorize that resource and put it where it is most valuable and most needed. All of us individually, let alone with the assistance of the ministries behind the various government ministers, should be able to tell this government and itemize for this government a number of priorities which, all hon. members could agree, surely must come in advance of providing assistance to middle-income house owners, so-called, who seem to be targeted by this piece of legislation.
The minister asked that someone in authority give some indication as to where the vote is going. Well, whether or not I am someone in authority I will leave for someone else to tell, but with respect to the votes which I and all members who are here in the same manner as myself have to cast I make it quite clear at the outset-I start with this position and finish with it-that this particular piece of legislation is ill-advised, inappropriate, and untimely, and I intend to vote against it.
Home owners came to me during the campaign prior to May 22. Those people would be recipients of benefits, and they are part of that very restricted number of people who would get tax credits from this legislation. On the surface those people, like those of whom the minister spoke, came to me and said, "Doesn't this seem to be a good idea?" However, their interest in the idea was short-lived when they started reflecting on the cost and who in fact is going to bear that cost. By the minister's own admission, much of the tax burden in this country is borne by that same middle-income group which he says he is targeting.
If in fact the government is to reduce its income by the amount we have now heard, on the low end projected by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) and on the high end by many of the economists in this country, and even if we pick a mean, the persons who are going to be asked to pay for that

November 28, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
again will be middle-income people. I truly mean pay for it because, if the government does not have the revenues, then it will have to find the money elsewhere.
If they were not afraid to tell us where those revenues are to come from, why would ministers not have told us in advance of this legislation how it is to be paid for? I think that would have been the credible way to bring this legislation to the House. That would have provided us with at least that portion of the budget that showed how this legislation was to be paid for. But no, the approach of the Minister of Finance has been rather to try to sell us the proverbial pig in the poke. In effect he has said "Here is a wonderful idea. Reach into the bag and pull it out. Never mind how much it is going to cost. Never mind where we will find the money. Trust us."
They have indicated to me, and, I am sure, to most members on this side of the House, that they are not to be trusted. As a matter of fact they are to be feared, and we should not buy anything sight unseen. As a consequence, one of the greatest motivating factors for my voting against the bill is that they have not shown me they have any concept of priorities, and 1 am not prepared to tell them to go ahead with my blessing without having that kind of information in front of me. To do so would be totally irresponsible, and would not be fulfilling the role which I have been sent here to carry out.
I sat on the other side of the House with many of the members who sit here now, and 1 listened to the smooth tongue of the then House leader, now government House leader, when the government of the day was in the position of trying to take action that could have been, on reflection, somehow deprecating the position of the House. Today I could not believe that that same member could stand in the House and try to conceal himself behind the shallow argument of the administration in saying that, "First, I am sending out the forms; and second, no amendments can be made to the principle of the bill because obviously I would have to make announcements all over the place and we would not want to do that."
Finally, in response to the hon. member from Winnipeg, in terms of amendments in Committee of the Whole, he said, "Well, I have to admit that in fact even amendments of any substance at all cannot be accepted." That makes a mockery of the debate. I tell you, sir, that I thought very deeply about whether or not I should even stand up to add my voice to this debate because the suggestion has been made that this debate is absolutely meaningless.
Much worse is the suggestion that the other place as well should not have an opportunity to take a look at this. It is inconceivable, and if that had been done when the Acting Prime Minister was sitting on this side of the House, he would have gone from Vancouver to Halifax to decry such an action. So I think it is incumbent on us on this side of the House to decry that kind of action and to show what kind of disrespect this government has for this place while at the same time trying to stand up and say in what respect it holds this House.

I am concerned, indeed I am ashamed, that with this kind of legislation we should be trying to target one-third of the home owners of this country while leaving two-thirds of the population uncared for and out in the cold. This bill does nothing for the renters. I re-read the introductory remarks of the Minister of Finance at the start of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: If hon. members opposite have questions, perhaps they should ask them. If they have comments, perhaps they would like to add them to the debate. But when I am in the midst of speaking, I find it difficult to listen. I find it better to do one or the other in the House, either to speak or to listen.
This bill does nothing for the renters. When the Minister of Finance introduced the legislation, when he was put to the test of trying to answer how this bill was going to assist renters, he came up with the most convoluted argument which one can read in Hansard. He suggested that this was going to help the renters to get themselves out of the rental market and motivate them to move into the housing market.
Perhaps out of a great amount of charity I could go so far as to suggest to the minister that I could see some glimmer of truth to the argument if the conditions which existed when this government took office had continued to exist, particularly in terms of interest rates and in terms of what the cost of mortgages was at that time. But given the changed conditions, given the increases that have taken place, how could anyone who is in the position of renting take a look at the mortgage market and decide to jump in with both feet and get himself into the housing market?
The bankers who were interviewed last night on CBC have indicated just what kind of credulity is to be given to that argument, when they said that at the rates that have been established after the last increase in interest rates, some branches that had been processing 50 applications a week were now down to three. That is the kind of "jumping into the housing market with two feet" that renters were doing. They had virtually stopped, notwithstanding the fact that mortgage companies, forced by that kind of pressure and the increases in savings that are taking place, through no assistance from the government but because of pressures of the marketplace, have had to reduce those high interest rates marginally. They still do not have the mortgage applications and new housing starts, nor do they have new people coming into the housing market, that this minister says was one of the prime motivating factors for introducing this legislation. That reason for introducing this legislation went by the board and went out the window. It can no longer act as a support for bringing this legislation forward.
Let me return now to the point I mentioned in response to the position of the Acting Prime Minister. How is this particular legislation to be paid for? On whose backs is this legislation to be borne? Who benefits by it? We have heard the rumour- and it has been our experience in the House that when there is a rumour, some element of truth always seems to be at the foundation of the rumour-that benefits to UIC recipients in
November 28, 1979

this country will be restricted and that family allowances will also be restricted. I ask: is that why the government is unprepared to tell us how it is going to pay for this bill? Is that why the government is unprepared to tell us what government programs will be cut down or tightened up in order to pay for the first year, let alone the fourth year, of this particular bill? It is the pig in the poke syndrome. "Never mind how we are going to pay for it," says the Minister of Finance. "Don't worry about it, trust us", he says.


An hon. Member:: Remember Mirabel?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I wish 1 could find one face over there that I could trust.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: It is incredible. There are some members on the back benches who look a little more trustworthy than some in the front.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Obviously 1 have touched some tender nerves. Obviously I am getting to them.


An hon. Member:: You're dawdling.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: One of the great problems with this bill is the misallocation of a scarce resource. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) was in the House a few moments ago. I trust he is close by so that he will hear my next few words. They are meant to assist him and to give him some kind of constructive criticism from members on this side. I could speak of the widows-we have heard about them in the debate in the last two days-I could speak of the unattached, of the single family, of single parent families, all of whom surely should be targeted for assistance in advance of the group we are trying to assist now. We have heard about those numbers of people in this country, notwithstanding the advances made, who are still living below the poverty line. The government said that they can wait, they can take it easy, they can hold on, and they have to wait because "we have to go here first".
Coming close to my home, a $20 million industry is going belly up. There have been four bankruptcies in the last eight months. This industry to which I am referring will be impacted by the decisions taken in private yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the Premier of Alberta. 1 am referring to the greenhouse industry and the people who are trying to make livings from it. That industry contributes $20 million a year to the little constituency of Essex-Kent. It is going belly up because of energy prices. The Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn), for heaven knows how long, notwithstanding their confessions of "going to consult", "working on this problem hard", "we are really looking at it seriously", have not done one thing to cushion those people from the energy costs which will drive them out of business. Lest we believe
Mortgage Tax Credit
hon. members on the other side that that is unimportant and we can do without the $20 million industry, let one example be offered to them.
On the Toronto market last week, the wholesale price of greenhouse tomatoes went from $8 per 30-pound flat to $20 per 30-pound flat. This was because there was a shortfall in Canadian greenhouse tomatoes and because the only product available came from the United States. Who will bear the cost of that? It will be the consumers of this country who we are supposed to be representing. If the government is prepared to allow the industry of which I spoke to blow away, and go belly up, it will disappear. They are prepared to tell them, "You can wait too. We have $2.5 billion to put into this particular program, but you can wait". If they disappear, every consumer in the country will pay more for that particular product, because we will no longer have Canadian-source products. It will have the effect of moderating the price of tomatoes. It will be repeated time and time again. The same thing will be experienced in terms of corn, because farmers will not be able to pay for the ammonium nitrates and they will switch. What is it? It is failing to recognize that there are priorities on which the scarce resources should be spent.
It is almost as though we are revisiting when we hear the Minister of Finance say, "Inflation is the number one enemy. We will fight it, we will knock it down, we will wrestle it." When the government cuts its income by $2.5 billion, in my view it has no way of sourcing that money and must add to the deficit. Is that how it fights inflation? Is it the return of that mysterious promise of a short-term stimulative deficit? I think that is what they called it. 1 am referring to that mysterious thing which no one could explain, but it was there.


An hon. Member:: The Liberal deficit.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: That mysterious thing was there. Maybe it is coming back to haunt us.


Mr. McKenzie:: It is the same as inflation.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Someone suggests that it is the same as something or other. Let that member rise and try to explain how they can priorize all these other important things away and come at this particular area. By their own admission, it is an area of our economy and a segment of our society which have done very well. They are better housed than the majority, better than any other country in the world. They have chosen to get into housing, believing in fact that they would be able to pay for it. Thanks to the new government, they now find themselves renegotiating mortgages which are so far over their heads that they do not know whether they will be able to stay there or not. Even if they receive the assistance from this program, they will find themselves with mortgages which have effective rates higher than when this government came into power.
The government persists in saying, "It is not our fault; it is something we inherited". How long will ministers stand there and refuse to take the responsibility they assumed on May 22? When will they say, "These are our decisions; this is what we

November 28, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
are trying to do about it"? They want to hide behind specious arguments. I am satisfied Canadians are fair enough minded to say that there comes a time when in fact that argument is no longer valid and no longer holds water. I think we have passed that time.
We see before us a spectre of a government, for the most part sitting on its collective duff. Members on the other side stand up from time to time and say, "Oh, yes, you have phrased a very important question, and 1 am glad you have raised it. It gives me the opportunity to tell you that what I have done is consult with my other friend in cabinet. We have initiated a study. We will study this thing to death, and, by golly, we are really interested. Thank you for raising the question". What does that leave us with?


An hon. Member:: Review.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Yes, it leaves us with a review. It leaves us with the problem and nothing is being done. When they finally get off their duffs and say that they will do something, why does this happen? It is because they made a promise during the election campaign which they thought would give them some votes, and perhaps it did. But it is the only thing they feel they have to live up to-they feel they have to respond to those promises, no matter how much it costs, no matter what it takes away from whom, no matter what they have to do to find the funds.
I, for one, am unprepared to allow them to be so irresponsible. I am not prepared to suggest to them, "Fine, you have my blessing. I do not care how you will pay for it; I do not care from where the money will come. 1 trust you. We will buy your pig in a poke. We will allow you to do this without telling us how it will be paid for". I will not allow it to happen. Whether I am successful in convincing sufficient numbers to prevent that kind of thing from happening remains to be seen, but 1 for one will stand and be counted. The minister wanted to know. I will stand and be counted. I will vote against this bill. I think it is wrong. 1 think it is irresponsible. 1 think it targets the wrong segment of society for the times. I am satisfied that it should be stopped.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party believes that every Canadian has the right to decent housing at prices he or she can afford. I hope there is no person in this House, or any member who is not in the House, who would disagree with that as a legitimate goal for Canada.
The economic arguments for and against Bill C-20 have been covered in depth by a number of previous speakers, the most outstanding of whom was my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). Therefore, I want to consider right now the effect the mortgage credit scheme would have in relation to some of the practical housing realities which face ordinary people. I would like to use the city of Vancouver as an example. I think it is probably typical of many things facing other urban centres.

We cannot consider mortgage tax credits which benefit so few people and cost so much without first looking at urban housing and rural housing needs, housing alternatives, and government assistance programs which are absolutely essential to meet the needs of so many people. In Vancouver we recently did a study of some 160,000 households. Of course that includes a great many more people. The study indicated that 45 per cent of these households are people who own their own homes, some of them with mortgages which they are paying off, and that 55 per cent of the households are occupied by tenants. Unfortunately, only 1 per cent of these households are co-operative housing units, those having been built very recently. There is a vacancy rate in Vancouver of .2 per cent; two-tenths of 1 per cent, and that is quite unheard of in our recent history. You can see from this that we need housing desperately. There are precious few places for people to go.
Average rents as listed in classified ads are up to about $450. Surely I do not have to ask hon. members in this House why housing is so tight in this and in other cities. If that is not the case, then why are tenants not moving out and purchasing their own homes? It is obvious to anyone who looks at costs today that they cannot afford houses, and it is ridiculous to think that a tax credit such as is being proposed today can assist in this regard. Not even the tax credit system, the carrot that is being promised for next year and for following years, will help solve this problem. Because of high interest rates we know that home ownership is just simply not an option for most of our cities' renters.
Let us take a look at housing costs in relation to the incomes of people, and again this is in Vancouver, but I am sure it is relevant to other parts of Canada. About 10 per cent of Vancouver residents spend more than 50 per cent of their incomes on housing, and again most of these people are renting. Anyone who knows anything at all about housing knows that the CMHC and every housing authority suggest that we must not allow people to spend more than 25 per cent or, at the most, 35 per cent of their incomes on housing. Most renters in Vancouver cannot afford to buy housing since you must earn over $22,000 at least to consider a mortgage these days. At today's rates of interest we know how much of that additional money will be needed to pay off interest rates in the future.
There are 7 per cent of renters in Vancouver who earn over $22,000, however, and many of those people choose to live in rented accommodation. They choose to be tenants. However, I would like to point out to our friends across the way, since many of these people earning over $22,000 supposedly voted for them, that these are the people they are asking to pay the cost of tax credits for an elite and small group of people who will be lucky enough to be in homes paying off mortgages this year. Those are the people who will have to pay a large chunk of the cost of this program through their own income tax payments.
November 28, 1979

Over one quarter of the householders in Vancouver, or about 40,000 families, must spend well over 30 per cent of their incomes on housing. I know many of these people, and I know for sure that this means that in order to pay that proportion of their income for housing they will have to take it out of food budgets, and that means less nourishing food for children.
Approximately 22 per cent of the households that we looked at are occupied by senior citizens, and at least half of those own their own houses, the other half being renters. Of the elderly renters, of course, many are senior citizens on fixed incomes, and with the exception of those who are lucky enough to live in government assisted housing, they spend in excess of 30 per cent of their incomes on housing. These are people on pensions who have no opportunity of having a COLA clause in their incomes each year. Surely they also deserve a tax credit, just as much as do home owners.
In Vancouver close to 40 per cent of our elderly citizens have worked very hard throughout their lives to pay off their mortgages, and their homes are very important to them. They own their homes outright. How do you think they feel about having to pay for the benefits of a tax credit system that will only benefit such a few? It seems to me that they are also people who are being penalized for working, saving, raising their families, and buying homes over the years.
Another 35 per cent of our home owners who are in their middle years have also paid off their homes in Vancouver. They have raised their kids; their kids are probably teenagers or even young adults, many of them living at home still because they cannot find jobs. They will also have to pay through their income tax for this tax credit being given to people who are paying for their own homes through the mortgage system.
I also want to mention tenants particularly. The majority of people in Vancouver are tenants, as is probably the case in most urban centres today. Tenants are facing an extremely serious situation because of the lack of vacancies and the income situation which is not producing more housing for the people. Again this relates back to today's high interest rates.
We are finding in Vancouver now that rent controls are just being applied in a very few cases and rents are skyrocketing. 1 was speaking to one of the handicapped women who was here the other day. She told me she expects rent controls to be removed and that rents will go up over 30 per cent. With the incomes of the handicapped and others, they simply cannot afford this.
The poor people, particularly tenants who have children, many of them single parents raising families and having a difficult time of it, have absolutely no chance to live anywhere else. They do not even dare consider looking for other places of accommodation. They are at the mercy of their landlords. Incidentally, many of these are the same landlords to whom the Liberal government gave very generous tax credits, through tax shelters and incentives, and they are not now passing on the benefits to their tenants.
Mortgage Tax Credit
I would now like to consider the ordinary working person who is typical of the people in my riding of Vancouver East, and I am sure typical of other ridings across the country as well. An average worker who is lucky enough to have a year-round job in our area earns between $13,000 and $15,000 a year. Obviously, not one of these workers on his own can purchase a home. That is why, of course, so many of the wives of male workers must also consider working. It is usually the wife who is working at menial jobs with low rates of pay, and who now has no right to unemployment insurance if she can only find a part-time job. These wives have to work to support their families, and hopefully to save a little bit toward a down payment to get a home eventually. This is what many families want. Unfortunately, the increasing cost of fuel, food, clothing and transportation uses up every dollar in the pay cheque. Even with two parents working, very few are saving these days. The disposable income for working people in Vancouver dropped 3 per cent last year.
It is ridiculous for the members of the Conservative party who have produced this bill to say that the dream of owning a home will be fulfilled for young people today. That is absolute garbage. There is no way the dream of owning a home will be realized, and it is fast fading in the minds of most young people today.
Let me give one example of Mr. Dan Jones, a small businessman, who earns about $15,000 average per year. He is lucky to have a business, and with present policies I do not know how much longer his business will survive. His wife worked for a while and helped to save $7,000. They have one child and are expecting a second. They are very keen to get into a house of their own. They found a three-bedroom house in Vancouver East at the modest price of $65,000. That is a pretty good price for today. The lot size was 33 feet.
These people saved enough to make a down payment of $7,000, leaving a $58,000 mortgage. It does not sound like very much, and surely the average working person could afford such a home. But if we consider interest rates of up to 14 per cent, this couple would pay over the next 30 years $300,000 in interest alone. The taxes would be $400 a year and, of course, their fuel costs will be up this winter. These people concluded that if they were to buy this house they would pay at least $755 a month, which amounts to 50 per cent of their income. Of course there is no way that they could buy this house.
I ask hon. gentlemen and the hon. woman member as well, what good is a tax credit of $375 a year as an incentive for getting people into housing when the average working person, who has a family with two kids and a modest home, needs this much to subsidize the rent because of high interest rates? There is no way that a young family can get into a house in the first place, so what good is this tax credit to them? It is hypocritical to say that this program will help young families get into houses.
What young people need is a bill that will help reduce their monthly payment to 25 per cent or 35 per cent of their income.

November 28, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
The government could do this by reducing bank profits, by reducing interest rates, by providing subsidies on interest rates, or by building decent social housing and directly using the taxpayers' money, rather than giving it to the banks. A previous speaker opposite has said that this mortgage tax credit bill will encourage home ownership. That is a delusion. I am very insulted and angry that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) deceived this House when he said, I felt, in a very sarcastic way, that the mortgage tax credit would encourage young people to purchase a home, live a good life and raise a family. The minister has simply not looked at the facts. Why is he raising the hopes of people? Is he a cynic or a sadist?


Mr. Kempling:: Those remarks are unparliamentary.


An hon. Member:: They are trying to buy votes with it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: To me it is cynicism and sadism to deceive people by promising them this tax credit, which was nothing more than a gimmick to get votes. It leads people to think that they will now be able to purchase a home.
The manager of the mortgage department of Canada Trust in Vancouver, who is a supporter of the Conservative party, has said, "High mortgage interest rates have made the hoped-for benefits from Ottawa's mortgage interest deductibility plan an exercise in futility". Lending institutions have also said that there has been a pronounced drop-off in housing business stocks in late October and that it has continued into November. Certainly it will continue into the new year.
Many of my constituents will appreciate a mortgage tax credit, even though it will hardly meet the increased costs of their fuel. On the other hand, they will lose money when the children's allowance benefits are taken away. I am thinking particularly of families who have just come to Canada, and who have struggled to save for down payments to purchase, in most cases, older homes. These people have worked very hard to improve their homes and have rented out parts of their homes to help pay for the mortgage. We must also consider that these people have probably sponsored their grandparents and other members of the family to come to Canada to share their home, thus there are often several wage earners who can contribute. If anyone deserves a tax credit, 1 would say that these people do.
Many working people and trade union members who are earning decent salaries and paying for mortgages will not say no to this tax credit plan. They, too, need this subsidy, because in more and more families the children are staying at home into their young adult years because they are unable to find jobs. These young people are faced with ever increasing costs and the prospect of not finding work. Should they be so lucky as to find work, their wages will probably not keep abreast of the increasing cost of living.
We in the New Democratic Party do not object to these families receiving such a tax credit because it will help cover exorbitant interest rates and the high cost of living of today. However, I am sure that my constituents would agree that we

must be fair, and we know that renters, and young families who are unable to afford a home, would also like a tax credit.
There are many forms of social housing. When talking about affordable housing, this is an essential consideration. For example, a good alternative would be housing co-operatives. With some adjustments to the present system and an increase in monetary support to develop such housing, we could meet the needs of many young families today. Co-operative housing requires a small down payment because the mortgage is taken out collectively. Many of the housing cooperatives in Vancouver have been built on leased land. There is not a huge profit for developers in this form of housing, and as a result the costs are lower. Such a program would provide decent, attractive, family housing in livable communities.
The scheme in British Columbia is based on the concept that this housing will provide mixed, self-reliant communities. Surely that is a program which the government could support. Financially speaking, these housing communities contain average wage earners, 70 per cent; those slightly above the average income of $15,000, 20 per cent; and those below the average income, 10 per cent. Because these people collectively live together, they can meet their costs collectively. These people pay only 25 per cent to 30 per cent of their income toward the mortgage. This is the kind of housing in which the government should invest. If the Conservative party is committed to young families who want to own their own homes, it should provide this kind of housing.
Having talked to many groups in Vancouver and to CMHC officials, I have learned that the amount of money allocated for social housing is being used primarily to pay interest rates to the banks. This money is not being spent on housing. In fact there is very little money left for this year for starting new housing developments. Even in cases where the federal program-and I think that it is a good program-subsidizes interest rates to the point where people are paying 2 per cent for non-profit housing, the subsidy is being paid to the banks in the form of interest.
Another program which the government should continue to support, but unfortunately 1 do not think there will be any money this year for expansion, is social housing for senior citizens. There are many developments of this nature in many communities across Canada. It is excellent housing and the senior citizens are happy with it. Every year there is an increasing number of elderly people who will be needing this type of housing. Already there are long waiting lists, but no money to put into new developments of this kind. Senior citizens and other people living in subsidized housing are helping to pay for this tax credit to home owners. Even the non-profit groups that supposedly want to build housing for senior citizens receive no tax incentives such as are proposed in Bill C-20.
Public housing in Canada is at a standstill. I have known and worked in huge public housing ghettos in Vancouver such as Skeena, McLean Park and Raymur. That is not the kind of
November 28, 1979

public housing that we need, as I am sure everyone would agree. What we need is the type of housing that will integrate with communities and allow people to move out of rat-infested dwellings and pay a rent that is 25 per cent of their income. But no public housing is being built.
Under our system, poor people themselves pay the operating costs and capital costs of public housing when they live in it. It is said to be highly subsidized, but actually it is not. The government has actually subsidized the banks. The government is financing the profits and the interest rate, which is three quarters of the cost of the project, and government authorities are the ones that are paying that to the banks. If tax money were used directly for housing, more money could be saved and put into expanded housing programs. Non-profit housing programs for families are at a complete standstill. There are many plans on the books, such as the plan for the Strathcona community in Vancouver. This would provide excellent housing in the downtown area but it will probably not come to fruition unless there is considerable change in federal policy. The tax credit system will not help to meet that goal.
Just yesterday the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) spoke in very emotional terms about housing in Third World countries. I share his concerns in this area, but in downtown Vancouver, in the skid row area, there is a third world country that is worse than many of those overseas. Year after year people live in rat-infested and cockroach-infested rooms. Most of the houses are owned by landlords who have ripped off the tax system and have not put anything into improving the housing. Most of the tenants do not have a place to eat where they live. Often there is a dirty washroom, a couple of floors down, which must be shared. The buildings are fire traps, but these people cannot get out of this type of housing.
There are many single people, and couples and immigrants, living in this way. Incidentally, many of the Vietnamese refugees are being forced to live in this way as well. They are competing with * the poor for this terrible housing. Native people coming in from the reserves are being forced to live in this terrible housing, or even on the streets. I would particularly like to mention many single and middle-aged women who cannot get into public housing because they have no children. Women are desperately short of housing.
The program being proposed to subsidize mortgages would do nothing to solve the housing problem for the people I have mentioned. A self-help organization in this area, the Downtown Residents Association, has been fighting for years to get something done. They have developed plans for housing but are fed up with the red tape and buck-passing they encounter at every level of government. It is my opinion that under this government, and with the present federal programs, there is no way they will ever get housing in the downtown area. Why should we not be taking the money to help those people, if we have a priority, rather than the people who already have had enough money to get their own houses? This is only a drop in the bucket for them anyway as far as mortgage costs are concerned.
Mortgage Tax Credit
We must address the question of how we pay for social housing. I have already mentioned that most of the federal housing money, which comes out of your pocket and mine through income tax, is going to the banks and not to housing. The government is going to privatize CMHC, if it has not done so already. This means that the total financing will be turned over to the private sector.
The only way we can assure low and middle income people of a decent place to live is through government sponsored housing and co-operatives, and non-profit housing developments, financed by the government, using our tax dollars directly for housing, rather than going through the banks and paying most of the money into bank profits. Through conversations with people at CMHC I know that the allocation of funds for housing, even if they were not paying most of it out in interest, is not enough to make new starts this year.
I do not want to go into any more of the history of this, Mr. Speaker. Since 1967 there has been a dramatic change and the system has been completely switched around. Maybe we should look at the pre-1967 government housing policy, where the money allocated for housing went directly into housing starts.
The policy of both Tories and Liberals is to allow the banks to take over-to bleed profits from the taxpayers' money while government cuts back on the amount of money budgeted for social housing. I have spoken about many non-profit alternatives, Mr. Speaker, which surely must be considered as a priority for the limited dollars available for housing starts in Canada. Of course we would like to see tax credits for home owners in middle income brackets, but not at the expense of other Canadians who have just as much right to decent, affordable housing.
Let us ask tenants if they are willing to pay out of their income tax, or to give up subsidies for housing that they should have, in order to provide mortgage tax credits for the elite few who are in housing now and are paying off their mortgages. Let us ask home owners who have worked very hard, particularly senior citizens who have worked hard to pay off their homes, and see if they are content to have social programs cut and, if they pay income tax, to subsidize a privileged few.
If this government wants to buy votes with a Christmas bonus, I challenge them to pay a tax credit fairly and universally to all Canadians. If we are going to do it for one small group, why not do it for everybody?
I should like to conclude by summarizing what the New Democratic Party would do if it were the government, and I would seriously urge this government to consider these measures in a non-partisan way, as being very important to the direction Canada should go. We would make housing for all Canadians, not just an elite few, a No. 1 priority. We would reduce interest rates, particularly for Canadians who earn under $30,000 or $35,000. This would really help young families, in particular, to purchase a home. We would not pay billions of dollars in interest, which is increasing every year, to enrich the banks. Instead, we would use this money to build housing. We would create jobs. We would provide incentives

November 28, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
for co-operatives. We would provide incentives for new communities, and particularly for young families who would flourish and improve our land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to be able to rise in this debate on Bill C-20. To me, this bill is hardly acceptable in its present form for many reasons, and 1 intend to be as objective as I can in this speech and prove indeed how extravagant, irresponsible and unfair this piece of legislation is.

This bill which has been placed before us today has quite a history. The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) enumerated deductibility of mortgage interest as his major election platform over a year ago, in September, 1978. We Liberals in government at that time opposed his scheme as fiscally irresponsible, wasteful and unfair. Despite the changes made largely through pressure from our party and many commentators from across Canada, to the Prime Minister's original proposal, the basic philosophy of the bill remains just that. It is fiscally irresponsible, because in a difficult economic period and a time of restraint this government has committed itself to extra billions of dollars of expenditures, $2.87 billion by its own "conservative" estimate by 1982. Goodness knows how much more after that.
It is ironic that the government which has committed itself to reducing government expenditures, cutting back the public service, privatizing everything it sees, is making such an irresponsible, open-ended financial commitment. Moreover, this government has been following a high interest rate policy which will virtually negate any benefits that its tax credit will give to Canadians.
I am sure hon. members have read comments printed in The Financial Times of Canada. What does the real estate industry have to say? An article in the Ottawa Citizen dated October 18, 1979, pointed out the following:
Ottawa realtors say if the federal government is genuinely concerned about home ownership in Canada then they should do something about record high interest rates instead of introducing mortgage tax credits. "It's a gimmick, let's face it, it's a gimick," said George Coughlan, manager of Shipman Real Estate's centre town office.
The industry sees this plan for what it really is, not a housing policy, not even a fiscal policy, but an election gimmick.

And Mr. Yvan Guay wrote as follows in the daily La Presse, on September 19, 1979:
The Canadian people must therefore ask themselves whether that reduction in tax revenue will be offset by an increase in tax revenue resulting from the new jobs a stimulated building industry will create. Otherwise, the federal government will have to reduce more or less its services to the public. Considering the price of city lots, construction costs, property taxes and mortgage interest rates, all of which are constantly rising, one cannot see how this tax credit could be enough to promote residential construction.

Moreover, as pointed out in The Globe and Mail for October 26, 1979:

-about 874,000 Canadian families have lost the ability to qualify for a $60,000 five-year term mortgage amortized over twenty-five years on a $66,000 home because of the rapid escalation in mortgage rates this year.
The article went on to demonstrate that with this mortgage interest rate rise to 14.75 per cent and even higher, a home owner would have to pay $736.81 per month on such a $60,000 mortgage on a $66,000 house when, at the beginning of the year with interest rates at 10.5 per cent, that home owner would have paid $557 per month. That is an extra $179.81 per month, or $2,157.72 per year. And yet this Conservative government thinks that if it gives home owners, those who fully qualify for both the mortgage interest and property tax credits, $375, people will buy homes and thus will stimulate the housing market. That is just crazy. The home owner we have just spoken of will still be out $1,782.72 since the beginning of this year.

In an article which appeared in the November 9, 1978, issue of Le Devoir, Statistics Canada stated, and I quote:
Nearly half of the some 4.8 million home owners in Canada would benefit little or not at all from the mortgage tax credits which the Conservative government has announced, on the basis of the most recent figures from Statistics Canada.
Only some 16 per cent or 17 per cent of Canadians will benefit from this program.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Since this government took power in June of this year, the cost of living and operating a home has simply soared. In only five months to October of this year, the rate of inflation has risen from 8.9 per cent to 9.3 per cent. The consumer price index has risen 2.8 per cent. The construction material index has risen 3.7 per cent. The residential building input price index has risen by 2.4 per cent, and the cost of regular unleaded gasoline has risen 12 per cent per litre. This will go higher when we know what agreement the Prime Minister has reached with the Premier of Alberta.
In the five-month period from June to October of this year, since the government took power, a mere five-month period, the cost of fuel oil to heat homes, for instance, in Ottawa has risen 19 per cent, from 14 cents per litre to 17 cents per litre. The Ontario gate price for natural gas has risen 7 per cent, and the Tory government tells us that energy prices are going to take an even more drastic rise of $4 or more a barrel. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the worst of it.
In the six months since the Conservatives took power the consumer loan interest rate has risen 18 per cent, from 13.5 per cent to 16.5 per cent. The rate of a first mortgage has skyrocketed by 30 per cent. It has risen from 10 per cent to 15 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Trying to clean up the mess.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Indeed, it is fine to attempt to stimulate the housing market, but to claim to do so when the other policies that this government is following make it virtually impossible to buy and keep a home, is sheer lunacy.
November 28, 1979

The Conservatives are taking away with one hand what they have given with the other. This is not only fiscal irresponsibility, it is of the highest order of fiscal inconsistency, and this from a government which indicated that it would conduct a consistent, predictable fiscal policy supposedly to restore confidence in the economy. All they have done so far is to destroy that confidence.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that this tax credit program is nothing more than a form of wasteful favouritism whose only result will be to deprive small businesses, research and development organizations as well as various industries of the investment they need, and in favour of whom? In favour of the housing industry which is in a relatively secure position in our country and which already benefits from very good programs. These tax credits are also a waste because they are part of a suspicious fiscal policy under the guise of a so-called home ownership assistance program. This is a tax cut and not legislation to improve the housing situation. 1 am concerned, therefore, when I realize that the money to finance this program will very likely come from the budget envelope marked for housing. Well, if the Progressive Conservative Party wants to spend this money on an item which is strictly a fiscal item, where will it find the necessary funds to meet the real needs of Canadians in the area of housing?
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a glaring injustice. Only a limited number of Canadians, between 16 per cent and 17 per cent, will get any substantial benefits from this bill. The other Canadians, including the have-nots, will be compelled to give their money to benefit a privileged few. Even the distribution of benefits among the various regions of Canada is unbalanced. Several provinces and communities will benefit much less than others. Try as we might to see it differently, it seems that the Progressive Conservatives, in the only program that they have suggested, supposedly to improve the housing situation in Canada, have succeeded in forgetting a number of people, including tenants, home owners who have finally paid off their mortgage after years of hardship, as well as all Canadians in the low income range. 1 shall come back to this aspect of the problem later on.

After the Prime Minister made his famous election promise, the critiques began rolling in. A group of MPs went to the U.S. to have a look at their mortgage deductibility scheme, and came back with horror stories. Then our economists took a close look at the Clark deductibility plans, and expressed concern and doubt. The C. D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy, University of Toronto economists, and others too numerous to mention, warned of the dangers of mortgage deductibility.
Mortgage Tax Credit
In February, 1979, the Liberal minister in charge of housing, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), also warned us about mortgage deductibility and suggested alternatives of a shelter allowance and tax credit. Why was this suggestion not implemented then? Mr. Speaker, a responsible government could not see how we could get involved in almost $3 billion of new spending when so many other valuable programs called for so much expenditure and were a priority for us.
Having conducted the election campaign on a platform of mortgage interest deductibility, the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) modified the election promise to a mortgage and property tax credit scheme, on September 17, 1979. We on this side felt particularly gratified by the government's change of heart since more than a month earlier the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), myself, and the official opposition on urban perspectives, had made a recommendation. We had recommended that if, despite such opposition, the government was still intent on implementing its plan, it should modify it to become a tax credit scheme instead of a deductibility proposal. We only wish they had listened to us more closely and incorporated a shelter allowance concept so that more Canadians could benefit from the plan with the same amount of money.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we must show some understanding and tolerance towards those on the government side. They made a commitment to keep what was a rather popular electoral promise for a time. The trouble is that by implementing a high interest rate policy, they have themselves changed this attractive plan into an extremely extravagant and unfair scheme. We also recognize that the average taxpayer must bear a tax burden that some consider disproportionate, but instead of promising him the moon, we prefer to allow him to make certain improvements to his home, with the help of the government if need be.
This bill is typical of the Progressive Conservative approach to social issues. They ignore Canadians facing real housing problems hoping that others will take care of them, while they try to help those with less pressing needs. This is the type of policy that we Liberals consider irresponsible and shortsighted. By promoting the disparities in the quality of housing, the government is only making the problem worse. The needs of low-income citizens multiply, often at the cost of social peace, which certainly does not improve the situation of middle-income citizens. The latter will benefit only from the shortterm advantages of a scheme which could have helped solve the real problems. Overpopulated urban centres, inadequate housing and the urban crime rate are some of the issues which have long concerned us. By turning their backs on the people who are faced with those problems, the Progressive Conserva-

November 28, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
tives are avoiding their responsibilities. This bill is just like their policy and attitude of hiding their heads in the sand.
Mr. Speaker, I want now to show this House and all Canadians the extent of the injustice of that proposal. The mortgage interest tax credit allows certain owners to claim a credit not exceeding 25 per cent of the first $5,000 paid in mortgage interest, to a maximum of $312.50 the first year gradually increasing to $1,250 in the fourth year. In 1979, some 4.5 million, or 48 per cent, of the 9,400,000 Canadian housing units were rented. So their occupants get absolutely nothing under this program. Furthermore, in 1977 some 2,570,000, or 27 per cent, owned mortgaged homes, and they too will not get anything at all under this program. Indeed, only 2,576,000 Canadians, or 33 per cent, of owners of mortgaged housing units were eligible for this program. In short, at least 67 per cent of Canadian households will not get a penny from this tax credit.

Citizens who do not pay income tax, a group which obviously includes the most underprivileged Canadians, get absolutely no benefit from this plan. They get no help at all in resolving their very acute housing needs. A family with two children would, under normal circumstances, have to earn more than $10,490 a year to get any mortgage interest tax credit. In order to receive the full credit in the first year of the program, such a family would have to earn at least $12,609, and for a full credit in the fourth year the family would have to earn the equivalent, in 1983, of $17,105. This means that many of the lowest income home owners will get nothing from this mortgage interest tax credit plan. Yet Statistics Canada has pointed out that in 1977 10 per cent of home owners holding a mortgage were in receipt of an income of less than $10,000, and that 25 per cent of them were receiving less than $15,000. People who pay less than $5,000 in mortgage interest will not be eligible for the full credit.
Not surprisingly, people with a higher income tend to take on larger mortgages to buy more expensive housing. Home owners with lower incomes often cannot afford to carry a mortgage on which they pay $5,000 in interest, that is, about $415 a month. Again we see that the people who need help most get least.

A great many Canadian tenants really need urgent help and are already feeling the effects of inflation and rising interest rates. This program will wipe out any hope of owning a home one day simply because they will not be able to afford it. From 1974 to 1979, the number of tenants whose rent accounts for more than 30 per cent of their income increased from 26 per cent to 28 per cent. Half of older citizens spend more than 25 per cent of their income on rent, as do 51 per cent of single-parent families. What will they get out of that mortgage rate deduction program? They can only expect to pay more taxes to subsidize those who will benefit under the program.


According to Statistics Canada, in 1977, 46 per cent of Canadian home owners did not carry a mortgage. Canadians who have worked hard for years to pay off their mortgages will suffer the same penalty of not benefiting from this scheme. Yet they, too, are under the pressures of rising inflation and energy and maintenance costs. Many of these people can hardly afford to keep the houses for which they have paid off their mortgages. The property tax credit will help them somewhat, and that is good, but they get no benefit from the larger mortgage credit.
What does that tell us about the Conservative government's apparent housing philosophy? It tells us we should not be thrifty or make great sacrifices to pay off our mortgages. We should carry our mortgage debt on to qualify for this program. Moreover, we should pay at least $5,000 in mortgage interest per year to get full benefit. This could actually be a disincentive to pay off a mortgage and could encourage more consumer debt.
The most serious problem in this legislation is that by its very nature it accentuates disparities across the country. The distribution of this tax credit in the different regions and provinces is highly unequal and disproportionate, largely because of the specific groups of Canadians at which it is aimed and because of the composition of types of accomodation in different regions.
Some regions of Canada will be indirectly subsidizing other regions. For example, in 1976 in Newfoundland, 80 per cent of householders were home owners, and only 19 per cent were renters. In British Columbia, 65 per cent were home owners, and 34 per cent were renters. In Ontario, 63 per cent were home owners, and 36 per cent were renters. However, in Quebec we find that only 50 per cent were home owners, and 49.6 per cent were renters.


Mr. Huntington:: Then help them.


Maurice Lamontagne: It is apparent, therefore, that proportionately fewer Quebeckers will be eligible for this tax credit than Newfoundlanders, Ontarians, British Columbians or all other Canadians, but they will bear an equal burden of the cost of the credits. I think this is simply unfair.
Because the credit does not apply to those who have paid off their mortgages on the homes they own, as well as to renters, the benefits of the program are even more unevenly distributed. In Newfoundland, for example, 82 per cent of home owners do not have mortgages. In British Columbia the figure is 43 per cent. In Ontario it is 43 per cent, and in Quebec it is 41 per cent. We can therefore see that Newfoundlanders will be benefiting little while still sharing the cost.
The results are that the Atlantic region loses out because of the high percentage of people who own homes without mortgages, 70 per cent, and Quebec loses out because of the high percentage of renters, which is 49 per cent. Yet these are two of the areas which are in most need of housing assistance.
November 28, 1979

The mortgage interest tax credit program is so unevenly distributed that of the four provinces we have examined, Ontario, which has 36 per cent of Canada's population and 37 per cent of the nation's home owners, will receive 45 per cent of the benefits of the program. British Columbia, with 11 per cent of Canada's population and 12 per cent of the nation's home owners, will receive 16 per cent of the benefits. Newfoundland, with 2.4 per cent of Canada's population and 2.4 per cent of the country's home owners, will receive only 1.2 per cent of the benefits. And Quebec, with fully 27 per cent of Canada's population and 22 per cent of Canada's home owners, will receive only 19 per cent of the benefits.
We believe in the redistribution of wealth, but in redistribution to alleviate disparity, not to add to it. The unfair redistribution of this tax credit will create more regional disparity.

As I have already mentioned at least a couple of times, the home owner property tax credit, contrary to the mortgage interest tax credit, is more equitable. However, tenants are still being ignored. The scheme remains basically unfair to them because they will not get any direct benefit. Although more equitable, the home owner property tax credit could ultimately lead certain municipalities and provinces to increase their property tax rate and thus siphon off part of the benefits received by individuals. Should that ever be the case, some people could end up losing. Older people and owners with low incomes who do not pay federal taxes and are consequently not eligible for this credit could end up being even worse off.
The fact remains that this tax credit to home owners, amounting to as much as $62.50 in the first year of its implementation and $250 in the fourth, will be of significant help to several owners. But the universal aspect of the measure adds to its unfairness since a number of those who will benefit from it do not need assistance. When one compares that, Mr. Speaker, with the proposals of the Progressive Conservatives aimed at abolishing, reducing or revising family allowances, doing away with its universality, no longer reimbursing to mothers part of the expenses they have incurred in bringing up the Canadian generation of tomorrow, one wonders about the logic of those two measures!
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crom-bie) says that people whose family income exceeds a certain level will get no help from the government to bring up their children. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) says that they will get the mortgage interest credit only provided they belong to the category of those whose income is high enough.

Mr. Speaker, when we look through this bill we realize that in proposing a bill like this the Minister of Finance certainly has a lack of wisdom or lack of foresight, and a lack of imagination. He is hanging on at all costs to such a program. I cannot understand how somebody could vote for this bill as it is presented when we are expecting a budget, when the Minister of Finance tells us that Canadians will have to make
Mortgage Tax Credit
sacrifices, when inflation is going up, when the price of heating fuel is going to a record high and still will be higher, when the government talks about the reduction of social programs, and when it talks about unemployment going to 9.5 per cent in Quebec. 1 think this bill is an injustice.
I would say that we have made a very good effort in trying to convince the Conservative government that this bill should be changed, or perhaps postponed. Perhaps it should be re-written in order to be more just and to benefit many people. We have put up some 18 speakers. I think we have tried our best to convince the government of the unjust nature of the bill before us.
However, we do not want to be accused of filibustering such a bill. In conclusion, I think we cannot vote for such a bill, and we are ready if the government wants to vote now.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has the floor.


An hon. Member:: You are filibustering your own bill.


William James Kempling: You are a bunch of turkeys.


Stan Darling: It is rather amusing to hear that sanctimonious crowd across the way now talking about a filibuster. Having moved over here on October 9 from the other side of the House, we know something about that too.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: About being sanctimonious, you mean?


Stan Darling: It is certainly a privilege to take part in the debate on Bill C-20 and, as the House is aware, this is a bill which reflects the fulfillment of an election promise by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). The Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) and this government have seen fit to introduce the legislation at this time. It is my sincere hope that all parties will co-operate in allowing and facilitating speedy passage of this bill.


An hon. Member:: Right now.


Peter A. Stollery: Let's go.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite has just said that he hopes all parties will co-operate in the speedy passage of this bill. On Friday I heard the Prime Minister in Vancouver complaining that the Liberals were delaying this bill. I want to make it clear-
1814

November 28, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Would the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) please state her point of order?


Aideen Nicholson: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that we are ready to vote now.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), let me point out that some of us here have been interested in housing for many years and I assume that it is our privilege still to present our views. I certainly would like to have a few moments in which to do that. We can hardly be accused of filibustering.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: The tax credit will benefit about 3.8 million Canadian families. Of those, 2.3 million will receive both the mortgage interest and the property tax credit, while 1.5 million will receive the tax credit only. Judging from some of the speeches from hon. members opposite, one might think that it is a very small portion of the population that will benefit from this legislation. The figures I have just quoted indicate that a large number of Canadians will benefit from this program. It is no wonder that the polls indicate that 76 per cent of Canadians support the mortgage interest and tax credit plan. After all, shelter is one of the basic necessities of life. A recent survey found that 90 per cent of young Canadians want to own their own home. This initiative on the part of the PC government will make that dream come true for a great many people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: It is an ideal Christmas gift that this government can bestow on a great number of members of the Canadian public.
One aspect of the program with which I am particularly pleased has to do with the property tax credit. Long before 1 came to this House I advocated such a scheme. 1 was the reeve of a small municipality for a great number of years, 26 years to be exact. I might say 1 was very, very young when 1 was first elected. I also served as vice-president of the Ontario Mayors and Reeves Association for a great number of years. Time and time again we passed resolutions addressed to the federal government of the day, requesting that municipal taxes on a home be deductible from income tax on the basis that it was an unfair arrangement in which the government was collecting a tax on tax. That was something that I had advocated in some of my earlier speeches in the House in 1972. 1 also brought that most emphatically to the attention of the former government. I see here the former minister responsible for housing. He is well aware of the fact that I had brought up this subject at that time. This is not an idea which was generated in the last six or eight months, or even last fall.
I can assure hon. members that this part of the tax is going to assist every home owner in Canada. According to what we

hear from over there, only the rich will benefit. I can assure members of the House that there are a great many senior citizens who live in their own homes and who probably find it difficult to get by, but who are still making enough money to pay taxes. They will certainly welcome this additional money they can spend.


An hon. Member:: How about the renters?


Stan Darling: That is a very good question. First and foremost, the people who will benefit from this measure, as we know, are the home owners who are trying to pay for a house. There are a good many of us who are fortunate enough to have our houses paid up. 1 managed to get my house paid for, a year ago last January, so I will not benefit from that measure. But there are a great many home owners who are paying high mortgages as well as high taxes. They will certainly welcome this legislation. If the opposition wants to try to defeat this bill, let it be on their own heads. I understand there are two opposition members who have stated they will vote against the bill. 1 wonder how brave they will be when the time comes to vote.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stan Darling: As the Minister of Finance said, let it be on their own heads if they want to defeat this bill. Check the polls.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Who is the chicken?


Stan Darling: Do not worry about the chicken, you are the chicken expert from Regina.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: Earlier today the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) quoted a great many figures and said that this measure would not help anyone. I presume that the riding of Vancouver East has many working people in it, but I imagine that the illustrious member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Phillips) also represents gas house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: I mean Gastown, a lower income area.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stan Darling: Keep it going. I can take it as long as you can.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stan Darling: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre recently sent out his householder.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stan Darling: It was mentioned here earlier. In this householder he had a questionnaire. The question was: what do you think of the mortgage tax deduction scheme? That was a
November 28, 1979

straightforward question. In that Liberal stronghold-I think he won it by 100 votes or so-60 per cent stated categorically they were in favour of our government scheme.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Polls have been taken by newspapers in the last few months and they emphatically reaffirmed that the government's plan for mortgage tax deduction and municipal tax deduction is what people want.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Stan Darling: So if you people are all gung ho to defeat the bill and go on the election trail, more power to you. I am well aware that there is a different situation now than what we had a week ago on Tuesday. We did probably have some reservations that we might have some worries about getting this bill through before Christmas-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stan Darling: After all, I am only a poor little member of Parliament from up in the bush in Parry Sound-Muskoka, but at least I can figure out certain things. I know very well that the official opposition has no intention of going to the people or forcing an election until later next year, and I am willing to bet money on it. I also know that that red hot gang, the NDP, are hot to trot.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Balancing it out, I think that unless the official opposition come out with a great leader-let us hope they bring out a presentable leader who will create a reasonable opposition for us to defeat-on March 26, the Liberals and, if it is similar to our own leadership, the official opposition will have a new leader and they will be euphoric and riding the crest in the late spring-they will do all they can to force an election at that time. But my learned friends across the way in the corner will be looking very carefully before they try to commit hara-kiri as they did in 1974. They said they would come back with a hell of a lot more people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is now six o'clock, but 1 thought I should indicate to the House that there have been some discussions held with respect to the House business for the next few days. The first thing I should like to do-I guess the proper phrase would be-is to undesignate Friday, November 30, 1979, as an allotted day and indicate that it will be a day devoted to government business, for which I should like to thank the hon. opposition House leader. This would change the normal course of business for the balance of
Business of the House
the week. Because of certain indications I have received with respect to the debate on this bill, it would be our intention tomorrow to call the four references to select committees of the House of Commons, which stand in the names of various ministers, in the following order: rehabilitation, the review of the Foreign Investment Review Act, the review on the voluntary section and, finally, the cost overruns. That would be the order in which I would call them.
Also there have been discussions respecting the freedom of information legislation, so that that bill will be ready to go to committee. The understanding among my colleagues is that we could begin consideration of the freedom of information legislation tomorrow evening at eight o'clock, with the anticipation that the four references to select committees which I have mentioned, plus the second reading debate on the freedom of information legislation, could be completed by the close of business in the House on Monday evening. On the assumption and the understanding that in fact the debate is completed with respect to Bill C-20, it would be the hope of all of us that the vote, if there is to be one with respect to Bill C-20, would be in the early part of Tuesday afternoon. For that purpose, I inform the House that I will be calling Bill C-20 that day.
Further, with respect to the anticipation of the atmosphere of co-operation which 1 have found, and for which I am grateful, if any votes arise out of the four references-and I have some indication that there might be at least one-then that vote, or votes, would be held immediately afterwards. That is my anticipation of House business. In order to carry that forward, I hope we would be able to complete some things which are rather important to the government, and also move this bill into committee.
Also discussions have indicated that, as soon as the votes are completed, there is some anticipation that we would be moving into Committee of the Whole consideration of Bill C-20. I anticipate that will be generally agreeable to the House. It will be a way to advance the business of the House leading up to the adjournment, which I anticipate will take place on December 21. In any event, those are our plans at the moment.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order relating to House business, it is true that there is a spirit of collaboration. The spirit was so great that we were even ready to vote tonight on Bill C-20.


Walter David Baker: I appreciate that.


Yvon Pinard: We understand the debate is now adjourned, that it will continue next Tuesday, and that there might or might not be a vote on that day. I am not sure now. In any case, tomorrow and on Monday we will be dealing with the references suggested by the hon. government House leader. Also we will deal with the freedom of information bill tomorrow night at eight o'clock.
I want to make it very clear that it is true there is a spirit of co-operation, but I want it to be on the record that we told the

November 28, 1979
Business of the House
government House leader we were ready to vote tonight on Bill C-20. We would not like the House to believe that we wanted the bill to be voted on next week. We agree with the rest of what was said by the hon. government House leader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it can be said that the government House leader has given a fair summary of the discussions which took place this afternoon. At this moment I should like
to make it clear that we are not making any House order, but the statement made by the government House leader as to what we shall try to do in the next three days is correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It being past six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 29, 1979