1979-11-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) announced on November 15, at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, that he intends to introduce a bill to set up a committee responsible for settling disputes in the public and private sectors, that such a committee will have practically no power and will be a source of annoyance, that under its terms of reference it will study the economic consequences of a strike, but will not consider the reasons which have motivated the strike-which is strongly prejudicial to the workers-that the bill setting up the committee does not contain a definition of "essential services", which can lead to abuses; and that the 20-day waiting period, which is supposed to set minds at rest, but might, indeed provoke them, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont):
That the Minister of Labour withdraw his bill to set up such a committee and, instead, concentrate all his efforts on removing potential hazards at places of work, on improving the quality of life at work, and on discovering the causes of labour conflicts in Canada, those aims having priority and deserving more attention than a committee for the settlement of disputes in the public and private sectors.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[English)


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That the President of the Treasury Board be directed to end the delay in considering the $2 million research grant which has been recommended for de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and that the grant be authorized so that this important company can carry on its research and development of the Dash-8.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), I move:
That this House notes that the Minister of Finance intends to present a budget on December 11, and calls on the minister to include in that budget provision for a substantial increase in the amount paid to our old age pensioners so that they can cope with the high costs now confronting them, instead of just being told to endure and this House also calls on the Minister of Finance to make budgetary provision for pension equality between men and women so that older women, regardless of marital status, may enjoy adequate pensions and a dignified standard of living.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be introduced at this time, 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.

November 22, 1979


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Robin Richardson (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that since 1969, more than 400,000 therapeutic abortions have been performed in Canadian hospitals, and that last year alone there were more Canadian lives sacrificed by abortions than were lost in the Second World War, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this House immediately debate the issue of abortion with a view to amending the Criminal Code of Canada to ensure that the innocent, unborn child receives the full protection of the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Berthier-Maskinonge):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, 1 seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay) is about to announce the Montreal special area agreement, and that the program inaugurated in 1977 for a three-year period was a partial failure, causing serious damage to the ridings of Berthier and Joliette and undermining all initiatives to create new industries and develop existing ones, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion review the rules suggested by technocrats in 1977 and exclude from his new program the municipalities within the federal riding of Berthier-Maskinonge, municipalities which should not be considered as satellites of Montreal, thereby allowing them to develop according to their own natural resources.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. 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.


HOUSING
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the expressed desire of the government to encourage residential construction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That this House approves the deduction of capital cost allowance for new multiple unit residential buildings against any source of income at any time, and would view with alarm any attempt by the Minister of Finance to terminate the allowance in his budget speech.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the statement in committee on Tuesday of this week by the Minister of Veterans Affairs that a bill would be presented to the House in the near future amending the Pension Act, and in view of his lack of commitment to changing the act in relation to disability pensions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier):
Thai the House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to include in the forthcoming bill an amendment that would tie the basic rate of war disability pension to the take-home pay of the five categories of public servants previously used to determine the amount of pension, and an amendment providing for prorata pensions to be paid to widows of pensioners assessed at less than 48 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be introduced 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.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 22, 1979

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
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 it is the intention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) to raise unemployment insurance premiums and force Canadian workers to carry the burden of a higher unemployment rate, which is a consequence of the policies of this government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox):
That this House instruct the government not to impose higher unemployment insurance premiums on Canadian workers.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. 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.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. According to this morning's paper, the president of Shell Canada, a company that paid no taxes last year on $360 million income-


Mr. Crosbie:: Under your policy.


Marc Lalonde: -and whose profits have risen by 66 per cent in the last year-


John Carnell Crosbie: Don't be such a hypocrite.


Marc Lalonde: According to press reports, the president of this company is threatening to cut its program to invest in exploration and capital investment in energy development if it does not get even higher prices and the tax incentive guarantees that it wants. My question to the minister is this: In the face of this fresh evidence as to what it means to be at the mercy of
Oral Questions
multinationals to ensure Canada's future energy security, does the government remain committed to dismantling Petro-Canada and thus tossing away our best chance at long-term security of energy supply and independence from petroleum multinationals?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think it needs reiteration in this House to say that the whole question with respect to the attitude the hon. member takes toward the role of multinationals in this country is not unrelated to the position taken by the previous government. This government is interested in and will take steps to encourage Canadian participation and control of its resources. If in his statement there is reference to any dismantling of Petro-Canada, it is misleading. The fact is that we intend to strengthen this corporation to make it more viable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member and his party are trying to stand in the way of this innovative process which we are undertaking.

[ Translation]


PETRO-CANADA DISPOSITION OF CORPORATION BEFORE BUDGET
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the report of the task force on Petro-Canada contains a recommendation which would substantially increase the tax burden of the federal government, and in view of the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which would also add to the burden of Canadian taxpayers as far as Canada's energy policy is concerned, can the Minister of Finance tell us whether we will be advised of the future of Petro-Canada prior to the budget speech on December 11, or will this question remain a vague hypothesis which will be settled only after his budget?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the world and Petro-Canada will unfold as they should, and there will be an announcement on Petro-Canada.


An hon. Member:: Arrogance.


John Carnell Crosbie: When you talk of arrogance, what about the question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 22, 1979
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: The answer to the hon. member is that it was his administration that passed the laws which permitted Shell Oil to pay no taxes last year. When we return PetroCan to the private fold, it will be paying taxes and will not be a Crown corporation sheltered from paying taxes in the future. There has been no decision on PetroCan yet. We have other imperatives to come before us, such as the energy situation generally and the budget. However, PetroCan will be dealt with and an announcement will be made as soon as cabinet has considered the latest analysis.


Marc Lalonde: We have no answer, so I will come back to the energy minister. It appears that Tory times are bad times for Canadians except for one unemployed. According to the Toronto Star of November 10, Mr. Don McDougall, the former chairman of the task force on Petro-Canada, is being paid by the federal government to tour Canada to explain the task force report.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Marc Lalonde: He is using taxpayers' dollars to sell what we have obviously been told is not even government policy yet. My question to the minister is as follows. Are the 136 Conservative members and ministers in this House too divided to tell the people where they stand on this issue, or are they afraid to face the Canadian public and therefore rely on Mr. McDougall to go out and explain the policy? Will the minister put an end to this most objectionable type of contract, immediately?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is clear to me, from that question, why I have not come across the hon. member's name in any paper or any newscast as a possible contender for the Liberal party leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The answer is straightforward. Mr. McDougall has now completed his duties and carried out his responsibilities as chairman of the task force. In the course of discharging those responsibilities, he was, of course, called upon to discuss the task force report which was mandated by this government. I make no apology for that; it is not a big deal. The only thing I can say about the hon. member is that he does not understand common sense when he sees it.


OIL IMPORT COMPENSATION
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Some hon. Members:: Leader!


Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: There seems to be a substantial amount of noise coming from the other side, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. While the government is unfolding PetroCan rather than dismantling it, is the question of the payments under the oil import compensation program being investigated in terms of the fact that the amount of payment has risen from $3 at the beginning of 1979 to $11.50 at the moment? Aside from the fact that OPEC prices have gone up, has the hon. gentleman investigated whether the oil companies are working in concert to bring a larger proportion of higher price oil into Canada so that they will receive a higher subsidy from the Canadian taxpayer?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I read only one paper with the hon. member's name in it as a leadership contender-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps both sides of the House could get back to the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact of the matter is, the scheme itself is designed to encourage importers to bring in lower-cost imports because there is a flat rate attached to them. That has been the subject of some discussion in terms of ensuring, on that flat rate basis, that there will be a supply available in view of the high prices on the spot market in some instances. However, it is a flat rate that is paid. In the second place we do, in fact, carry out an extensive audit by the department with respect to the books of the companies involved in the import compensation program. Independent audits undertaken by the department give us an assurance that fair and reasonable amounts are being paid under this program.


Lloyd Axworthy: In the light of that answer, I would ask the minister: does he consider it a fair and effective audit when it is being conducted by one person in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on a six-month basis? Is that sufficient to take care of the monitoring and observations needed, or are we likely to run into the same kind of "effective" monitoring that we saw in the Irving Oil case?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Irving Oil case has nothing to do with the question posed by the hon. member. I am saying we are sastisfied, now, that the audit system is working. If we can improve the system which was put in place by the previous government, we will do so. There are a lot of areas in which that is, indeed, justified.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board concerning
November 22, 1979

Crown assets in the city of Toronto. Can he explain to the House the logic of the government having taken an a priori decision to put the de Havilland Aircraft Company up for sale before the cabinet has had an opportunity to consider and study the strategy paper on the future of the aerospace industry, especially considering we were told last week by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the report could have an effect not only on the timing of the sale of de Havilland but also on whether de Havilland would be sold at all?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: The hon. member is perfectly correct in saying we intend to take into consideration the aerospace study to which he referred. That is the whole purpose of our approach. The privatization unit is simply looking at the alternatives, evaluations of such companies as de Havilland who may be the buyers, and is working in conjunction with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Also, with regard to the study to which the hon. member has referred, a co-ordinated picture will then be put before cabinet with respect to any possible sale of de Havilland.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have thought that the minister's experience would have told him that this kind of uncertainty does nothing for the prosperity of that industry, for its future and for the security of the workers in that industry.
My supplementary question concerns the DIPP funding for the Dash-8 plane. I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board can give us some indication as to when-or, indeed, whether-if a decision is going to be made, when the decision will be made to provide the necessary $2 million funding that will enable the Dash-8 plane to be developed successfully in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I answered the hon. member earlier with respect to this matter, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is working on a submission to bring to the Treasury Board with respect to the $2 million funding to which the hon. member has referred. The Treasury Board can react only once the submission has been made, and certainly there will be no delay, as far as the Treasury Board is concerned, in arriving at our decision.
However, I remind the hon. member once again that the only confusion about the disposal of de Havilland and the future of the aerospace industry in Canada is with the hon. member himself and certain of his colleagues. In short, the greatest thing we can do to strengthen the aerospace industry in this country is to get it back into private sector hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS


FUNDING OF HARBOURFRONT
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I find it funny that the minister would say, in answer to my first question, that they had not taken the final decision until they got the strategy picked.
My final supplementary is to the Minister of Public Works and it concerns another Crown asset in Toronto-Harbour-front. I wonder if the Minister of Public Works can tell us what the attitude of his government is toward the request by Harbourfront for $18.5 million over seven years for the servicing of public lands, and I wonder if he can tell us when he will be making and announcing a decision with respect to that money.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, that matter is under review now. I saw some of the officers of Harbourfront yesterday morning. As soon as the decision has been made, the House will be informed.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the legislation on RCMP mail openings.
Can the minister tell us whether this legislation is still one of his priorities, and when does he intend to introduce it?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, a measure with respect to enlarging some of the powers of the law enforcement agencies of this country has not yet been considered by my cabinet colleagues.


PROVISIONS OF LEGISLATION
Gilles Marceau: Mr. Speaker, the minister did state last July that this was priority legislation, which seems to be a discrepancy with his statement today.
In any event, does the bill he intends to introduce provide for judicial appeal, in cases of authorization and what he himself called modernization of RCMP discipline as well as an extension of civil liberties?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, any such bill which will come before the House will be a government bill. Therefore, it will be considered and approved by the govern-

November 22, 1979
Oral Questions
ment in total, including my cabinet colleagues and, as 1 have just indicated to the hon. member, my cabinet colleagues have not had the opportunity to take a look at it yet.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Solicitor General. In view of the obvious conflict between statements by the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General with respect to the administration of justice, and the Prime Minister's statement in this House that he is seeking ways and means to contravene the law-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice James Harquail: Can the Solicitor General inform the House what his position is?


An hon. Member:: Order.


Maurice James Harquail: The Minister of Justice, not being here, what is the Solicitor General's position with respect to finding ways and means to break the law of this country?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, unlike some of the practices carried on under the previous administration-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -there is no knowledge on my part of any illegal acts now being carried on by any law enforcement agency. In respect of future activities, I would suggest to the hon. member that obviously he, the public, members of the House and everyone else will be fully apprised of the government's policy when the legislation is presented.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General, but in his absence I will put it to the Acting Prime Minister. Hon. members and the Acting Prime Minister will know that section 43 of the Post Office Act currently provides the following:
Notwithstanding anything in any other act or law, nothing is liable to demand seizure or detention while in the course of post except as provided in this act or the regulations.
Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister could tell us whether or not he is aware of the Postmaster General's declaration outside this House that he, in fact, upheld the sanctity of first-class mail as being his prime responsibility in that role. Perhaps he could assure us that in fact the Postmaster General will continue to be instructed by the government that the sanctity of first-class mail is to be preserved?


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Acting Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no hesitation in assuring the hon. member, if that is his position-which I think is the position of

everyone-that the sanctity of first-class mail is uppermost in everyone's mind. 1 think the hon. member must have a supplementary question, because he would not ask such an innocent question without having a supplementary.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Sock it to him.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: -it is good that the minister anticipates my supplementary. Once again, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister this question: Given the fact that the Postmaster. General declared, outside this House, that he opposed the sanctity of first-class mail and given that, in fact, we have heard the Solicitor General in other places indicating matters quite to the contrary, could the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether or not he supports the legislation as it now exists, whether or not he is moving in other directions, and whether or not the minister who is absent or the minister who is present is speaking for this government?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, 1 know what the hon. member is trying to get at, but he does not have the guts to put the question bluntly and straightforwardly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If the minister were here, he would answer your question. I would state, respectfully, that 1 will take the hon. member's hidden question as notice so that I can pass it on to the Postmaster General in order that he will be in a position to answer the question.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It follows the question that was asked by the hon. member for Essex-Kent. We were witnesses of two blatantly and diametrically opposed statements by, on the one hand, the Solicitor General of Canada and, on the other hand, the Postmaster General of Canada dealing with the mail opening bill, on the one hand, one saying it ought to be extended and, on the other hand, the Postmaster General indicating he would defend his position on the sanctity of the mail when it came to cabinet.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister himself, at his press conference, indicated he favoured the extension of the authority to open mail-and he said that quite categorically- was he speaking for the government at the time when he made that statement?


Hon. Walter Baker (President of Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: I want to thank the hon. gentleman for the question. The Prime Minister always speaks for the government. The Prime Minister was indicating at the press conference he was holding that the matter was under
November 22, 1979

review by cabinet as it had been under review by the former government as to the propriety of extending the right of surveillance with respect to the mail. That remains the position.
In the course of that, the Postmaster General was expressing his opinion with respect to it, his opinion on a matter that is still before cabinet. 1 know that the Prime Minister will be delighted to inform the hon. gentleman of the decision of the cabinet with respect to that position once it has been taken.


Mr. Blais:: I take it from the reply of the hon. gentleman that the fact that the Postmaster General has taken a diametrically opposed position to that of the Prime Minister is deemed by that government to be completely in order and is to be encouraged.


Walter David Baker: The great thing that distinguishes this government from the former government is the ability of members and ministers from time to time to say precisely and correctly what happens to lie on their mind. The Postmaster General has a very strong view with respect to this matter. His view will be taken into consideration, as will be the views of all members on this side of the House with respect to the ultimate government position, and I am not surprised that the hon. gentleman is unused to that, having regard to where he sat for the last five years.


CRIMINAL CODE
Robin Mark Richardson: Mr. Speaker, my question would normally be addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister, but in his absence 1 will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister and House leader of the party. In view of the almost unanimous support for my motion under Standing Order 43, and also in view of the stated objections of the House leader of the NDP to a much needed reform of private members' legislation, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if this government would consider bringing in legislation to amend the Criminal Code to protect the unborn child under our law.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there has been no discussion in the government with respect to bringing in that kind of legislation. However, I want to inform members of the House that issues such as the one raised by the hon. member-issues which are of great importance to members of this House on all sides-may well have an opportunity to be aired in the House under the proposals for changes in the rules of the House of Commons which will permit greater freedom and greater opportunity for members of the .House to decide which, among their particular private members' motions, should be brought to a vote.
1 want to inform the House that it is my intention to table tomorrow a position paper outlining a proposal to the House
Oral Questions
which would permit the House to make its decisions as to what matters could be brought before the House with much greater precision than they could before. 1 hope that that provision will meet with the approval of members on all sides of the House.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. The minister is undoubtedly aware of the fact that the province of British Columbia has recently demanded that the federal government fulfil its commitment under the Loto Canada agreement and, further, has protested a cutback of federal funding of amateur sports this fall. Therefore, I should like to inquire whether during the Loto Canada transfer discussions an agreement was reached whereby provinces would henceforth deal exclusively with requests for funds by volunteer sports groups?


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for posing this question. 1 should like to say to him that we have had continuous discussions regarding the fact that amateur sports should be handled at a certain level by the provinces as well as the federal government. Our negotiations with the province of British Columbia and all other provinces have been very fruitful. We, in turn, will be getting $24 million in 1979 dollars from the provinces as compared with the so-called $6 million which we were supposed to get but never got. Our average income from lotteries since 1976, so far as my department is concerned, was around $3.2 million, and I think members of the previous administration had mentioned we were getting $6 million. Members can take a look at the books in my department and they will see that we have been given an average of $3.2 million.


Mark Willson Rose: Apparently, the province of British Columbia is concerned that all requests for funds from the federal government have been turned back to the province, and that seems to be contrary to the agreement. Would the minister agree that when he appears before the parliamentary committee he will be prepared to bring with him for examination Mr. David Jenkins from the Prime Minister's office who negotiated the Loto Canada give away to the provinces in the first place?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, I should like to

November 22, 1979
Oral Questions
address my question to the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue. Given the fact that souvenirs and other trinkets commemorating the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow are being manufactured through the use of forced labour, according to the first-hand testimony of many Soviet dissidents, including the 11 that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs met with just last month, will the minister, in the name of the Government of Canada, denounce this practice and impose an immediate ban on the importation, handling, sale and purchase of these articles in Canada?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the practice which has existed according to the allegation or the statement of the hon. member. The member having made the statement in the House today, I will undertake to investigate it on his behalf.

[ Translation}


INDUSTRY
Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. Were representations made to the minister by spokesmen for the chicken industry in Ontario and Quebec responding to information bulletin No. 126 directed to importers and dated October 19, 1979? If so, why does the government persist in delivering additional import permits to the Maple Lodge company while chicken meat is piling up every day in Quebec and Ontario warehouses where fresh chicken must be frozen or sold in another form?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, he must recognize that in accordance with the regulation and law respecting the issuing of import and export permits it is necessary to provide import permits when the product is not available in Canada.
With reference to the particular processor the hon. member mentioned, it is true that a few days ago the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce received a request for the issuance of an import permit to the extent of about 1.2 million pounds of broilers and about 500,000 pounds of roasters. 1 must give my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, credit because he refused to issue that import permit without asking the national board to supply the processor from Canadian sources.
The national agency was able to secure about half of the necessary product with respect to broilers and about half of the necessary product with respect to roasters. Therefore, we must understand that every effort was made. In fact, we even went

as far as the province of New Brunswick to find available birds.


An hon. Member:: What for?


John Wise: Therefore, we have picked up-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
[ Translation]


POULTRY IMPORT QUOTAS
Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. Did the government discuss the mechanisms of chicken imports quotas with representatives of the poultry farming industry? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because poultry farmers have been told, when making representations to officials on basic import quotas, that the government has already dictated a policy without the poultry farming industry having been consulted.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, that is just not true because I have been consulting the industry and also individuals within the total industry almost on a daily basis. The member can shake his head negatively, but I know with whom I met. I have met with them on a very frequent and regular basis. In fact, I am meeting with a group tomorrow morning.


PRICE OF OIL-EFFECT ON TOURIST INDUSTRY
Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The government is planning a major increase in the price of oil, and the tourist industry in this country is a vital part of our economy. It is a $11 billion business, 5 per cent of the gross national product of the country, and it employs over one million people. Given those facts, has the government conducted any studies on the impact of major increases in the price of oil on the tourist industry?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will understand if 1 point out to him that unless we take some new steps with respect to bringing about energy self-sufficiency, we will not have the necessary supplies in order to sustain a viable tourist industry. For example, the cost of gasoline is substantially below the levels now being paid in the United States, as has been pointed out on a number of occasions in this House.


Gary Francis McCauley: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister's answer will satisfy the tourist industry in this country. I would ask him specifically what measures the government will take to alleviate the high cost of energy when it comes to the industry?
November 22, 1979


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we fully intend to make sure our tourist industry, as well as other industry in Canada, is competitive with our major source of tourist inflow into Canada and with our major trading partner, the United States. We will keep a competitive advantage. That is the policy of this government, one we will undertake and continue to carry out.


FISHERIES
Mr. Charles Haliburton (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed, through you, to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I was down in my riding last weekend, and it is a beautiful place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles E. Haliburton: 1 recommend it to members. Information was given to me in my riding which indicated that there are in existence, in the province of Nova Scotia, two freezer-trawler licences held by people in that province.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Charles E. Haliburton: In view of the well-known attitude of the previous minister of fisheries-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a question?


Walter David Baker: He is just putting it.


Charles E. Haliburton: My question to the minister is simply: Is it a fact that there are in existence freezer-trawler licences off the east coast of Canada? If so, how many are there, and when were they issued?


Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct; the only freezer-trawler licences which have been issued were issued by the previous administration.


Walter David Baker: Oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: At the present time there are licences in the Atlantic provinces for four freezer-trawlers. The policy of this government on freezer-trawlers will be announced in due course.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Antonio Yanakis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
June 30, 1980, is the expiry date of the order relating to special zones which came into effect on July 1, 1977, and which applies to the Montreal area and satellite localities. The minister said in the House recently that the new policy relating to the special zones of Montreal is actually under close consideration in his department and that a new program will soon be announced.
In light of the fact that the program relating to these Montreal special zones has proven to be a near failure since 1977 as far as the establishment of new industries in this area is concerned, will the minister consider making municipalities located within 50 or 100 miles of Montreal independent from this special area, since these towns should never have been considered as satellites of Montreal? I am referring, for instance, to the counties of Berthier and Joliette, whose economies are disturbed because of a bad recommendation by technocrats.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the policy with respect to the Montreal special area agreement will be announced shortly. 1 can understand the hon. member's concern; but going back to what he said in his motion under Standing Order 43, I would remind him that this program was put in by the former administration. It has resulted in a substantial increase in investment. It has resulted in the creation of a substantial number of jobs. We hope to improve on it. 1 think that the pejorative comments made by the hon. member with respect to the program in his Standing Order 43 are not fully justified.
[ Translation]


DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL ZONES
Antonio Yanakis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Supply and Services, the member for Joliette. I notice that since he took over his new office the minister has suddenly become very quiet about the economic development of Quebec. So 1 would like to ask him if he can assure the House and the voters in the Lanaudiere area that he will personally be talking to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion so that the order on special zones which has brought deplorable economic stagnation in certain Quebec ridings, and which is to be reviewed shortly will no longer apply arbitrarily to the area he represents

November 22, 1979
Oral Questions
in Parliament, namely the ridings of Joliette and Berthier-Maskinonge.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Supply and Services):: With great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague that as early as on the morning of May 23, I discussed this with the minister in charge who understood the importance of my representations. 1 would also like to say to the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge that 1 have been looking after the riding of Joliette for a long time.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question could be addressed to the Minister of Labour, whose department fathered the Hall report on railways pensions in Canada, or it could be addressed to the Minister of Transport, who is the link between us and the railways of this country. I trust that the Minister of Labour will not mind if 1 put the question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that nothing substantial has been done by way of improving the pensions of the retired employees of either Canadian National or Canadian Pacific since the publication of the Hall report, may 1 ask the Minister of Transport if, since his coming into office, he has made representations to Canadian National and to Canadian Pacific that they at least carry out the recommendations of that report. If he has not done so yet, will he do so at the earliest possible date?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that that matter is being considered. I have taken into account the representations which the hon. member made to me personally, and I have also taken into account the representations of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did indicate that he wanted to meet with me privately on this matter, and I have indicated that I would be prepared to do so. 1 am still prepared to do so, and I assure the hon. member that we will continue looking into this matter. Hopefully, we can arrive at a satisfactory resolution which will be in the best interests of railway pensioners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the minister makes his representations to the railways, even though the Hall commission did not deal with this aspect, will he take up with them the unfairness of the present provision whereby the widow of a retired railway worker receives only 50 per cent of the pension when, surely, that ought to be 75 per cent or more?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it would be my intention to consider all such items, and I look forward to our meeting at which time I can discuss these matters with the hon. member as I have with the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine.
[Mr. Yanakis.J


TRANSPORT
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. An amount of $43 million is being added to the $234 million provided for in the main estimates to cover a review of the financing of passenger train service. Can the minister tell the House whether, following a complaint lodged by the Quebec transport department against VIA Rail and the CN about the poor service being provided between Montreal and Chicoutimi, progress has been made on that and if our area can count on those few millions to improve the passenger train service to which we are entitled?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday, it is not necessarily a matter of dollars and cents that could improve the rail service in this country; it is a matter of rationalizing the rail passenger service and ensuring that the best possible service is made available to meet the regional and local needs as well as the transcontinental needs.
I invite the hon. member, if he has specific questions with respect to that particular service, to come to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications this afternoon when the president of VIA Rail will be before the committee, and he can pose those questions to him.


TOURISM
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for International Trade who is also responsible for tourism. The government announced earlier this week that, contrary to expectations, it would contribute only 25 per cent of the cost for a new convention centre in metro Toronto.
In view of the fact that our tourism and travel accounts are major factors in our trade deficit, and that the new convention centre would increase travel to and within Canada, will the government reconsider its position and increase its portion to 33 per cent of the total cost of the centre, as in the case of Vancouver, as a tangible step toward reducing our trade deficit?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it gives me an opportunity to address this particular problem. The question of convention travel is a very important part of our tourism trade and has a very important impact on our balance of payments.
However, on the question of our policy toward convention centres in Canada, we had to establish a rational basis for
November 22, 1979

approaching various requests for support. On the question of the 33 per cent commitment to the Vancouver Centre, that was made by the previous government and we felt that we had to follow through on that commitment. But we did not feel that it was appropriate for us to make that sort of support available at that level on a nationwide basis, and it is on that basis that we chose the figure of 25 per cent.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to have been somewhat supplementary to the question put by the hon. member for Beaches, but it stands on its own. It is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Would the minister tell me whether, in the interest of equity, he would be prepared to re-examine the criteria for the distribution of funds through his department in support of voluntary agencies to ensure that those agencies which oppose abortion, like the Pro-Life movement which honours the sanctity of life, will have a more equitable share of those funds rather than having all the funds go to the pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for his question and indicate to him and, indeed, to all members of the House that I will take the question as notice and as a representation in terms of the concern which he registers for himself and for those whom he represents. The department is reviewing funding to all voluntary organizations, and 1 would be happy to take as notice the query from the hon. member.


FINANCE
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and it follows his response to my colleague, the hon. member for Outremont.
If I heard the minister correctly, he said that next year Petro-Canada would begin paying taxes. I did not hear the minister say the same thing with regard to a multinational oil company like Shell. How does the minister justify making a company which is owned by all Canadians pay taxes when multinational oil companies are not paying taxes?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted to see that the hon. gentleman, who was parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance in the former reincarnation, is now interested in the issue of Shell Oil Company and the oil industry in general paying taxes. 1 ask
Oral Questions
the hon. member to wait for my budget to see whether or not there is anything new in that direction. As far as PetroCan is concerned, it will not necessarily be owned by all Canadians- just by some Canadians if certain things happen in the future. That policy has not yet been decided. When that time comes, then it should pay taxes just as other Canadian-owned companies should pay taxes.


PROFITS OF MULTINATIONAL OIL COMPANIES
Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the House leader in his capacity as the Minister of National Revenue. Since the Prime Minister made the unprecedented statement in this House a week or so ago that the government will discuss an excess profits tax with multinational oil companies, has the minister taken any steps to ensure that these multinational oil companies have not started to transfer some of these excess profits out of the country?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will recall that the Prime Minister indicated he felt it wise to consult as broadly and in perhaps a different way than consultations have taken place before so that the budget-making could be relevant. I frankly support that. I think the hon. member ought to know, from his associations with the former government, the immense capacity of the Department of National Revenue to make inquiries from time to time with respect to the activities of all taxpayers. 1 want to assure him that the Department of National Revenue would have that matter very much in mind.


GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, I understand, is responsible for the administration of government annuities. Thousands of Canadians have invested in government annuities in the hope of having a cushion for financial requirements when they retire.
In view of the fact that the rate of return on annuities was reviewed because of important variations in interest rates under the Government Annuities Improvement Act which was adopted by the previous government, would the minister tell the House whether he plans to raise the rate of interest on annuities to a level higher or close to the level of inflation, to help Canadians who invested in Canada in good faith?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me an opportunity to indicate that we have that matter currently

November 22, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
under review. I hope to be able to report back to him and other hon. members opposite in the very near future.


PETRO-CANADA FINANCING THEREOF
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it true that the recommendations of the task force on PetroCan are hung up in cabinet, due to the resistance of the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, because they do not want to assume the cost of servicing the debt minus the assets and cash flow? If this is true, what changes can we expect in the bill that would be different from the recommendations?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's imagination knows no bounds. I just want to assure him that, as the Prime Minister mentioned a few days ago, the matter of the report of the task force and the question with respect to PetroCan is under review by the government. When that review is completed an announcement will be made in the House in the appropriate way.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board? Given the present interest rates, could the minister indicate how much the annual cost of servicing that debt would be, and from which envelope he expects to pick the money?


John Carnell Crosbie: Order paper!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that the hon. member's question is purely hypothetical and a very difficult one for me to answer without the figures being supplied.


PRIVILEGE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to you by a note that I would raise a question of privilege, although perhaps it is more properly a point of order.
When the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Richardson) put his question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare

(Mr. Crombie) on the question of abortion, he indulged in a non sequitur that made me feel I had a point of order right then. However, I decided I would respect the traditions of this House and wait until the question period was over.
I must say, however, that 1 think it is quite unfair, in the question period, to drag in some other member's name on a subject not related to the point of the question, giving that other member no chance to reply. This is precisely what the hon. member for Beaches did. He said that the member for Winnipeg North Centre was opposed to changes in the rules respecting the rights of private members.
My colleagues around here have been reminding me of the number of changes in the rules for which I have had some responsibility over the years. I welcome the prospect of a white paper on procedure and the opportunity to discuss our rules and to bring them up to date.
I suppose that what the hon. member has seen-I have not but I know I have said this sort of thing to the media-is that, much as I want to see improvements, particularly for private members, I would resist changes that were purely for the purpose of relieving the government of its responsibility to take a stand on issues such as capital punishment and abortion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government has control of this House and can deal with these matters, and its will can prevail if it so wishes. My protest has been against using something as important-almost as sacred-as the rules of this House to relieve the government of its responsibility.
The statement to the effect that 1 was opposed to improving the rules for the private members of this House is totally and utterly false and a non sequitur.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robin Mark Richardson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very glad that the hon. member has explained his position. I was responding to what I had read in the Toronto Star a few weeks ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robin Mark Richardson: From what I have read, it was my impression that he was opposed to this much needed reform. I am very glad to hear that he is fully in support of this much needed reform for private members' bills.
1 would ask the hon. member to accept my apology. I am sorry that I misunderstood his position and I am glad that he clarified it.


MRS. APPOLLONI-VIVISECTION OF HUMAN FETUSES
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the answer which the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacDonald) gave to me in the House yesterday and which is also printed on page 1 550 of Hansard.
November 22, 1979

If 1 might comment on that answer, Mr. Speaker, I note with a considerable amount of astonishment that in speaking on matters of life and death the minister stated, and 1 quote:
-most important of all I understand that these particular studies were carried on in 1976.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the most important factor of all is not when these studies were carried out but whether the experiments were carried out on live human beings. In this connection, the minister stated three times that "no operations were performed on any live human materiar.
Section 206 of the Criminal Code provides that a child becomes a human being within the meaning of the code when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.
In the experiments described in the "Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism", we are told-and I would be happy to table these journals, if necessary-that the babies came into the hands of the scientists following the procedure of hysterotomy. This is a method of abortion which removes a living and not a dead baby as opposed, say, to saline abortions. The same records described some of the subjects of vivisection as having reached the age of 25 weeks in fetal age. Fetal age, of course, is about two weeks behind what the normal age of gestation would be, judging by the date of the last menstrual period. In other words, from an obstetrician's point of view, these babies would be two weeks older, which is important in considering their viability. This is an age when doctors of the Women's College Hospital in Toronto can now frequently manage to ensure the life of a child.
Having established that the child was removed live from the body of its mother, we now face the question of whether it was still alive at the time at which the heart was punctured which, again, according to the same reports, occurred immediately after hysterotomy; that is, when the baby was still alive.
Again, referring to the records in the "Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism", we find that 8 cc's of blood were removed from some of the subjects. On the authority of several independent scientists with whom 1 have been in contact, it is well nigh impossible to remove that amount of blood from the heart of a subject whose heart was not still pumping. Furthermore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) is pursuing a line of argument which differs from the statement given by the acting minister in answering the question yesterday. She does so under a question of privilege. Even if I were to accept her argument, I have some difficulty. The minister made a statement to the House yesterday in answer to her questions saying that it was his information that experiments were carried out on non-living material and that no experiments or actions were carried out on living material, or words to that effect.
If the minister reported that to the House and he was in error, that may be something that might be investigated or pointed out to the House. If it is a matter of argument or
Privilege-Mrs. Appolloni
dispute, however, how do I find a procedural matter involved in it? The member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) is beginning with an argument, and I say to her that even if she pursues it to a successful conclusion and convinces me that there is a case to be made that in fact some experiments were carried out on living fetuses and, therefore, the minister's information was erroneous yesterday, there still is no question of privilege. It may be a disagreement with the minister, or maybe his information was wrong. It may be worth while bringing it to the minister's attention to see whether or not it can be corrected, but I do not see that it can lead us to a procedural discussion.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am in your hands and I want your guidance. The point is that it appears extremely difficult for me to dispute what was said by the minister, and I believe his information is erroneous. Therefore, if his information is erroneous, my privileges as a member were at least infringed upon.


Mr. Speaker:: This is where 1 have to part company. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) is here. He appears to want to participate and perhaps he can shed some light on it. But I cannot accept the basic proposition put forward by the hon. member that, if the minister made an error yesterday, that gives rise to a question of privilege today. As I say, I have given the member an opportunity to point out her side of the argument to the minister, but it seems to me to be a dispute with the minister and his interpretation.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I will not deal with the question as to whether or not we are dealing with privilege. As you know, sir, and as the hon. member knows, I was not in the House yesterday when the acting minister spoke on my behalf.
The matter is of some concern to me. I think I share many of the views of the hon. member on the whole question. But I think what we are talking about is what the appropriate facts are in the matter. I can reassure the hon. member, and through you, sir, invite her to meet with me and the whole of the department. As I understand it, information coming to the department is at her disposal as well.
I do not want to deal with the question on a matter of fact. We may have different views on the whole of the matter and we may share views, but I would at least like us to share the same information. Therefore, although it may not be a question of procedure, as you so state, I would like to make the offer to meet with the hon. member so that we can at least share the same information, whether we agree with that information or not.


Mr. Speaker:: Then perhaps after the matter has been pursued in that way, if the hon. member for York South-Weston thinks she has any procedural argument, then I can hear it at that time.
1590

November 22, 1979
Business of the House POINTS OF ORDER


MR. JARVIS (WILLOWDALE)-TAXES PAID BY SHELL CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Bob Jarvis (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises from information put before the House. The hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) alleged or stated in posing his question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that Shell Oil Company of Canada did not pay taxes in 1978.
1 would like to correct the record, Mr. Speaker. In 1978, in the case of current income taxes, no taxes were paid as a result of increased exploration and depletion of expenses. However, in the case of other forms of taxation, in 1978 Shell Oil paid other taxes of SI38 million and production royalities of $205 million, for a total of $343 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that he has a matter of debate and not a point of order.


MR. MCGRATH -FREEZER-TRAWLER LICENCES-CORRECTION OF PREVIOUS ANSWER
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With your permission, I would like to correct an answer that I gave to the hon. member for South West Nova (Mr. Haliburton) in reply to his question on freezer-trawlers.
Subsequently on checking I find that I was incorrect. There were in fact 13 licences issued for freezer-trawlers by my predecessor in April of this year. Of these 13 licences, six were for unrestricted ground fishing. The hon. member was right, of course; two of these licences are held in the province of Nova Scotia.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, could 1 ask the traditional question as to the business for next week.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing with Bill C-20, the property tax credit bill. Tomorrow is an allotted day, I believe in the name of the hon. gentleman's party. Next week we will be continuing the presentation and debate of Bill C-20. I would hope that the hon. gentleman and others in the House would consider the time that might be involved respecting that. Perhaps we could discuss getting the bill into committee where a detailed examination of the bill might be accomplished, and if there are amendments to be put, the amendments might be considered. That is the business for next week. There is an allotted day next Friday which again I am prepared to designate now.
So that the House will know, there have been some discussions among House leaders and others with respect to other

pieces of legislation. First is the transportation of dangerous goods act. I understand there is a willingness in the House to deal with that bill rather quickly and to get the matter into committee. I would hope that I could have some indication that that is so. Perhaps we could discuss the actual method and time privately.
The other bill with which I think there is some agreement to proceed quickly concerns Bill C-4, an act to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act. I believe there is an anxiety on all sides of the House that that short bill move forward.
1 hope to be able to bring forward within a day or so the veterans' bill, which is of interest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I should tell him that a bill has been approved within the government. It is coming to the committee which I chair-the legislation house planning committee-to be reviewed. As soon as that review is completed and confirmed by cabinet, it will be placed on the order paper very quickly.
Quite frankly, I am anxious to have some arrangements with my friends with respect to consideration of the main estimates and the period of time which they wish to debate that matter. It is my hope that we will adjourn parliament for a Christmas recess of some length-I cannot advise the House at the moment as to what length-on December 21 at the latest. That is what I would hope will happen.
1 might add that we seem to be moving toward an agreement by which we could have second reading of Bill C-15, the freedom of information act, completed prior to Christmas. There may be some hope that we could deal with the balance of Bill C-6, the spouse's allowance, in all stages tonight.
During question period I said 1 would be tabling tomorrow the paper on parliamentary reform which stands in my name. A motion will be placed on the order paper in that connection soon. I would certainly like the whole question of changes in the procedure of the House-not just my paper-to go to a committee so that we can look at reform in the House of Commons.
1 am anxious to arrange a time, if we can, so that the four select committees on FIRA, voluntarism, cost overruns and rehabilitation can be set up for debate and so that Parliament can have its work cut out for it in the committees.
I think that indicates a reasonable and not unreasonable legislative program that we could complete between now and December 21. 1 hope at the meeting I will call for next week that we might be able to discuss those items, in terms of time.
While I am on my feet, I would be grateful if I could ask the government House leader and the opposition House leader- pardon me, not the opposition House leader but the New Democratic Party House leader-whether or not there is any disposition to deal with Bill C-6 this evening as we had discussed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to deal with the spouse's allowance bill in all stages after eight o'clock. That has been agreed to, and we are prepared to proceed.
November 22, 1979

With respect to the transportation of dangerous goods bill, we are prepared to give it second reading with a very short debate, and the same applies to the Federal Business Development Bank bill.
1 believe I have indicated also to the President of the Privy Council that we are prepared to give the freedom of information bill second reading, and I do not anticipate a protracted debate. There may be some participants from this side, but not many. That is a rather positive response to the concerns of the President of the Privy Council.
1 should mention to him that I see some difficulty with respect to how we deal adequately with the main estimates which are coming out of committee on December 7, if we have to complete the budget debate and the main estimates before December 21. That seems to be rather difficult. Maybe he would reflect upon my concerns.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the government House leader proposes to call Bill C-6 at eight o'clock for report stage and third reading. I believe we can complete the spouse's allowance legislation tonight. 1 have noted his comments on the other items before us. Certainly with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods legislation, we will facilitate getting that into committee, which is the place where it can be gone into in some detail.
With regard to the freedom of information act, 1 indicated earlier that we think two days should be allowed for that debate, certainly no more. On the setting up of the four committees to which reference has been made, we believe that can be done in one day, that is, one day for all four.
We are prepared to enter into discussions about the length of time of other debates. However, I see the same problems that the government House leader now sees about trying to get in a budget debate, and get the estimates and all these other things through, before December 21. It does not surprise me that the point of view he now has led him to refer to my friend for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso as the "government House leader". That left him in some doubt as to what to call me! 1 suppose this is because he is now appreciating the difficulty that is faced from the government side. However, we are prepared to co-operate, though that does not mean we will be silent where there are issues which we feel should be debated.
1 am glad the government House leader announced today that the bill respecting veterans is passing through cabinet and will soon be before us. 1 hope it was not just a case of trying to forestall my asking my question for the seventh week in a row. A while ago I was quite justified in trying to get that bill before the House before Remembrance Day. I hope now we can not only get it before the House but get it passed before Christmas.
My friend from Mission-Port Moody is prompting me to make one other reference. Earlier this afternoon 1 was up on a serious question of privilege. I raise this one rather lightheartedly. We down in this corner did notice that the government
Business of the House
House leader waved in the direction of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and called him the "hon. gentleman". He then waved down here and said, "others in the House". 1 suppose he did that because down here we are both ladies and gentlemen.


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if, when he tables his proposals in the form of a paper tomorrow with respect to the reform of the rules, he intends to provide for a limited but special debate beyond what is already provided for in the rules of the House. 1 want to point out to the government House leader that this sort of discussion is usually held within the confines of a very small and possibly specialized circle of members from all quarters of the House. However, some of us have been sitting here for years and we have a number of frustrations to air. Would the government House leader consider providing a two-hour special debate on the paper before it is shunted off to committee?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the hon. member has raised this matter. I am quite prepared to consider that kind of suggestion. It is important that we not be shackled by the hours.
With regard to the important matter the hon. gentleman has raised with respect to the estimates and the problem that was put to the House by the opposition House leader and the NDP House leader, that is, the question of how we can deal reasonably with a legislative program while also facing the provision of the main estimates, on the one hand, and a piece of legislation affecting taxpayers and their tax returns on the other, as well as a budget debate within the short period that is involved, this is why I have kept the list of items I believe we should consider by Christmas relatively short, and I think reasonable. Now that the hon. member for Madawaska-Vic-toria has raised the point, 1 hope that all hon. members will consider whether it might be appropriate for the House to sit extra hours in order that we can accomplish this and the kind of question raised by the hon. member for Madawaska-Vic-toria, if not at this time perhaps a bit later as we go along. It might be something we could consider in order to do the kinds of things the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria wants.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the general discussion with respect to the order of business of the House. 1 once again thank the House leader of the NDP for indicating that they are willing to deal with an important matter that has been pending since the House opened, namely the setting up of the four select committees. I appreciate the fact that the government House leader has indicated that this matter has great priority.
However, the House leader for the official opposition failed to mention in his remarks the setting up of the select committees. 1 hope he has not deliberately avoided that question because some of us who are going to have special responsibilities in these matters are going to be placed under an impossible time restraint, particularly in reference to the select committee dealing with the interest of the disabled and handicapped citizens of Canada.

November 22, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Malone
1 trust that the opposition House leader will join with the representative of the NDP and the President of the Privy Council in indicating that the setting up of all these committees will be given high priority. In his former role as government House leader, he was strongly in support of this measure. I trust that this is still his sentiment and desire.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the desire of the House, arising from the discussion, that an order be made at this time that the House at eight o'clock this evening will turn to the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-6, and that at 9.45 the Chair shall interrupt the debate and any progress to put all questions necessary to dispose of any motions then outstanding pursuant to Standing Order 75, and any other questions necessary to dispose of the report stage and in turn the third reading of Bill C-6? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to take a moment to ask if Your Honour would investigate what appears to be an increasing intensity of light and certainly a feeling of increased heat in the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: Perhaps Your Honour could report back as to whether that is fact or whether I am not feeling well.


Mr. Speaker:: This is following the point raised by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) a few days ago. We did in fact discover that the lighting and camera people had increased the lighting intensity by about 10 per cent. We have reduced it to the level at which it was in the last Parliament and will experiment with this for a while.
The question of temperature is the easiest of all aspects to solve. We have within our means the power to control the temperature quite accurately. I will take the hon. member's representations in that regard and examine what can be done to reduce the temperature, which may help some. We ought to continue for a few days at this lighting level. If it is then still troubling members, we may have to try it at a reduced level from this which, I repeat, is the level at which we operated during the last Parliament.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even if the lighting intensity may have been lowered by 10 per cent it is still at the same level as last year when the situation was terrible, especially for me as I spend long hours in this House because of my duties. I therefore

support those of us who suffer particularly because of the lighting, which gives splitting headaches to several of my colleagues. I myself get them more often than otherwise.
Our working conditions are almost inhuman, Mr. Speaker, and I join the whip of the official opposition who spoke up last week and the previous speaker in asking you specifically, Mr. Speaker, to lower the lighting intensity even further: as it is, it is unacceptable. You have said that it is possible to reduce the temperature but, to my mind, that is of secondary importance; it is the lighting intensity which affects our eyes and gives headaches to several members of the House.
If it is true that the lighting intensity was reduced by 10 per cent a few days ago, I must say that maintaining that level, which is the same as we had last year, is not good enough because the situation was intolerable then. We accepted it because we thought we were going through an experimental stage. So, without in any way wanting to jeopardize the televising of our debates, I nevertheless trust that science will allow us to reduce the intensity of the floodlights to enable hon. members to work under minimally acceptable human conditions.


Mr. Speaker:: I want hon. members to know that we are examining this matter very carefully. The technicians have been taking readings each day and we are trying to find a balance which will ensure not only the proper quality of reproduction but, in addition, something which involves a little more difficulty, a fair distribution of the quality of the picture throughout the chamber. This is a matter, which is, of course, of some sensitivity. We must keep the light at a level which will ensure that members in the corners of the room have the same kind of image projected, the same quality of picture, as those who sit in the centre. That requires a certain level of lighting below which we cannot go. We are very close to that level now, but I assure hon. members that I will keep watching this matter very carefully.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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 by the government today: Nos. 55, 64, 107, 235, 429 and 643. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
November 22, 1979


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice-presidents of the Canadian Dairy Commission?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


John Wise: 1.	(a) Gilles Choquette-chairman
(b)	Elwood G. Hodgins-vice-chairman
2.	(a) $42,700-$58,500
(b) $38,300-$52,100


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice-presidents of the National Capital Commission?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Erik Nielsen: 1.	(a) Hon. C. M. Drury-chairman
(b) Mr. William T. Perks-vice-chairman
2.	(a) $58,500-$65,500
(b) As vice-chairman of the N.C.C., Mr. Perks receives an honorarium of $8,000 per annum and, in addition, the payment at the rate of $123 per diem for time spent in performing his duties as a member of any committee.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total cost to the taxpayer of all expenses whatsoever since April 20, 1968 when the former Prime Minister assumed office, up to the date he left office, in connection with the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive and what amount was for (a) maintenance (b) salaries (c) alterations and installations of any new (i) building fixtures (ii) furniture or other contents (d) food (c) alcoholic beverages (f) private entertainment?


Walter David Baker: In so far as the National Commission is concerned, records are available from April 1, 1970, only and indicate a total amount of $327,132 from that date up to June 9, 1979. This total amount includes:
(a)	$148,078, of which (i) $94,510 was for general maintenance of the grounds and (ii) $53,568 was for site refurbishment including landscaping and construction of a boundary
fence.
(b)	$179,054
(c)	(d) (e) and (f) None.
In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned: in accordance with the Government of Canada Records Disposal Schedule, information prior to April 1, 1973, is not required, but is available from previous records in total only.
Order Paper Questions
The total cost to the taxpayer of all expenses in connection with the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive, from April 1, 1968, to June 9, 1979, was $859,345.93. Since April 1, 1973, the following was spent for:
(a)	Maintenance, $271,588.74;
(b)	Salaries, $56,974.58;
(c)	Alterations and installations of any new
(i)	building fixtures, $243,105.43;
(ii)	furniture or other contents, $89,825.92.
(d)	, (c) and (f) None.
In so far as the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices are concerned:
(a)	and (c) To be answered elsewhere.
(b)	, (d), (e) and (f) See below.
Prime Minister's Residence Costs
Year	Salaries and Wages (excluding superannuation)	Supplies	Sundries (entertain-	Total	Person- Years1968-69	$ 23,499	$ 6,796	ment) $ 4,119	$ 34,414	71969-70	28,520	6,868	3,571	38,959	71970-71	31,200	7,712	4,142	43,054	71971-72	37,192	8,736	2,929	48,857	61972-73	44,367	11,241	3,673	59,281	61973-74	57,261	12,739	5,620	75,620	71974-75	69,056	14,953	1,533	85,542	71975-76	102,380	18,753	4,771	125,904	10*1976-77	123,880	21,718	6,364	151,962	101977-78	148,340	23,220	3,020	174,580	101978-79	164,517	26,132	6,166	196,815	101979-June 4/1979 27,321	3,819	280	31,420	
Note-The person-year increase in 1975-76 and beyond was caused solely by withdrawal of cleaning services by DPW and the transfer of the chauffeur's position from PMO office to residence establishment.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): During the fiscal year 1977-78, did the government subsidize the milk industry in regard to powdered milk and, if so, in what amount?


John Wise: No. However, in 1977-78 the Canadian Dairy Commission paid a subsidy of $2.66 per hundredweight of industrial milk containing 3.5 per cent butterfat produced by the Canadian dairy farmers.


Mr. Mitges: For each fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975 (d) 1976 (e) 1977 (f) 1978 (g) 1979, what was the total amount of loans provided by the Farm Credit Corporation to (i) individuals (ii) farming corporations (iii) co-

November 22, 1979
Order Paper Questions
operative farm associations that had a mailing address in the constituency of Grey-Simcoe?


John Wise: Farm Credit Corporation advises that statistics are not maintained on a constituency basis. However, for the townships which make up Grey-Simcoe, the answer is as follows:
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)0)	*621,000	(i)	$950,400	(i) $1,435,500	(i) $2,789,700	(*)	178,400	(ii)	174,100	(ii)	27,000	(ii)	294,500(iii)	0	(iii)	0	(iii)	0	(iii)	0(e)	(0	(g)*	(i) !	51,158,400	(i) $2,524,900	(i) $1,718,700	(ii)	0	(ii)	150,000	(ii)	325,000	(iii)	0	(iii)	0	(iii)	0	[DOT]to June 30, 1979


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount spent by the government in each of the past three fiscal years for the purchase of wine and, in each case, what amount was spent on (a) Canadian (b) imported wine?


Walter David Baker: Departmental accounting records are not kept in such a manner as to permit retrieval of this information without requiring the checking of each item purchased by each department.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could the parliamentary secretary tell me when he thinks he will be able to answer the single question I have had on the order paper for some weeks with respect to the functions of the Clerk of the Privy Council? As I rise on this point of order I recollect the admonitions which used to be delivered so regularly by the late right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, and I regret he is not with me today to impress upon the parliamentary secretary the necessity of answering these sensitive questions.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso be good enough to tell me the number of that question? There are 650 on record and I think we have answered some 25 per cent of them already.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 21, 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.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when addresing the House on this bill members in my party explained why we felt the measure before us is unacceptable as a tax policy and as an economic policy. We started to discuss why it fails in some very significant aspects as a housing policy.
In introducing the bill the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) emphasized that it was a housing policy, one designed to make housing more accessible to people, especially those with young families. I pointed out then that economists estimate that when the tax credit is properly enforced it would have the effect of increasing the cost of housing anywhere from 10 to 25 per cent, that this amount would be capitalized in the price of homes and that the subsidy would simply constitute, basically, a windfall to all present home owners.
To developers who are now holding an inventory of close to 10,000 new housing units across the country, the increased demand generated by the subsidy would also constitute a major windfall. We were afraid that in the end the benefits from the program would not accrue to young families but would, in fact, end up in the hands of development companies and lending institutions. For a government which purports to be concerned about the efficiency of direct spending programs, this sort of back door giveaway scheme is a disgrace. We estimate that up to 95 per cent of the subsidy will not reach the hands of new home buyers and, therefore, of the young families which need some kind of assistance if they are to acquire homes. This is one criticism we have of the program as a housing program-that it will drive up the cost of housing.
The other point I should like to make is that because of the increase in interest rates any benefit that the program may bring is more than wiped out. There are some major problems with housing in this country. Just the other day I read in The Globe and Mail of Toronto that 1,200 new home owners in Peel county have walked away from their homes because they could not keep up with the increased monthly cost. So here alone we find 1,200 former home owners, Mr. Speaker, who could no longer afford their homes. These people were living in homes built under the AHOP program; their monthly payments increased from some $400 a month to over $760 a month. It became impossible for them to meet those payments. What did they do? They mailed in their keys to the mortgage company and said: "Take them; I cannot afford it any more".
November 22, 1979

In the process these people lost their initial down payment, plus whatever they had spent on improvements to their homes, and today they are renters. What will the proposed legislation before us do for these people? Will it make housing any more accessible to them? We submit it will not. It may, in fact, make it even more difficult for these people to own homes in the future.
What are some of the problems in housing in this country? I have mentioned one-the high interest rates. Another problem, of course, is the cost of land. In 1977 the NHA financed houses in the cities of Edmonton, Hamilton, Toronto and Vancouver at the following cost of land. In Edmonton it cost $25,252; in Hamilton, $26,078; in Toronto, $25,956; in Vancouver, $22,799. This is what it cost for an average lot for an NHA financed house in those cities.
The cost for urban land in Canada is so much greater than in the United States. For example, a recent Alberta study shows that a three-bedroom bungalow in Alberta cost $60,200, whereas in Montana a three-bedroom bungalow cost $42,300. There was some difference in the construction, the material and the labour costs, but that accounted for only 23 per cent of the difference. The major difference was in the price of land. It was in the cost of lots. The difference was that in Montana a lot cost $8,400 whereas in Alberta the same lot would have cost $20,700.
Why is housing so expensive? Why is land so expensive? Because most of the major urban land in Canada is controlled by a half dozen major developers who have bought land, who operate their own "land bank" and who have been able to manipulate the price of urban land, reaping major windfall profits. The profits of large suburban land developers have added $10,000 to the price of a $50,000 home in my home city of Regina. But even that is small stuff. In cities like Toronto and Vancouver the cost of a house has increased $25,000 because of speculation in urban land. If we are going to make housing more accessible to the average Canadian, that is the type of problem we must attack. We must stop the types of rip-offs which occur with regard to urban land. The present proposal before us does not solve that problem. All it will do is help subsidize that type of development rip-off on the Canadian people.
Let me give another example. In Calgary, houses being built by Genstar, a major land developer in this country, sold for $54,000 in 1976. These were very smallish, three-bedroom bungalows with no garages on 40-foot lots. The estimated construction cost of those homes based on local CMHC figures was $33,000, leaving a "modest" $21,000 price for the lot. The carrying and developing costs for Genstar worked out to $7,775. This left a mere $12,600 profit per house for Genstar! That is totally unacceptable.
These companies have indeed been doing relatively well. Let me read into the record how the corporate assets of three major land developers in this country have increased over the last five years. The total assets of Nu-West in 1977 amounted
Mortgage Tax Credit
to $482,798,000. In 1973 the figure was only $89,661,000, showing a five-fold increase in four years. In 1978 the total assets of Cadillac Fairview amounted to $1.8 billion. In 1973 the figure was $900 million. The figure doubled in five years.
Another major developer, Bramalea, had assets of $347 million in 1978 but only $147 million in 1973. The figure has doubled. Given that that kind of growth can only be explained by excessive profits made by monopoly pricing practices, perhaps the government should be investigating the business practices of these companies under the Combines Investigation Act. Perhaps that step would help reduce the cost of housing and make housing more accessible to the average Canadian. No, the government is not going to do it, and the proposals from the former government will not either. They are not going to tackle their corporate friends. This type of growth of these land developing companies occurred under the rule of the former government. The former government allowed it to occur. A few large corporations in this country were allowed to double and at times triple their assets.
We are not against free enterprise.


An hon. Member:: Tell us.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Hon. gentlemen opposite suggested yesterday that we were against profits. I wonder what kind of free enterprise we have here when a few large corporations have squeezed out all local contractors. I have many friends in Regina who are local contractors and build a few houses. These people have carpentry and plumbing skills, but they are totally unemployed. They have been totally squeezed out of the market.


Mr. Froese:: In Saskatchewan?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Hon. members opposite and the former government have encouraged excessive growth and excessive manipulation in the price of urban land. Let us make housing more accessible to people. Let us have a market system existing in housing. Let us break the stranglehold large developing companies have on urban lands and allow small contractors back into the field. Let us investigate large developing companies for their monopoly practices. Hon. gentlemen opposite say we are opposed to profits, that surely profit is an incentive and that it is the energy that keeps the country going.
These companies have made profits, but what have they done with their profits? Most of the profits are invested in condominiums in Florida, office buildings in Dallas and shopping centres in California. That is where the profits have gone. In addition, of course, profits have gone into acquiring new assets. It is much easier to acquire new assets because one can escape paying any taxes. Imagine, Nu-West increased its assets from some eighty-nine thousand million to four hundred and eighty-two thousand million! Imagine, that occurred in four years! What a growth industry! But at whose expense? It was at the expense of the Canadian people. That is why the cost of a house in Regina has increased by $10,000. It is because of speculation on land. That is why the cost of a house

November 22, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
in Toronto or Vancouver has increased by $25,000. It is because of speculation on land. The government's proposal is like peeing in the wind when compared with the type of corporate rip-offs and excess profits that the average Canadian home owner must pay for.


An hon. Member:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Mr. Kempling:: Watch your language.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order. 1 suggest that the hon. member withdraw that remark and restrict himself to parliamentary language.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that remark.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: 1 was carried away by the injustice of the situation. Still, the major point is that as the cost of an average house increased by $10,000 to $25,000, the $1,000 which home owners might ultimately be able to get back is just insignificant. Let us make housing accessible to the Canadian people.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) apologized for his remark. I wonder if it is implied by that that he has also withdrawn the offending term or whether that must be requested explicitly of the hon. member.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, if it is required that I withdraw the remark, 1 certainly will, and instead of saying what [ said previously let me substitute "whistling in the wind". Is that acceptable? However, it should be understood that I am still making the same point.
I believe there is another point of order.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member opposite would accept a question for clarification.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if I might answer the question at the end of my remarks. Would that be acceptable?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Certainly.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the basic point I was trying to make is that the scheme before us will not really help the new home owner and that the benefits derived from this program will eventually be capitalized into the cost of housing and increase the cost of housing. Economists have predicted that as much as 95 per cent of the benefit of this program will end up in the hands of land developers and lending institutions.
My second point is that if we are going to make housing more accessible to Canadian people, we should really examine and tackle the reasons why it is not accessible today.

Those are the two major points I wanted to make with regard to accessibility of housing. During the last campaign the New Democratic Party recognized that the average Canadian is having difficulty acquiring his own private home. Yesterday, hon. members opposite suggested that the NDP is against individuals owning their own homes, to which I said that that was total nonsense. In fact, I pointed out that the Saskatchewan government has also acted in that area to make housing more accessible to the people of Saskatchewan. But, as I pointed out, that was done on the basis of the ability of people to pay, whereas the present program does not recognize that and therefore does not recognize a basic principle in the progressive taxation scheme.
During the campaign the NDP suggested the program of reducing the mortgage interest rate to 8 per cent for a family earning $25,000 or less a year or to 9 per cent for a family earning $30,000 a year. We still feel that this is the sanest way of tackling the problem of high interest rates and of accessibility of housing to the Canadian people. We should reduce the interest rate especially for those families which find it extremely difficult to purchase their own homes. In this way we can stabilize the market much more, because when we stabilize the interest rates people will know from one year to the next how much they will be expected to pay and thus can plan ahead. I know planning ahead is a foreign notion to hon. members opposite. They do not like planning ahead. In fact, they are anarchists in a way; they enjoy living from day to day and they do not like to plan, because that is supposed to be socialism and they have an ideological hang-up about it.
We also suggested a cost of living tax credit to help tenants. We suggested also increased expenditures on co-ops and nonprofit housing, to implement more rehabilitation programs, to help fix up older homes in downtown areas, to expand land banks and to stop profiteering. Our criticism of the present proposal is that in the end all it does is subsidize the existing system where windfall profits are being made by a few, and those profits are hardly being used in the country but are being shipped out of the country, thus exacerbating our balance of payments problem.
There is a need for a real housing program, a need to make housing more accessible to many Canadians, especially those in the average and lower income group brackets. The market at present has failed miserably to provide housing for these people. We have been in need of a government agency like CMHC to intervene so as to make certain that these people also have adequate housing. Many other good programs that CMHC was carrying out have already been cut by the former government. I have no illusions that the present government will reverse that trend. In fact, if anything, I am afraid that trend will be continued.
I hope that the government opposite will look at the reason why the cost of housing in this country is higher than it is in the United States; that it will realize that the cost of land is the major reason, and that it will be able to tackle that problem. Because there is no reason why urban land should be
November 22, 1979

more costly in Canada than it is in the United States. I hope that the government will have the guts to say, despite all the various ideologies and differences, "Look, you fellows, housing is essential to the Canadian people. We are going to take housing and urban land out of a system where a few monopolies control the resources, for the maximum benefit. I am sorry, fellows, but this is essential to the welfare of this country."
1 hope the government will have the courage to say, "We are going to require that CMHC ensure that land and housing are available to the Canadian people at the cheapest possible price. We are in a deficit situation and we cannot afford to pour billions of dollars"-it is going to be $6 billion in four years under the present government-"into the hands eventually of the banks and the developing companies. I am sorry, fellows, but nowadays we cannot afford that any longer."
I hope this government will have the gumption to be able, to use their phrase, to bite the bullet and make those hard decisions, not based on their ideology, in fact not even based on the advice of their political and financial contributors, but based on the interests of the Canadian people. 1 hope this government will say, "Look, fellows, this type of exploitation of urban land has to stop because we have to make housing accessible to the Canadian people; this has gone a little too far so we will bring in measures to stop the exorbitant price increase on urban land." If the government were to take such a heroic step, it would win the applause and support of every reasonable Canadian across this country. That is why it is very hard for us, members of the opposition, to support this government in many of its measures.
I do not want an election and I know the people back home do not want one either; but, on the other hand, we cannot afford to vote for programs that are going to make the situation worse because we would then be derelict in our duties to the Canadian people. If the government were to bring forward a program that would effectively reduce the cost of housing and make it accessible to the Canadian people, if they would give us something we could support, then we would vote for their motions. But as it stands now, all we see this to be is not a $6 billion program to help the average Canadian home owner but a $6 billion program to help half a dozen land developing companies and the banks of this country. Therefore, in no way can I support this bill as it stands.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to put a question to the hon. member opposite who just finished speaking. When he was stating his figures he inadvertently used the figure of ninety-eight thousand million dollars, meaning $98 billion, when referring to the companies' assets. I wonder if he could get back to his figures and correct them because it is quite important to those companies. I am sure they wish they had $98 billion worth of assets, but I think the hon. member meant, in fact, $98 million.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct. In 1973 it was $89 million and in 1977 it was $482 million.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Mortgage Tax Credit


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon on this important piece of legislation to amend the Income Tax Act to provide credit in respect of mortgage interest on home owners' property.
Let me touch on the background of this bill. The Progressive Conservative Party was elected on the promise to provide a major tax relief to home owners. This legislation will keep that promise. Actually, we first proposed it back in 1965. Over the years the Liberals have had the opportunity to implement such a plan and they could have got the credit for it. They also had the opportunity to implement a mortgage deductibility plan even before they called the election on May 22. But now that they are in the opposition they are coming up with all kinds of ideas having to do with housing. They have had 17 years in which to come up with these ideas but, as usual, they have other priorities, and helping people with housing is certainly not a priority with the Liberal party. I will talk about that in more detail in a few minutes.
Also effective in the 1979 taxation year, home owners will qualify for two tax credits. The mortgage interest credit will reduce federal taxes payable through a tax credit of 25 per cent of interest payments on a mortgage used to purchase a home or to make major alterations in excess of $5,000. There is a limit of $5,000 on such interest payments for a maximum tax savings of $1,250. The home owner property tax credit will reduce federal taxes payable by a flat $250. That is a commendable start. The program will be phased in over four years. There will be 25 per cent of the benefits available this year and 100 per cent in 1982. The maximum benefit this year will be $375, rising to $1,500 in 1982. The legislation will permit the transfer of credits between spouses.
Over the years the Liberal party has spent large sums of money on housing studies. One of the most comprehensive housing studies ever done was completed in January of 1969. It was the report of the Federal Task Force on Housing and Urban Development. This task force was chaired by the Hon. Paul Hellyer. If the Liberal party had implemented all the recommendations of this task force, we would not be presenting any bill like this today; it would not be necessary. Unfortunately the Liberal party only implemented some minor recommendations of this task force.
The major recommendation dealing with land costs and utilization was not dealt with at all by them. Because this section was not implemented, the Hon. Paul Hellyer left the Liberal party, as he happens to be a man of principle. This recommendation dealt with land speculators, but the Liberal party, being the party of big business, would not want to attack their friends, the land speculators. If they had brought in this second recommendation, land costs would be half what they are today. That would have been a major step toward helping people get into their homes. It was not a priority of the
1598

November 22, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
Liberal party because it wanted to look after its friends, the land speculators.
The second recommendation of the task force was ignored completely by the Liberals. In part it read:
The right to own and dispose of property and to take a reasonable gain from one's labours are an integral part of the Canadian tradition. But the task force seriously questions whether such rights can be stretched to encompass situations where the owners of land reap gigantic financial benefit not from improving or working it, but merely by allowing it to lie fallow or in admitted under-use while the efforts of the community around it make such land an ever-increasingly valuable asset.
They pointed out that there is a growing trend to treat these gains as taxable income and so forth. As members of the New Democratic Party mentioned, there was concern over land speculators. If the second recommendation had been implemented the cost of a lot today, and over the last ten years, would have been cut by half.
When I was on the city of Winnipeg council in 1971, I attempted to have a similar motion passed which dealt with agricultural land being held for speculation. Unfortunately I could not convince my colleagues on that point. I guess there were too many Liberals and NDP on the council. Over the years the Liberal party has made it perfectly clear that assisting people to get into houses is not its priority. That is why they are filibustering this bill. Certainly they are making their point. It is very, very clear. They are opposed to assistance to home owners. But I must give them credit. When they want to make a point, they really get it across.
I understand there are approximately 47 more speakers from the Liberal party who want to get up and say that they are against this assistance to home owners. On energy costs they said that we must push Canadian oil prices toward international levels. In their speeches in the past, in page after page they told us that oil must rise to world prices. Certainly they made their point there. They want oil to go to world prices.
I should like to answer some of the concerns of renters about the government's mortgage interest and property tax credit program. For many Canadians, renting is viewed as a temporary condition until they can afford to purchase. A recent survey found that 90 per cent of young Canadians want to own their own homes. This Progressive Conservative initiative will make that dream easier to achieve. Because mortgage interest and property taxes are deductible as business expenses for landlords, already renters are receiving similar benefits. While rents in some provinces have been kept down by rent controls, very little has been done to make home ownership more affordable. The plan has some spin-off benefits for renters. As more Canadians encouraged by the Conservative tax credits move into their own homes, more rental accommodations will become available, thus taking pressure off those people who choose to continue to rent.
It is impossible to meet the needs of all Canadians with one government program. For example, the old age pension does nothing for the young; the child tax credit does nothing for people who do not have children. There is no such thing as a piece of legislation which deals with the entire nation at once.

If it becomes necessary to provide subsidies to renters, it will be done through other means, such as a shelter allowance. The federal government already is involved with provincial governments in the delivery of subsidized housing for low income families, senior citizens and others through the non-profit housing assistance program, the co-operative housing program, the graduated payment mortgages for landlords, and other CMHC programs. The charge that we are discriminating against others is completely false, because there are programs which help people with low incomes and senior citizens.
This program is being financed by passing the benefits of the government's restraint program on to Canadians. Renters are not being asked to pay higher taxes to assist home owners. I listened very carefully to the previous NDP member who spoke on this bill. He mentioned all the good things the NDP wanted to do and have done in the past. But I want to point out to him that the Conservative government was elected in October of 1977 in Manitoba. They had to scramble to put a housing program together with the federal funds that were available, so the NDP were not using federal funds to assist home owners. The Conservative government had to scramble to get a program together toward the end of 1977 to use the funds which the NDP would not use to assist home owners in Manitoba.


An hon. Member:: Don't bother talking about the NDP. They have left.


A. Daniel McKenzie: There are no NDP members in the House at all. There are a couple of Liberal members. Perhaps some of them are watching these proceedings on television in the lobby. I hope they get my message. In 1978 there were funds available in Manitoba. The Conservative government of Manitoba used all the funds in 1978 to assist its home owners. I have a sheaf of various programs of the Conservative government in Manitoba to assist^senior citizens, home owners and people with low incomes. They have programs to help rebuild the run-down downtown areas. There is lots of assistance in other areas. We are not discriminating against anyone with this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-20. To say otherwise is nothing but a lot of silly nonsense.
There are programs to assist other people. That is further evidence of the fact that we do not discriminate against other people. There are rural and native housing programs, public housing assistance, private non-profit housing corporation assistance and the National Housing Act which offers various forms of assistance to privately owned, non-profit, low income rental housing. People on low incomes and senior citizens are not being neglected, as members of the New Democratic and Liberal parties are trying to make out. They indicate that it is a discriminatory piece of legislation. It is not discriminatory at all. It is just another lever to give further assistance to home owners and potential home buyers. In the past the Liberals have agreed with these programs to assist home owners but now they want to filibuster this bill.
November 22, 1979

There are also rehabilitation programs, and assistance for non-profit corporations which are eligible under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. There is assistance for non-profit co-operatives, and there is the Community Services Program with which we are dealing. The federal-provincial governments will sign an agreement covering the operation of the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, the Municipal Infrastructure Program and the Municipal Incentive Grant Program, now consolidated into the Community Services Program for 1979-1980. The program will start in 1979 with a funding level of $150 million. As of January 1, 1980, it will increase to $250 million.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who is the official spokesman for housing in the opposition party, has stated that the bill discriminates against others in terms of assistance. That is completely false. I have read into the record programs where other groups are getting assistance, and Bill C-20 will merely assist another group of people. His negative attack on this bill is ridiculous. There has also been a new program announced for Manitoba. Under this program 350 family units will be built and 600 units for senior citizens. They have allotted $14 million for the work to be done this year. This is another step forward to assist home owners, and it is rather ridiculous for anybody to speak against it. It is merely another program, along with many others, to assist home owners.
Coming back to the renters again, recognizing that rising rents coupled with fixed incomes put terror into the hearts of Manitoba's senior citizens, the Conservative government in Manitoba has wisely designed a new rent subsidy program which will help 9,000 elderly for the relatively low price of $3.5 million. That is another indication that renters as well as home owners are receiving assistance.
It has also been mentioned recently that mortgage rates are being reduced. This will certainly assist the firms which have recently announced that they will drop their mortgage rates one or two points. We are making progress. There have been a lot of other ridiculous charges made by the Liberals and the NDP, one of which is that the program benefits only the rich. Last weekend I met with a constituent of mine whose income is about $20,000 a year. Both he and his wife work, and they are managing to keep the bungalow going and to pay the mortgage. He said that he had to laugh at the Liberals for calling him rich because he made $20,000 a year. He said that the government is trying to give people like him a little tax relief, but the Liberal party is calling people like him rich.
The tax proposals are not intended to act as an income redistribution of welfare programs. Their primary purpose is to provide tax refief to existing home owners and to provide incentives that will make home ownership more attractive to potential home buyers. The program is not geared to the rich but, rather, at the average working Canadian.
I have covered how the senior citizens and low income people are getting assistance. This program is for the average working Canadian. The largest single category of home
Mortgage Tax Credit
owners, almost 35 per cent, are skilled or unskilled labourers. The top income category, owners and managers, account for little more than 6 per cent of all Canadian home owners. Clearly, this indicates that it is not a program for the rich.
Another question which has been raised is the question about regional differences in that the program does little for Quebec, which has fewer home owners, and little for Atlantic Canada where most homes are already paid for. The answer is that the tax proposals are not intended as a federal-provincial transfer program. High levels of home ownership in Atlantic Canada mean that larger numbers of people will qualify for the property tax credit. One of the hon. members from eastern Canada stated yesterday that eastern Canada would not benefit, but it will benefit. Quebec home owners face the highest property taxes in Canada and taxes of $1,500 for an average home are often the case. Thus, there is a great need for property tax relief. There are more potential home owners in Quebec, where the construction unemployment rate was 22 per cent in 1978. A significant portion of the Canadian furniture industry is located in Quebec, which is an industry that will benefit significantly from increased home ownership.
There have also been charges that this bill will have an impact on provincial revenues. It has been stated that the expected cost of $2.3 billion by the fourth year does not take into account the additional cost to the provinces, which base their revenues on the percentage of the federal tax, and that this is intruding into provincial jurisdiction. The answer is no. The credit is against the federal share of income taxes payable. This program does not affect provincial revenues. Some provinces, such as Saskatchewan, may wish to offer similar relief. This is entirely at the option of the province concerned, but most of the provinces have excellent programs now. This program is merely an additional one which will give more assistance to home owners. I find it strange that the parties opposite would oppose this program, but we are used to this, particularly from the Liberals.
There have also been comments to the effect that this program will have an impact on inflation by increasing the demand on both housing and mortgage funds, thereby increasing the cost of inflation and causing further inflation. The answer once again is no. With regard to increasing the demand for housing and raising prices, it should be noted that at present there is a very substantial inventory of unsold housing units in Canada. Furthermore, it is expected that because of unused capacity in the housing industry, it would be able quickly to respond to increased demand by increasing the supply. The construction industry can build 275,000 units annually, yet housing starts are only expected to average 196,000 units this year and 205,000 in 1980. Those figures are based on forecasts by the Conference Board in Canada.
In terms of excess demand for mortgage funds, the recent low level of housing starts has created a situation where lenders are faced with a surplus of funds. That surplus would have to be exhausted before market factors cause interest rates to rise. 1 mentioned earlier that in some instances mortgage

November 22, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
rates are being reduced. I think that we can look forward to further reductions in the near future.
Another question which has been raised with regard to interest rates is that by raising the prime lending rate, we have wiped out any potential benefits. That is not correct. Higher interest rates are necessary in the short term to stop investment from leaving Canada for the United States, where interest rates are continuing to rise. If large sums of capital leave the country, then the dollar will fall resulting in increased inflation. As to the statements by members of the official opposition that the policy of the government is to raise interest rates for no apparent reason, those statements are totally false. It is because of the Liberal policies of uncontrolled spending and government growth that we have the largest debt of any country in the western world, and this has caused interest rates to rise.
The debt has to be paid off, and there is no escape. It would be very nice if, when a new government is formed, all past debts were wiped out, but that is not the way it works. The Canadian people have been trapped by the Liberals into paying off this ridiculous debt which is costing the taxpayer in carrying charges alone $23 million a day. As mortgages are usually issued on a longer-term basis, such as five years, mortgage rates are only affected by fluctuations in the bank rate.
There has also been a question raised with regard to refinancing. It is said that for people who already own their own homes, what is to stop them from taking out a $50,000 mortgage and enjoying the tax deduction while reinvesting the funds? There have been safeguards built into the plan to prevent it from being abused. Taxpayers will not be able to obtain increased benefits by taking out larger loans on their existing homes. The only exception to this will be loans of $5,000 or more acquired for the purpose of major alterations or renovations to a home.
A number of surveys have been conducted by members of the House regarding this plan. The results show that between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the people are in favour of the plan. Mr. Speaker, we are elected to work for and assist the people of Canada, so if 90 per cent want a particular program or some help and we can give it to them, I do not know why we should argue with them. The Liberals want to argue with them, but they have strange ways.
The latest Gallup poll shows that on the average across Canada, 76 per cent approved of our programs. I appreciate being on the side of 76 per cent of the Canadian people. Apparently the Liberals want to be on the side of the 13 per cent that disapprove, so they are speaking for that 13 per cent. The Liberals, as the official opposition, speak for the 13 per cent which is opposed to some tax relief. That is very interesting.
I want to give credit to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), Mr. Speaker, for the excellent speech he made on November 19 when he introduced the bill and explained it in complete detail. I was interested in a lot of the false charges

made by members of the opposition, particularly that made by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) who said that in the United States they want to get out of a similar plan. I have discussed this with politicians and friends in the United States and have discerned no movement to get out of their plan. Indeed, as the Minister of Finance indicated, the program in the United States has recently been expanded.
The American politicians that I have come in contact with and other people I have met on my travels have been absolutely amazed that we do not have such a plan here. They could hardly believe it when I told them that we do not. We know that the Liberals are slow, of course, but now that we have introduced this plan Canadians will enjoy the same benefits that Americans have enjoyed for well over 100 years.
As the Minister of Finance pointed out at page 1464 of Hansard:
The main purpose of this plan is to ease the burden of purchasing and meeting the costs of a home, to stimulate the Canadian construction industry which badly needs stimulus after the shape it was left in by hon. members opposite-persons opposite. It will create jobs for those who work in construction and related industries. That is the purpose of the plan.
During the last election campaign the Liberals charged that this plan would drive the price of housing up. That is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. Builders are having problems disposing of homes now. If they start playing tricks by adding another $5,000 or $10,000 on to the price of a home, they will be stuck with that home and eventually go bankrupt. I have met with them and told them that the Liberals said they were going to increase the price of homes. They said, "That is absolutely ridiculous. We are looking forward to your plan. We are not raising the price of our homes as it would just defeat the purpose of the whole plan." They would be the big losers, Mr. Speaker. Some of them are going bankrupt now because they cannot sell their homes. Many young Canadians have reached the point where they have the money, they can arrange the mortgage, but then something happens and they cannot afford to go into their homes. This plan will now assist many of them. They will not always be plagued by some other change in the economy.
During the debate on November 19, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry said, as reported at page 1470 of Hansard:
When you cut through Bill C-20 and look at what it actually has to say to the Canadian public, you find it says that we are going to discriminate against close to three-fifths of the Canadian public and that we are going to use money badly, unwisely, and inefficiently in dealing with our economic problems.
We are not going to use money badly, Mr. Speaker. This program means that home owners will pay less money to us. I do not think they are going to use that money badly, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the hon. member does not understand the bill or the intent of the bill. To say that it discriminates against three-fifths of the people is totally false. We are working for the other two-fifths now. If one wants to use his figures, then this program is going to assist the two-fifths who are not receiving assistance now. Three-fifths and two-fifths make 100 per cent. By the time the program is fully implemented, we will have covered 100 per cent of home owners with some form
November 22, 1979

of assistance, according to the official spokesman for the Liberal party on housing.
I do not want to take my full time on this bill, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to make one small observation. Referring to the government, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry wound up his remarks by saying, as reported at page 1477 of Hansard:
It is obviously still in need of a great deal of assistance and, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to provide it.
We will welcome any assistance, especially if it is constructive, but I think it should be offered in committee. The sooner we pass this bill and give some tax relief to the two-fifths of Canadians that the Liberals are concerned about, the sooner we will be doing a great service to the Canadian public.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to make a few comments on Bill C-20 which, in my opinion, is of utmost importance in view of our present economic hardships. During the election campaign our colleagues were decrying the amount of our deficit, yet today they are ready to add to that deficit another $2 or $3 billion. In view of this reversal, I think we must seriously examine the objectives of this piece of legislation rather than passing it expeditiously, as our colleagues would certainly wish.
First of all I would like to make a few comments on the type of people who live in the riding of Mercier. These people, who like the rest of Canadians will have to foot the bill, are for the most part tenants and will therefore not be enjoying the benefits provided by this piece of legislation. Given that fact, Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to consider carefully this legislation and see what we can do to help those who will have to bear the costs of Bill C-20, which will indeed require large investments.
I really must refer briefly to the housing situation in Canada at the time when the new government came to power on May 22, since this bill is designed to remedy the housing situation very efficiently. I am not saying that housing must not lend itself to some measure of government assistance, but I do believe the House should realize that, according to figures supplied by the widely recognized organization, the OECD, Canada then ranked first in terms of number of persons per room; that according to recognized international standards. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg and other countries were included in that study. We must also note that Canada ranked first among those nations, again according to the OECD, in terms of the number of housing units available to its citizens. It ranked second in number of bathroom pieces and fourth in number of owners. 1 believe those figures prove beyond doubt that the former Liberal government had a coherent housing policy and had taken into account the evolution of the situation in that field.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the House that it was a Liberal government which passed, in 1946, the first housing act in Canada. That act provided $25 million and about 300
Mortgage Tax Credit
jobs for the implementation of our first national housing policy. Later on, in 1954, the government implemented other measures providing social housing, mortgage insurance and other benefits to help Canadians in all parts of the country and not just one sector of the population. In 1964, this act also provided for increased aid to municipalities and provinces and enabled Canada to reach the position it now holds in the field of housing.
Despite Canada's privileged housing situation compared to other countries, the Liberal party does not deny the fact that there are problems in that field. At this stage I think we must look for the figures which are indicative of where the government should intervene to help people with regard to housing.
First, suffice it to know that right now and especially since 1978 the number of families living in single family units has been increasing at a rate of 4.5 per cent while apartment type housing, the one which makes up most of my constituency, has declined by 25 per cent. My colleague said earlier that with $155 million the government intends to improve the situation in the field of housing. Recently the minister himself recognized there were serious problems in housing and that he would have to intervene. In a speech dated October 22 the minister in charge of housing, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay), stated before the Canadian Real Estate Association, 1 quote:

The shifting balance between the rehabilitation and conversion of the existing housing stock and the production of new housing could mean an improvement rather than a reduction in the contribution of the industry to our over-all economic performance if we remain alert to these opportunities.

The minister recognizes therefore that the funds which the government must spend now in housing must be directed as a priority to the rehabilitation and renewal of existing houses which are aging and need these improvements, and to apartment construction. I need only remind hon. members that because of a demographic phenomenon we have witnessed a significant increase in the number of single-family dwellings, where an average of some 235,000 units were built every year over the past ten years. But because of a decrease in this area resulting from the same demographic phenomenon, we can expect a reduction in the demand for new starts in forthcoming years. Bill C-20 has therefore not been introduced to meet new requirements in the future, but to meet needs which may have existed only in surveys conducted by the Progressive Conservative Party during the last election.
I should like also to remind the government which introduced this legislation that this bill should benefit the objectives and interests of all Canadians, and not only those Canadians who, according to our colleague, fall into higher income brackets. But I do not think that it is directed exclusively to the people in higher income brackets. There are other Canadians

November 22, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
who are paying taxes but who will be excluded from this housing assistance scheme. We, on this side of the House, suggest therefore that all Canadian taxpayers should be entitled to some sort of financial assistance in housing, and not only such and such a category of Canadians. In this connection 1 should like to quote a recommendation which appeared on page 38 of a report published by the Toronto Real Estate Board:

Since it has been established that any subsidy to one group is always at the expense of another, government, in the administration of any housing program, should assure the equitable distribution of assistance to all Canadians, not just those who are organized and established to take advantage of any program that comes along.
The Toronto Real Estate Board is probably made up of people known to members across the House. Part II of this document, at page 38, reads as follows:
Canadians are, by and large, well-housed.
I think I have proved that by statistics I have provided to you. This section continues:
There is an over-all reduction in total requirements for new housing.
The recommendation by the Toronto Real Estate Board reads as follows:
Governments should abandon the idea that they must stimulate new residential construction to fuel the economy.

Mr. Speaker, those comments are coming not only from the Liberal party but also from a responsible group which entitled its study "How to Build Canada Better". I think they are experts making recommendations to us and, as a citizen and a representative of a riding, I must take into consideration the advice of experts and not rely only on election promises before making a decision that will involve rather substantial amounts of money.
I would like to emphasize the absolutely iniquitous nature of this legislation, in that it will favour only one group to the detriment of a poorly organized minority. This minority is not supposed to voice its opinion and yet its concerns are expressed in the Toronto Real Estate Board report.
I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that government members were the first ones to scream that we had a huge deficit, and now those same people would want to add to the deficit another $2 billion or $3 billion of spending. I think Canadians are responsible enough and have enough maturity, Mr. Speaker, not to believe that when additional spendings of some $3 billion take place, they will not be footing the bill. However, I would point out that the bill will be paid by everyone, but only a small group will benefit from it.


An hon. Member:: Quite true.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), in answer to a question I put to him in the House earlier this week, said:
Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, we are prepared to consider serious amendments to our bill. However, we hope there will be a determination on the part of opposition parties to support speedy passage of this bill so that Canadians can benefit from our tax credit program next year.
Mr. Speaker, statistics show that a property costing $50,000 in May now has an additional $1,800 in carrying costs. The occupant will now receive a $375 benefit from the program, while he or she will have to pay some $1,500 extra rent, and in this I rely on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) to compute the precise extra cost from the higher interest rate. I therefore submit there is no emergency to pass such legislation without seriously considering, as the Prime Minister suggested, all its implications, to ensure that all Canadians get housing benefits.
Let me refer to some statistics concerning the benefits and the people who would get them. I would remind the House that 46 per cent of Canadian home owners have no mortgage and will therefore receive a modest $65 or so. Of the 4,800,000 other Canadian owners, 2.2 million have no mortgage. If to those 2.2 million we add the 3.2 million Canadians who pay rent, we get a total 5.4 million Canadian families, of the total 7.9 million, who will receive no reduction and no housing benefit at all. If the Prime Minister seriously asks us to be serious, certainly he will consider the forthcoming Liberal amendments destined to help all Canadian citizens and families in housing, because those citizens will not be content with the $150 million or $155 million referred to earlier by my colleague, when $3 billion are involved.
Besides, the Minister of Finance did say that 3.8 million households would benefit from this legislation whereas the figures gathered by Statistics Canada show that only 2.6 million will. I think the minister would be well advised to review his calculations because there is a difference of 1.2 million households in that study. If those studies are made on the basis of 3.8 million, I think that for now the benefits everybody is expecting will go to an even smaller number of households than the one predicted by the minister.
And again 1 would like to remind the minister that tenants represent 40 per cent of the population. Therefore those are 40 per cent of people who will not have access to the program while paying income tax to Ottawa without getting any benefit. Of course some measures were taken in the past to help construction of rental housing. However, it should be realized that there has been a decline in construction since 1977 and that the private sector, which is supposed to settle all problems in Canada, according to our colleagues opposite, has not taken the necessary steps to take care of those problems. So if the government wants to tackle the problem, I think it should seriously consider this matter before giving some advantages to only some of the people.
Secondly, that program will not be effective for individuals in the low income brackets. You will be told, of course, that

November 22, 1979

those people do not contribute much to the Canadian economy, but 1 think that even if they do not pay income tax, they are consumers who contribute to the operation of an economy such as ours. We must be aware of the fact that the amount they must earmark for their rent is excessive in comparison with the average person. They will not derive any benefit from the $3 billion because we find few owners among the lower income brackets. As my colleague said a while ago, those who have access to property are those who are fairly well off. Then, as a result of the new interest rates, they will of course be unable to acquire property in the months or years to come, if conditions remain unchanged. In any case, I would like to note, Mr. Speaker, that 200,000 families will not benefit from the plan proposed by the government.
Senior citizens are another group against whom the bill discriminates. Only 38 per cent of senior citizens or older households are tenants. Therefore, most of them are home owners. What are they offered in return for their contribution to the development of Canada? This program offers only a few crumbs to people who have built our country. Because most of them have low incomes, these people will not be eligible for this program since they will have been wise enough to finish paying for their homes and will no longer have a mortgage. I believe that there is an enormous inequity in this respect and that the government will have to provide subsidies for these people in its budget if it wants us to pass Bill C-20. I believe that these people have contributed enough to the economy of Canada for them not to be forgotten. By increasing energy costs and forgetting to cover this aspect of the housing problem, the government will only worsen the difficulties faced by older people if they want to keep their homes. They will have to sell their house because of the increasing heating costs and the persistently high cost of owning their own home.
Mr. Speaker, women home owners, even though they form a very small minority, are another category which will not benefit from this plan. In 1977, 8.5 per cent of them had a mortgage with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or another institution. It should be noted that in view of the income levels of these people and in view of the fact that few women are home owners and that most are tenants, they will, through their work, contribute to finance this program and suffer discrimination. They will not be able to benefit from the housing credit even though they have more financial problems than any other group in our society.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to one of the most serious inequities of this legislation, the distribution of funds allotted to that program. While the province of Quebec accounts for 27.2 per cent of the Canadian people, it should be noted that it will benefit from only 18.7 per cent of this program. Speaking of co-operation with the provinces and openness on the constitutional issue, the Prime Minister should ask his Minister of Finance to review this legislation in order to correct this obvious inequity in the allocation of funds. Of
Mortgage Tax Credit
course, I note that Ontario, for electoral purposes, will get 45.4 per cent while it contributes only 36 per cent. That province is then the big winner of this program. The purpose of my remarks is not to emphasize the fact that this program favours one group or another or a province in particular but to correct the inequities of legislation that should try to help people who most need it. I think that the province of Quebec needs help in the housing field, and even if Quebeckers have chosen to be tenants rather than home owners as a way of life and on a cultural level, and if this is not the first and most essential value for Quebec families, they should not be forgotten in a program as important as this one.
Farmers make up another group of people who will be terribly disadvantaged by this program. I refer you to a report of Statistics Canada entitled "Home Ownership and Mortgage Debt in Canada in 1977" published in July, 1979, which mentions that in rural areas only 15 per cent of home owners have a mortgage. Then, those people who contribute to the public treasury through their work, their taxes, to help our economy will get only a 15 per cent share from that program. Yet we note that this legislation benefits urban centres mostly and particularly a certain province that will get nearly half of the program. I think that such a distribution prevents us from approving this legislation under its present form.
Indians represent another group which is a small minority but which is also entitled to its share of taxes in Canada. They have a special home ownership program that was established by the previous government. This measure cannot be of much benefit to them since they were just starting to buy houses. They will have to pay the high interest rates now in force and in the end it will be even more difficult for them to become home owners.
Mr. Speaker, I come back to the cost of this measure. We are told that it will cost $575 million for the first year. I cannot help thinking about the cost of the Canada Works program. The two programs bear a strange resemblance. Their figures are almost the same. Mr. Speaker, I am against programs that the party in power wants to implement at the expense of others which are essential for job creation. I want to point out that in order to buy a house and pay a mortgage, one must have a job. Referring to last year's statistics, we can see that due to the job-creation strategy implemented by the Liberal government, the rate of unemployment declined steadily during 12 consecutive months. As we are about to pass this bill but have not done so yet we notice according to the latest statistics that the unemployment rate has begun to increase again. As the Toronto Real Estate Board indicated, this measure is very unlikely to reduce the unemployment rate since needs do not exist in this area at the present time.
If any money is to be spent on this housing program-an approach which the official opposition would favour-it should be aimed at improving this program and to that end we should introduce important changes to this bill. According to the


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-20 with some interest. I believe it is a far-reaching bill and points the way to a new era in our thinking. Essentially it is a bill that will cut the enormous power of the central government here in Ottawa and return it to the local level it never should have left.
If we survey what has happened to our country in the last 25 years, one of the things that stands out is the obvious expansion of power of the federal government. In defiance of the BNA Act, they took over the essential direction of this country in a financial way from the provincial and municipal authorities, using the tax system, though specifically exempted under the BNA Act, and assigned to the provinces responsibility for health, welfare and, in large measure, education.
This accrual to the federal government of vast amounts of money through the tax system, namely the income tax, the gathering into Ottawa of these vast sums of money, their redirection through the provincial authority and their expenditure is, in part, responsible for the fiscal disaster that we are now facing in this country. Indeed, anyone who cares to listen would describe this rich country, which has not experienced severe internal or external turmoil, as broke.
November 22, 1979

Twenty-five years ago the financing of health, welfare and general education was very much under the control of local authorities. The money was raised and spent at their discretion. What is ahead of us in the budget? It must cope with the so-called nine envelopes: fiscal transfers to the provinces, $3.6 billion; public debt charges, $9.8 billion; economic development and support programs, $8.4 billion; social affairs, general welfare development-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-EIaliburton):: Order, please.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-10, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1978-80, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House Ottawa
November 22, 1979 Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Julien Chouinard, Q.C., C.D., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day, the 22nd day of November, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a bill.
1 have the honour to be. Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
Foreign Investment Review Agency



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: It is
my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox)-The Canadian economy-Request for restoration of Tellier task force to prepare answer to white paper on sovereignty-association; the hon. member for Hamil-ton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott)-Airports-Expansion of Mount Hope-Hamilton Airport-Government position; the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston)- Finance-High interest rates-Steps to assist small business.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Harold Thomas Herbert: That an order of the House do issue for copies of all agreements, correspondence, notes and other communications relating to the requirement by the Foreign Investment Review Agency that Tate and Lyle Limited reduce its shareholdings in Redpath Sugars Limited.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few remarks to make this afternoon, and I will start off by advising any hon. members who might be interested that if they want to have the story on this particular issue, they can refer to my remarks in this House on December 15, 1977, at pages 1916, 1917 and 1918 of Hansard.
Why is this subject being debated this afternoon? First, I asked for the production of the papers because I am concerned that a commitment of the Redpath company made as a result of a FIRA order has apparently not been complied with. Before I go any further, the last time I spoke on this subject, two years ago, I immediately had some difficulty with the Redpath company which felt that I was being somewhat unfair to it.
I point out here for the record that I fully understand the motivation of companies. I do not take issue with that. Their job is to make profits and so forth. Nevertheless, my job is to ensure that the regulations and laws which are passed through this House are maintained.

November 22, 1979
Foreign Investment Review Agency
In this particular case 1 have had quite a few pieces of correspondence with the ministers concerned. 1 will refer first of all to a letter of December 4 of last year sent to me by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce. He wrote as follows:
-some two years ago, in conjunction with the takeover by Redpath Sugars Limited, of two small packaging companies, there was a commitment given that Tate & Lyle Limited, the major shareholder in Redpath Sugars, would over time marginally reduce its equity to less than 50 per cent.
He also said in another letter, and this one is dated May 14 of this year, and again 1 quote:
-the commitment by Tate and Lyle Investments Limited to increase participation by Canadians in the capital stock of Redpath Industries Limited from 45 per cent to 52 per cent.
1 assume the holdings would be reduced to 45 per cent. He said:
It will be implemented ... as soon as the financial position of Tate and Lyle recovers sufficiently to enable it to do so without jeopardizing future growth and earnings potential.
By that I assume that the share values will have increased so that Tate and Lyle will be getting a few more bucks for its shares, which also means, of course, that the Canadians buying those shares will have to be paying a few more bucks to acquire that Canadian interest.
I also point out at this stage, as it will not escape anybody, that reducing an interest to 45 per cent does not necessarily relinquish control. In the same letter the minister goes on to say:
-it would not be of benefit to Canada if implementation of an undertaking, given by a foreign investor in particular circumstances and based to a degree on conjecture about the future, would result, in different circumstances, in hardship to the companies involved.
That I will accept. A previous minister of industry, trade and commerce said when speaking to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on June 5, 1973, and I quote:
In principle, all undertakings-
We are talking about the undertakings to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, of course.
-are binding. In those cases where a person fails to comply with undertakings, the minister may apply to the courts for an order directing that the undertakings be fulfilled. This, however, is likely to be a procedure of last resort.
In normal circumstances the inability to fulfil undertakings will lead to discussions with the minister and perhaps to the negotiation of new undertakings. Like any contract, an undertaking can be modified with the consent of both parties.
That is all very well, but why am I getting a little upset about what is going on? "July 13, 1978, allowed, No. 1284", on the listing of takeovers, "Redpath Sugars Limited, ultimately controlled by Tate and Lyle Investments Limited of England." I will read extracts from this document.
The right to acquire ... a business (which) .. . would operate a cornstarch sweetener plant to produce, through new technology, high fructose syrup from domestically-grown corn.
Why am I somewhat upset? We see what is developing with these takeovers. There is a group which has been making its presence felt not just in Canada but also in other countries of
[Mr. Herbert.)
the world; and I will read from "A Newsletter on Issues of Concern to Sugar Workers", as follows:
On Sept. 27 Redpath Sugars (subsidiary of U.K.-based Tate & Lyle) announced plans to close its Montreal refinery by January 1980. It will mean the loss of 360 jobs. The announcement came on the same day as Canada Starch Co. Ltd. opened 65,000 ton-per-year. HFCS (high fructose corn sweetener) facilities at Cardinal, Ont. Redpath, itself a partner in a HFCS plant due to open next year at London, Ont., blamed competition from the corn sweetener for the closure.
I am obviously concerned, but not about the action of Redpath. I reiterate that I am not criticizing the Redpath company either for the closing of its plant or for its desire to acquire other businesses. That is its job. That is its right. But I am concerned about the legislation which we have on the books which seems not to be having the desired effect. Certainly at the moment we can see that we have encouraged plants in part of this country where there is not as great a need for their development, and as a result we have seen the closing of plants in other areas where there is a greater need to provide employment.
Concerning the foreign Investment Review Act I will quote from an article which was written in the Montreal Gazette in the earlier part of this year as follows:
The legally binding undertakings made by a firm in the course of winning approval from the agency are in most cases .. . not published.
There is no public accounting of how well companies have fared in meeting the undertakings to provide "significant benefit." .. . The agency estimates 20 per cent of cases fail to meet the original undertakings . . .
For the public . . . there is no clear definition of "substantial" compliance.
"We need more data to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the process,"-
This was taken from an article written by Jennifer Lewing-ton. I thank her for her lucid comments which have enabled me to make these remarks this afternoon.
I have one or two more comments to make on this issue. I have always been concerned that we in Canada have not taken a lead as a government in trying to help the development in Third World countries. I am particularly concerned that we have made no direct effort, because of our lack of desire to involve ourselves in this industry, in the development of the sugar industry in the two countries of Jamaica and Barbados.
Before concluding I want to quote from a letter which I received from the chairman of the board and president of the Export Development Corporation, because I believe it is relevant. It has to do with the EDC involvement in a cane sugar complex in the Ivory Coast. It reads in part as follows:
In the case of the Redpath complex, we disclosed all relevant facts-amounts, terms, participating lenders, buyers, etc-but did not disclose such items as the interest rate, which is a highly competitive factor in international business. Thus you and other interested Canadians are aware of the basic details surrounding the transaction in question, but cannot become party to information which, if released, might put Canadian firms at a competitive disadvantage . . .
Thus suggestions that EDC's involvement in this project represents a federal subsidy to Redpath, or anybody else, are simply without foundation.
I respect the opinion of Mr. MacDonald but I also suggest that any intervention by a government agency which assists any Canadian company in promoting its wares in another
November 22, 1979

country in the export market is surely of direct benefit to that organization. So I take issue with the statement that we are not helping Redpath by the aid available through the Export Development Corporation.
My point is that we have two illustrations here where our regulations are such that information is not available to the public, and that includes members of Parliament, for us to be able to judge whether the decisions that are being made by officials are in fact in the best interests of Canadians as a whole. We have heard a lot from this government about disclosure and the freedom of information act, about their desire to present all. I suggest that they might start in this case by explaining to us-


An hon. Member:: It is against the law.


Harold Thomas Herbert: It may be against the law, but the government has the power to change the law if it so desires, and to change the regulations of FIR A if necessary, in order that we may be able to judge whether these actions that I have enumerated this afternoon of closing off a plant in Montreal and the takeovers in other parts of the country are really in the best interests of Canadians.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has moved:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all agreements, correspondence, notes and other communications relating to the requirement by the Foreign Investment Review Agency that Tate and Lyle Limited reduce its shareholdings in Redpath Sugars Limited.
When that motion was put to the House on November 7, 1979, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Kilgour) informed the House on my behalf that FIRA had been advised by its senior legal counsel that the papers in question were privileged under section 14 of the Foreign Investment Review Act. The hon. member was therefore invited to withdraw his motion but did not do so.
I am surprised that the hon. member would ask that the government ignore the specific requirements of an act passed by this Parliament. Section 14 of the act is quite explicit. It reads:
Except as provided in this section, all information with respect to a person, business or proposed business obtained by the minister or an officer or employee of Her Majesty in the course of the administration of this act is privileged and no person shall knowingly, except as provided in this act, communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto any such information or allow any person not legally entitled thereto to inspect or have access to any such information.
That provision was purposely incorporated in the Foreign Investment Review Act to safeguard the commercial interests of investors who are obliged to submit their investment proposals for review under the act. When an investor files notice of his intentions, and in any discussions that may occur later, he usually, if not invariably, imparts to the government through the agency a good deal of highly confidential information regarding his plans and intentions relating to the investment he is proposing. Therefore, he has the right to expect that information of that sort will not become known, prematurely at least, to others, notably potential competitors.
Foreign Investment Review Agency It is clearly necessary, in the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act, for the government to seek and obtain a considerable amount of information about an investor and his investment plans, his parent company, if any, and other affiliates, in order to be able to carry out an assessment of significant benefit to Canada as the law requires. It would be unreasonable to expect investors to provide much of this information without the protection afforded by section 14 of the act, and without such information the act could not be administered effectively.
Section 14 of the act goes on to provide:
Any information with respect to a person, business or proposed business obtained by the minister or an officer or employee of Her Majesty in the course of the administration of this act may,
(a)	on request in writing to the agency or by or on behalf of the person to which the information relates or by or on behalf of the person or group of persons carrying on or proposing to carry on the business or new business to which the information relates, be communicated to any person or authority named in the request, or
(b)	for any purpose relating to the administration of this act, be communicated to a minister of the Crown in right of any province or to an officer or employee of Her Majesty in right thereof on such terms and conditions and under such circumstances as are approved by the minister.
In other words, the minister may only release privileged information concerning an investor, other than for purposes of the administration of the act, with the express written consent of the person who provided the information.
We have sought the consent of the company concerned but they have declined to give it and I can well understand why. The papers referred to in this motion contain, among other things, highly confidential information about the financial affairs of Redpath Sugars Limited and its parent, Tate and Lyle. This information was provided to the government in confidence. It has not been made public by the companies and I can understand why they would not want it made public at this point.
The issue of confidentiality versus disclosure of information is a particularly vexing one and has bedevilled those charged with responsibility for the administration of the Foreign Investment Review Act almost from its inception. I can assure the House that it has caused me and my colleagues who have been involved in the whole process a considerable amount of concern, and that is why we are proceeding in the way we are in these reviews. It is one of the issues we asked officials to address when we set up an administrative review of the Foreign Investment Review Act, which should be completed shortly and the results of which will be announced shortly.
Also the issue is one which we have singled out for consideration by a special committee of this House. It was included in the proposed terms of reference for that committee published in the order paper for November 5. But unless and until the statute is changed in this respect, I am obliged to respect and abide by the law as it now stands.

November 22, 1979
Foreign Investment Review Agency
Section 14 provides an exception to the general prohibition concerning the communication of privileged information with respect to the following:
-information contained in any written undertaking given to Her Majesty in right of Canada relating to an investment that has been allowed by order of the governor in council.
The section continues as follows:
But no minister of the Crown and no officer or employee of Her Majesty may be required, in connection with any legal proceedings or otherwise, to give evidence relating to or otherwise to disclose any information contained in written undertakings where, in the opinion of the minister, the disclosure of such information is not necessary for any purpose relating to the administration or enforcement of this act, and would prejudicially affect the person who gave the undertaking in the matter or conduct of his business affairs.
That construction clearly obliges the minister to use discretion, even in releasing information contained in undertakings. Even if 1 felt able to release the undertakings themselves in this case, it would not satisfy the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member, which call for the production of all documents and communications relating to the matter.
The motion refers to an undertaking given to the Crown in 1976 by Redpath Industries Limited of Montreal and its parent, Tate and Lyle Limited of England. This undertaking was given in consideration of allowance by the governor in council of the acquisition by Redpath of two Canadian companies: Merry Packaging Limited of Don Mills, Ontario, a custom supplier of flexible packaging material, and Holway Paper Box Manufacturing Limited of Agincourt, Ontario, a manufacturer of folding paper boxes.
When these decisions by the governor in council were announced on October 7, 1976, the government of the day also announced the undertaking given by Redpath and its parent, Tate and Lyle, "to increase the participation by Canadians in the capital stock of Redpath from 45 per cent to 52 per cent." That is still their commitment. The undertaking given in 1976 was framed in the light of circumstances at that time. Some time later, as a result of changed circumstances, it became apparent to Redpath and Tate and Lyle that they would not be able to fulfil their commitment as quickly as they originally had expected without considerable handicap. Therefore, they approached the agency with a view to renegotiating the terms of their undertaking.
The government of the day was satisfied with the representations made by the companies. Following negotiations between the agency and Redpath, the government agreed to revised terms under which participation by Canadians in the capital stock of Redpath would be increased in stages. The new agreement contains specific measurable benchmarks relating to the financial affairs of the companies which would reflect their ability to increase Canadian participation, and thus would serve as an unambiguous trigger for fulfilment of the commitment. I want to emphasize that the commitment itself is unchanged-that is, to increase Canadian participation in Redpath from 45 per cent to 52 per cent.
I have been speaking about agreements entered into by the previous administration, but 1 do not want to leave the impression that administration necessarily would deal with the

matter any differently. In the matter of enforcement of undertakings given under the Foreign Investment Review Act, I believe common sense and understanding are very important parts of the administration of the act. These must prevail. This issue was addressed when the foreign investment review bill was being considered by Parliament in 1973 prior to its enactment. When the bill was before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the minister speaking on behalf of the government of the day said the following:
In principle, all undertakings are binding. In those cases where a person fails to comply with undertakings, the minister may apply to the courts for an order directing that the undertakings be fulfilled. This, however, is likely to be a procedure of last resort.
You will recall that I suggested some undertakings at least would be based on the medium-term plans of the acquiring company. These plans would, to some extent, be based on the conjecture about the future and therefore would simply reflect the company's anticipation concerning its future development. They would not be guaranteed in their entirety. Thus, flexibility and good sense must be exercised by the minister.
In normal circumstances the inability to fulfil undertakings will lead to discussions with the minister and perhaps to the negotiation of new undertakings. Like any contract, an undertaking can be modified with the consent of both parties. If, however, the failure to comply with an undertaking is clearly the result of changed market conditions-for example, the undertaking to export frisbees is followed by the collapse of the frisbee market-
That was said in 1974, I should point out. It continues:
-the person would not be held accountable. It should be remembered, however, that some undertakings may be tailored to a range of market expectations.
The purpose of the Foreign Investment Review Act is to ensure that certain forms of foreign investment will be of significant benefit to Canada. I do not believe it would be of benefit to Canada for the government to administer the act in a Draconian or unreasonable manner by insisting that in all circumstances commitments given in good faith by investors on the basis of their expectations for the future must be fulfilled to the letter even when circumstances have changed and implementation of those undertakings would impose an unexpected hardship on the investor concerned. In this regard we intend to continue the practice of the previous administration, tempering our enforcement of undertakings with good sense.
In response to the comments of the hon. member in relation to the desire for a greater degree of openness in the administration of the various acts and agencies of this government, 1 should point out that we are proposing to have a full discussion of this matter in the parliamentary review which should commence shortly. It has been addressed in the administrative review. We are proposing to do some things which we will announce shortly to create a greater degree of openness in the Foreign Investment Review Act. I suggest that the hon. member should make his representations when the parliamentary committee is sitting. If there are other interested parties in Canada, people who have been affected by the review process, as well as those who have been constant practitioners in connection with the review process, I suggest they should make their views known. We want a better understanding of how the publication of certain of these aspects relating to the review process will affect people in the country, having had the experience of five years of the administration of the act. I
November 22, 1979

believe the outcome will be a more positive degree of administration of the act itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member has put his motion on the order paper because he has some concerns about this particular issue. The hon. member through his motion seeks to release information provided in confidence to the government. While the hon. member's motion relates to information provided in one specific case, its import is much broader. It implies that privileged information supplied in confidence to the Foreign Investment Review Agency by a corporate citizen could be arbitrarily made public through a motion of this House. I suggest that that is a very dangerous thing.
Though the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson), who answers to the House for all questions concerning FIRA, has already dealt with this issue, I think it bears repeating, that the act which was debated and passed in this House under the government led by the hon. member's party specifically prohibits any such communication. Why the hon. member persists ignoring this fact, is beyond me.
To divulge information provided in confidence by a corporate citizen for the purpose of complying with the act would be counterproductive to the objectives and the effective application of this act. Beyond the legal and purely administrative imperatives for not disclosing this information is the fact that it is wrong in principle. I ask the hon. member to consider the implications of such a move. Does he not realize that it would constitute a breach of confidence? Does he not recognize that in a very real sense it would be a violation of the privacy of a corporate citizen?
The hon. member surely understands that making such private and confidential information public would be as abhorrent as arbitrarily revealing income tax information or other types of private information which citizens give to this government for very specific and limited use, on the understanding that it will be kept secret. Is the hon. member implying in his motion that there should be two laws in this country, one for the private citizen and one for the corporate citizen? 1 would he shocked if he were implying such a principle because I do not believe that that is what he really means to do.
The freedom of information bill, which we on this side have proposed, includes exceptions for private and commercial confidences because its authors were realistic enough to recognize the importance of respecting the citizens' right to confidentiality, and by citizens I mean corporate citizens as well as individual private citizens. Even the most ardent supporters of freedom of information would not suggest that the government should be able to arbitrarily disclose information that, if published, would prejudice the well-being of private or corporate citizens and which was provided in the strictest confidence. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this issue is at the very heart of the whole question of having effective dialogue and uninhibit-
Foreign Investment Review Agency
ed co-operation between citizens and their government. This is not an argument against freedom of information; it is an argument for the intelligent and judicious application of that principle.
If confidence and the citizen's right to privacy are at the heart of effective relations between the government and people of this country, it can be said that Canadian participation is at the heart of the Foreign Investment Review Act, if not the whole issue of foreign investment in Canada. The way in which FIRA seeks to increase Canadian participation was described in a supplement to the agency's annual report for 1978-79 which was released recently by the minister. Generally speaking, FIRA seeks to ensure Canadian participation on three fronts; ownership, direction, and management.
These three forms of Canadian participation are very basic to Canadian control of the economy because at the level of individual firms they ensure an effective Canadian presence in decision-making. They ensure that a Canadian point of view is taken into account in decisions made by firms which will affect not only employees, but also related industries and the community in which the firms operate. Through experience it has been found, however, that the potential value of Canadian participation in all its forms can vary with each case which FIRA reviews, depending on the nature and circumstances of the proposed investment.
But take the case of a non-Canadian who acquires a firm which is already foreign-owned and controlled. Obviously, there would be no loss of Canadian ownership, because the firm was not Canadian-owned in the first place. In such cases, investors have often made some provision for increasing Canadian participation in ownership, direction, and management. So, one sometimes finds the curious phenomenon of Canadian participation increasing as a result of a non-Canadian acquiring a firm in Canada. In the supplement to FIRA's annual report it is stated that slightly over half of all allowed acquisition proposals and over 60 per cent of allowed new business proposals have offered benefits to Canada in terms of one or more of the three forms of Canadian participation mentioned above.
I would like to take a brief individual look at the three forms of Canadian participation. On the question of the participation of Canadians as shareholders, it is recognized that, while Canadians should have the opportunity to participate in the ownership of Canadian businesses, it would be impractical to require all foreign investors to sell shares to Canadians. Mandatory Canadian share ownership was one of the options considered in the Gray report, but rejected in favour of the investment review process, principally because such a share-ownership rule would be a powerful deterrent to some foreign investment that is highly beneficial to Canada. It was decided that the desirability and feasibility of Canadian equity participation should be considered on a case-by-case basis during the review process in light of the investor's current and forecast positions. This policy provides the flexibility necessary for an investor to frame plans and undertakings according to both the

November 22, 1979
Foreign Investment Review Agency
nature of his investment and the circumstances in which it is made.
A wide variety of undertakings related to ownership have been made by investors in their applications to FIRA, from a relatively small degree of Canadian equity participation to majority Canadian ownership. The time frames involved have also varied from immediate implementation of the target level to implementation over a specified period. Depending on the circumstances of the investor, the sale of shares to Canadians has been either public or private. Other ways of ensuring Canadian equity participation are the sale of stock or stock options to managers or other employees, the issuance of quasiequity securities such as convertible debentures or debt with warrants attached. Some investors have secured Canadian equity participation by arranging joint ventures with Canadian partners, whereas others have undertaken to maintain Canadian ownership at or near the existing level. The few comments I have made on this question of Canadian ownership serve to underline the complexity of the issue, even when it involves a principle with which all honourable members would agree.
Another important form of Canadian participation is as directors on the boards of the companies which apply to FIRA. The Canada Business Corporations Act and the companies acts of various provinces require that a majority of the directors of a company be residents of Canada. FIRA's experience with investors is interesting. In the supplement to its most recent annual report the agency states the following:
Investors have provided undertakings to maintain the number of Canadians on their board of directors above the level required legally by the jurisdiction within which the company is incorporated. In cases where the Canadian company is incorporated in a province which does not require that corporate directors be Canadians, applicants have nevertheless seen fit to appoint a proportion of Canadians. Also, numerous applicants have undertaken to secure the appointment of a majority of Canadians to their board immediately, rather than within the period of grace provided in the legislation.
Everyone recognizes the importance of having an effective Canadian point of view in the policy and decision-making of enterprises in Canada. Such a presence within a corporation ensures that Canadian interests will rank very high in the corporation's priorities.
As to the participation of Canadians as managers, it must be contingent on the availability of Canadians qualified to hold those positions. I know all of us have run into the situation at some time or other where businesses coming into the country have to bring in some of the management personnel so that Canadians can be trained to take over. In some cases employment of foreign personnel may be essential, at least at the outset. This is especially the case for products not previously made in Canada, and for the use of production techniques never before used in Canada. To succeed, companies need managers who have the requisite specialized knowledge and skills. Even well-established businesses may find it necessary to have recourse to foreign experts in cases where they are introducing a new product or where they face a particularly difficult problem which is beyond the ability of their managers to solve. We have run into the situation many times in business

where a licensing agreement is made with the company and then it turns out there has to be an ongoing arrangement with the management of the new firm in order to ensure that the project is successful.
Various investors have undertaken to ensure that the management of their company be carried out by Canadians, to hire Canadians for senior management positions on the condition that qualified people are available to fill specific positions in management with Canadians, and to train Canadians for management positions. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Canadian participation ranks as high as anything else as a criterion forjudging whether or not given investment proposals will be beneficial to Canada.
The hon. member's motion refers to one particular case in which an investor has agreed to provide for greater equity participation by Canadians. The information recently released by the minister on the agency's operations indicates the variety of ways in which Canadian participation can be and is being enhanced through a flexible and effective application of the relevant parts of the Foreign Investment Review Act. I am sure the hon. member supports that effort. I would suggest to him that if this House were to adopt the motion he has put forward, not only would it be a breach of the provisions of the act itself, it would also undermine the agency's opportunities to negotiate benefits to Canada. Without the safeguards the act provides, the government would simply not be able to obtain the information necessary for the effective administration of the act.
Many of us have some sympathy for the view that the hon. member expressed regarding aid to Third World countries and the development of industry that has come into this country as a result of the Foreign Investment Review Act. The minister has already stated, however, that a committee of this House will do a thorough review of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. I hope the hon. member will come before that committee and present his views, not only on the publication of information on one company. I know he has attended meetings of the finance committee regularly in the years that I have been in this House and he has made a valuable contribution there. Perhaps we could arrange for him to be called as a witness when this matter is reviewed, because I know he has been concerned about it for a number of years and could make a useful and worth-while contribution. We will look forward to that, and I hope the hon. member will co-operate with us to that extent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that I fully appreciate and understand the problems the hon. member faces in presenting this motion. I do not feel, however, that he would want Parliament to break the law and, as it stands, the law is contrary to his motion. In fact the law prohibits the release of this information. His party introduced the law, and I think we have to leave it in place until Parliament decides otherwise.
November 22, 1979

It was suggested that since this party is now in government it could introduce an amendment to change the law. I would point out to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), however, that his party has been holding up legislation in this House for weeks now with their obstructionist tactics-at least until the events of yesterday. It was only on Monday of this week the estimates were finally passed after the hon. member's party had talked on them for longer than we did in 1974 when we were in opposition. The opposition took up a lot of time in the House and in committee so that legislation proposed by this government could not be brought forward and debated. It is only this week that we have progressed to relatively new legislation. Until then the legislation dealt with was of a housekeeping nature, to clean up the mess left behind by the previous government.


Harold Thomas Herbert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the remarks of the hon. member and ask if he could be brought back to the subject in question.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I would be glad to deal with the subject in question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member suggested that we could have amended this legislation. It should be noted, however, that we cannot bring forward our own legislation because of the obstructionist tactics of his party.
I feel that a lot of the money spent and actions taken by the government are conducted in secrecy. If the opposition would co-operate, we could bring in legislation and debate it in two or three days to provide a freedom of information act. The House leader on the other side, however, will not even attend meetings which would give some indication of how long it would be before the legislation could be passed.
Regarding the motion before us, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to realize that we cannot change the rules in mid-course. If these people have been promised that the material will be kept confidential, we cannot turn around and change the rules of the game. That is neither fair nor just. There would have to be a change in the legislation to the effect that from this day forward all undertakings would become public at the time a company entered into an arrangement with the Foreign Investment Review Agency, if that is what is decided.
I am equally concerned about secrecy under DREE where companies in some cases receive millions of dollars from the public trough and do not have to account for it. I would sooner demand accountability for that money and any relevant agreements than in the case before us where the government has not necessarily advanced any money but has just made an arrangement to allow the people to come into this country. I tend to agree that there should be disclosure of such undertakings, but the legislation would have to be changed to make it clear that all the agreements would have to be disclosed at the time they were made. That would be the time to do it, not change the rules half way through the game. Those companies that already have undertakings would be allowed to keep them secret. If there was an amendment to the legislation, however, undertakings would be disclosed at the time of the agreement being made. That is, of course, only after an amendment.
Royal Assent
I think this amendment is the type of thing the select committee examining the Foreign Investment Review Act might examine. Hopefully, it will be set down on the order paper and get under way shortly. I would think that suggestions of this nature are ones which this committee should be examining. I would encourage more openness with the Canadian public on what FIRA is doing. For example, at the same time I would hope that FIRA might, before entering into a commitment, advertise for potential Canadian investors so that Canadian entrepreneurs would have an opportunity of having first crack at that. If that did not happen, then it would be opened up to the foreign-owned company to take over ownership.
I feel that the entire legislation dealing with FIRA needs to be fully examined and that we cannot go at it in a piecemeal manner, nor can we go against the present legislation as it now stands. I feel that the agreement about how soon a motion will be debated depends on the party of which the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is a member, namely, the official opposition, being the Liberal party. I understand there has been agreement by the NDP to debate the four motions to set up the four select committees in one day so that we can go ahead and get the job done and let the committees undertake the work. But it has been the Liberal party that will not send members to the meetings of the House leaders. They have not indicated they would be willing or satisfied with one day, and have indicated that maybe more than one day would be required, again eating up the time of the House. This is why these motions have not been debated and why these committees have not been set up. It is precisely because of the obstructionist tactics of the member's own party, the Liberal party, that we have not been able to get on with the job.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-10, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80-Chap. 3.
[Stage Direction]
November 22, 1979
Old Age Security
Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, as reported (without amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day the House will now proceed to the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-6. May I remind hon. members that at 9.45 p.m., under the provisions of the same order, all questions necessary to dispose of the bill will be put from the chair?
Hon. members have received notice of a number of motions to amend the bill, all of which, in my view, appear to be in order from a procedural standpoint. May I suggest, pursuant to Standing Order 75(10), that motions Nos. 1 and 3 could be debated together, with a vote on motion number one disposing of number three? Also, motions Nos. 2 and 5, in the opinion of the Chair should be grouped for debate.
As motion No. 2 is consequential on motion No. 5, the question will be put on motion No. 5 and a vote on that motion would dispose also of motion No. 2. Motions Nos. 4 and 6 might also be grouped for debate, and an affirmative vote on motion No. 6 would also dispose of motion No. 4. However, a negative vote would necessitate the question being put on motion No. 4. Is that agreeable to the House?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I said nothing when you asked if the arrangements you made were acceptable, mainly because they are, but I rise now to suggest that although the arrangements you have proposed would make possible three separate debates at the report stage, frankly I do not think three separate debates are necessary, and I am suggesting that you might allow the House in the first debate, which is on motions Nos. 1 and 3, to cover the whole package of amendments. We who were on the committee understand that it took several amendments to do the job, technically speaking, but for my part I would be quite satisfied

to say what I have to say at the report stage in one debate, if the rest of the members will agree.


Mr. LeBlanc:: Mr. Speaker, we feel that this proposal of the NDP leader is perfectly acceptable. We feel there is no use going into technical details. We want to discuss and adopt this bill, with the changes agreed upon in committee.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am happy for the intervention of both hon. members opposite. I thought perhaps it might be even more useful if all six motions were read, if we had one debate and if we dealt with the matter that way. I do not have any lengthy comments to make. In fact they ought to last about 70 seconds, but my comments would deal with all six motions, and motions Nos. 5 and 6 are the crucial ones.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that in spirit is in line with what I have suggested. If, for technical reasons, it would be a good idea to have all six amendments read and put on the record at one place, I would go along with the suggestion the minister has made, and so would my friend, the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would be ready to agree to that as long as any amendments could be taken-if there were any-in the order in wich I have communicated to the House. Is it agreed that I put the six motions to the House at one time and allow hon. members to speak on all of them, not only permitting members to cover the whole spectrum of each of the amendments, but also making sure there is not too much repetition, which is also one of the responsibilities of the Chair?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Edward Crombie: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended in clause 1 by striking out lines 4 to 9 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
" 1. (1) Subsection 7(2) of the Old Age Security Act is repealed.
(2) Subsection (1) does not confer any right to a pension in respect of any
month preceding November 1979."
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended in clause 2 by striking out line 20 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"17.31(5), no spouse's allowance may be".
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 27 to 29 at page 1 and lines 1 to 3 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"3. (1) Subsection 17.3( 1) of the said act is repealed.
(2) Subsection (1) does not confer any right to a spouse's allowance in
respect of any month preceding November 1979."
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended by deleting clause 4 and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
November 22, 1979

Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended in clause 5 by
(a)	striking out lines 15 to 31 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) a pensioner died or dies at any time after September 30, 1975, and
(b)	a spouse's allowance was (or is) payable to the spouse of the pensioner for the month in which the pensioner died (or dies),
a spouse's allowance may be paid to the surviving spouse of the pensioner
(c)	commencing with the month of November 1979, where the pensioner died between the beginning of October 1975 and the end of October 1979, or
(d)	commencing with the month following the month in which the pensioner dies, where the pensioner dies after October 31, 1979.
(2) No spouse's allowance is payable under subsection (1) where, prior to
the end of October 1979, the surviving spouse attained sixty-five years of age
or remarried."
(b)	renumbering subsections 17.31(2) to (4) accordingly.
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be amended by adding immediately after line 15 at page 6 the following new clause:
"8. This act shall be deemed to have come into force on October 31, 1979."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members that to motions Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 there are recommendations from His Excellency the Governor General.
The question is on motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Shall motion No. 1 carry?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, during the standing committee hearings on this bill and, indeed, during second reading debate, hon. members on both sides of this House voiced their support for an amendment to be made to enhance further the effectiveness of the amendments in Bill C-6. Specifically, it was proposed that the bill be amended to reinstate all of those spouse's allowance recipients who had been cut off the program since October, 1975, because of the death of the older pensioner spouse and who still meet the other eligibility requirements. That is, anyone who has not already turned 65 or remarried, and who is still otherwise eligible, may be reinstated on the allowance with effect from November, 1979. Cabinet has seen the wisdom of this proposal and has approved this change so that there will not be two classes of allowance recipients, pre- and post-amendment.
As a consequential amendment and to maintain the spirit of the change, pensioners currently serving prison terms of more than 90 days will also have their benefits reinstated.
This change is not without some cost. An additional amount of approximately $6 million in 1980-81 will be spent to benefit the some 3,000 more people who will now benefit from the program. The gains, I am sure all hon. members of the House will agree, however, are far offset by the equity which is involved in the proposed changes.
Since this is my first attempt at report stage and third reading, I might say that it was a good experience from my point of view in that hon. members from all sides participated in the change. It was agreed to, and I therefore conclude with the thought that it has shown me, and perhaps others, that indeed the parliamentary process is a good forum for an effective exchange of opinions.
Old Age Security


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, 1 will make only brief comments on the motions which have been presented. The fact is that the minister used a rather happy phrase when he said that the cabinet had seen the wisdom of the recommendation he made to it. 1 am gratified to see that the minister is such a fast learner. I also think the minister saw the wisdom of some of the points of view expressed by members opposite.


An hon. Member:: And on this side too.


Roméo LeBlanc: Yes, on that side too, I must say that the speech of the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) during the second reading contained the point that there should have been an element of retroactivity. There is no doubt that the minister has learned a great deal from this experience. I think it is a very humane thing for him to have done to requalify those who certainly must have felt that the previous legislation-and I say this without any mea culpa-had some serious limitations to it, and we all recognize that. By going back and reinstating those who had been disqualified by the time periods contained in the original clauses, the minister has shown lucidity in relation to the opposition and some obvious clout with his colleagues in the cabinet. So we congratulate him for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I join with the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc) in congratulating the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) on persuading his colleagues in the cabinet to agree to this proposal which was made by members of all parties in the House, and again by members of all parties in the committee. I had the notion in the committee, the day that we moved to adjourn the debate, that to say to the minister that we would not give him his bill made him somewhat uncomfortable, but then it appears he discovered that it was a useful weapon to be able to go back to the cabinet and say that the committee was unanimous in not being willing to proceed with the bill until this change had been made. So we are glad that the change was made, and that is the reason, of course, that we are prepared to deal with all six amendments in one debate, to pass them, and to pass the bill tonight.
However, despite the extreme brevity of both of those who have spoken before me, I am afraid I cannot follow suit because, for all my satisfaction that this improvement has been made, this piece of legislation, in the 1970s, is still a disgrace. It is a piece of pension legislation which applies a marital test to a pensioner between the ages of 60 and 65. We are accustomed to tests based on age, on work, on means or on needs, but to say to a person, particularly to a woman because that is how this act works in most cases, "You do not get this pension unless you have a man" is, I think, terribly wrong and inhumane.

November 22, 1979
Old Age Security
My friend, the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent, admitted, without stressing it too much, that the government of which he was a member had brought in the original bill that had in it that test, and my friend, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin) has also admitted that there was that flaw in the original act. What has happened since then is a matter of record.
Originally the spouse's allowance legislation provided that where a younger spouse between the ages of 60 and 65 was married to and living with an older spouse of 65 or over who was getting the pension, the younger spouse got the spouse's allowance, in effect got the pension at that younger age. But it only applied to married spouses, not to persons of single status. But the crowning indignity of all in the original act was that even that spouse in the 60 to 65 age bracket, if the older spouse died, had the allowance cut off immediately. Originally it was at the end of the month in which the death took place that the allowance was cut off, and there might not have been 30 days, it might have been only 30 minutes. That really hit hard. Those of us who have considerable correspondence on this subject became aware of it immediately, although 1 predicted that would happen, and we discovered that for a year or so it was happening to about 200 persons a month, most of them women.
I know this legislation works both ways, it can apply to the younger man and the older wife, but in most cases, and certainly in most cases where the allowance is obtained, it is the woman who is the younger person. So we had 200 widows a month in Canada losing their spouse's allowance because the older spouse had died.
Our stressing of the fact in the House during the last Parliament resulted in the former government amending that slightly and providing for that allowance in the case of the death of the older spouse to be continued for six months. That meant that if the younger spouse was 64 years and 6 months old, she-I say "she" deliberately-would carry the spouse's allowance until she reached the age of 65 and she qualified for old age pension. But if the younger spouse was 61 years old, she got the allowance for six months and then she had three and half years to wait. What this legislation does is to correct it and to provide that, whatever the age of the younger spouse, the allowance will be continued until the age of 65.
The amendment which the minister promised in committee he would bring in, and with which we are dealing now, provides that any of those who have already been cut off right back to the year 1975 when this legislation started, can have the spouse's allowance reinstated as of the effective date of this legislation, which is the month of November. That is a great improvement, and it is good, and that is why we are all prepared to support it.
However, the fundamental unfairness of the spouse's allowance legislation still stands. Even after this bill becomes law, we will have a country in which, if you are a woman between 60 and 65-I know it applies to men but there are so few of them that I need not talk about them-and you are in need, you get the spouse's allowance if you are married to an older
[Mr. Knowles.)
pensioner. You also get it if you are a widow, provided you became one after the age of 60. But if you became a widow before you turned 60, or if you are single, there is no payment under this legislation. So 1 say that although we complain about the means test and the needs test, we know how they work and there is some rationale to them. We have had out-of-work tests and other kinds of tests, such as tests connected with age and residence, but there is no room for this test and I earnestly plead with the minister that he spend as little time as possible boasting over what we in Parliament have done about this and that he consecrate his energies to getting this situation corrected as soon as he can.
I do not often read things that are lengthy into the record because it is dull to listen to a person reading something, but there is a letter about this which 1 regard as so important that I think it should be on the pages of Hansard in full. It is the letter which the chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Mr. R. G. L. Fairweather, wrote to the Minister of National Health and Welfare on October 31, 1979, concerning the spouse's allowance legislation. As the minister knows, references were made to this letter in the standing committee, and Mr. Fairweather also made it clear that he was sending copies of it to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) and to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). That is why I have a copy of it. It did not come in a plain brown envelope, it came in a white one directly from Mr. Fairweather. The letter is so important that I believe it should be on the record. It is dated October 31, 1979, and it reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Crombie:
The progress of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, through Parliament has prompted some members of the general public to express their concern to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that this act, in its original form as well as in its proposed amended form, bestows benefits on certain individuals, and not others, on the basis of their marital status. That is, no provision is made to augment the incomes of needy single persons between the ages of 60 and 65; married people, however, receive benefits.
You may recall that this commission has drawn attention in the past to legislation which is laudably aimed at sustaining families but which denies equivalent benefits to certain individuals or living groups purely on the basis of marital status. This is admittedly a difficult area of social policy. On the one hand, much of our legislation reflects society's traditional ranking of the family as a social unit requiring special consideration. On the other hand, the Canadian Human Rights Act, in explicitly proscribing differential treatment based on marital status or situation de famille, reflects society's more recent perception that marital status is not always the best criterion on which to base social policy.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission is fully aware of the dilemma thus presented to the government. May we urge you to seek an early resolution to this dilemma through an extensive examination of the alternatives to marital status as a criterion in social programs. Copies of this letter are being sent to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
Yours sincerely,
R. G. L. Fairweather
I will not take the time to demonstrate how much that letter is in line with what some of us started saying in 1975. But it is good to have it from such an official body as the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I hope the minister, who I am sure is impressed with this letter, will use it in cabinet in much
November 22, 1979

the same way he used the stand which the committee took on the detail we are dealing with tonight. There is no defence at all of legislation which denies an allowance to certain people in an age bracket where we recognize there is need, just because those people cannot demonstate they have got a man. As I say, it works the other way. A man in that age bracket cannot get it if he does not have a woman over 65. But there are very few of them. As I say, this is most unfair. 1 have been getting letters, even since it has been announced that these amendments are going through, from single women in that bracket who say that this adds insult to injury. Parliament is increasing the number of women of single status who will get an allowance, single status by virtue of being widows.
The amendment of a year ago created a small group of women of single status-widows

who would be getting the allowance for six months. Now we have extended the time for them. We have added to that group, but although we have added to it, this bill still leaves out all of those who were widows before age 60 and all of those who were never married. I defy anybody in this chamber to stand up and defend that. The minister will say, "Well, we have got to move slowly". I know my Liberal friends said in committee their excuse for the legislation being in that form was that they regarded it just as an initial step toward a guaranteed annual income for all. My friend, the present minister, said that that is all the money he can get to fix this up for the time being. But when the distinguished chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission can write that kind of a letter, and say that this is not in keeping with accepted principles today, I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he should work awfully hard on this issue.
If the minister speaks on third reading of this bill, one thing he can come back and tell me is that that will be part of his over-all review of pension matters. 1 welcome the fact that there is to be that review, a review of pensions in the 1980s. Well, the eighties will soon start, but they will be with us for ten years. My fear is that it will take a long time for over-all changes to be made. Since Mr. Fairweather has pointed out the unfairness at this point, we should not ask single women- those never married and those widowed before age 60-in the 60 to 65 age bracket to suffer this discrimination. As 1 have said, the letters I receive are from people who find themselves aghast. They did not know it existed. They do not usually learn about these things until they get to the age where they are affected. They can hardly believe that Parliament passed such a piece of legislation.
I call on the minister not to leave this to be part of a package three years, four years, or five years from now in a general review of pensions. But 1 call on the minister, just as he picked out this little detail, for needed action, to get this situation corrected. My own recommendation is well known. It ought to be, 1 have spelled it out many times.
The answer is to establish a pension available at age 60 to ail of those who are out of the labour market. In my view that would be the fairest and the most justified way to do it. If the government is prepared to go that far, and if it insists that in
Old Age Security
the 60 to 65 age bracket there should be a needs test of some sort, I will accept it, provided the marital test is not kept as well.
So, that is my contribution to this debate. I do not detract by one iota from the pleasure I expressed at the beginning in the victory that the committee won on this, with members from all sides making it unanimous. I am glad we are getting this through. I am glad the first bill this minister put through is a bill which moves in the right direction. Pleased though I may be, and willing though I may be to extend to the minister my congratulations, the main thing I hope he has heard me say tonight is that Gordon Fairweather is right; a marital test is wrong. I hope Gordon Fairweather will be joined, if Mr. Speaker will pardon me for using his name, by David Crombie in agreeing that it is wrong and correcting it just as soon as possible.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments, some of which I must admit are prompted by the remarks of the last speaker who is always looking for a little more, and quite correctly so. I should like to put on the record that although it might have been in committee that this very worth-while amendment was put through, the credit should go to the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin) who had the guts to propose it and get it passed, even though it meant more than doubling the expense in the bill. I congratulate her for that. At least one can justify by some line of argument that the status of a single person-


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


Miss Begin:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would not want to contradict my colleague who is speaking right now, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), but I think he would agree with me that it is the opposition which pushed the government side into getting more money through the spouse's allowance. I think the government members were willing to do it, but they did not know how.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I will accept that explanation, but nevertheless it took initiative. That initiative was still taken by the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou, and I congratulate her for that.
What I was saying was that there is no change in status for the single person. Being single, that person has presumably had to contend with the need to provide for herself, or in a few cases himself, throughout his or her life. Until we are able to bring down old age pensions to a lower age for everyone, hopefully age 60, then there is at least some logic for not including these single persons. Despite the letter from the commissioner for Human Rights, I see the reason for going slow in this particular area.
What does bother me considerably is that at this stage the minister is not treating people who are in the same circum-

November 22, 1979
Old Age Security
stances alike. I give as an example three widows who are exactly the same age and who are in exactly the same financial circumstances, living side by side in identical apartments. Only one of those three widows gets the pension because she was between the ages of 60 and 65 when her husband, who was over 65, died. The other widow had not quite reached age 60, so she does not qualify, even though her husband died when he was 65 or more. And the third widow does not qualify because her husband died the day before he reached his sixty-fifth birthday. So we have three widows who are in identical financial circumstances and who are the same age, but only one of the three can qualify. That, to me, is an injustice.
If I were going to move, as we are moving in this bill, to the welfare area, which can be looked upon as a provincial jurisdiction, then we should at least make sure that individuals who are in identical circumstances are treated alike. I also have one word of warning. We know from past experience that not every provincial government looks upon these pensions, given by the federal government, in the same fashion. We know that in at least one case that pension will be taken into account when assessing the eligibility of that widow or widower for welfare payments. We must face the fact that until we get agreement with the provincial governments, any attempt made at the federal level to increase help for these persons will be nullified if every dollar given by the federal government is taken away by the provincial government.
The government has talked at length about co-operating with the provinces, about discussing all matters with the provinces and having their accord in advance. Since this bill is definitely an intrusion into a provincial area of responsibility- and I am not opposed to it on that ground; I think it is very good and I would like to see more such intrusions-and since certain provincial governments will look upon this bill as an intrusion and will not, therefore, be prepared to see these extra moneys remain untouched in the pockets of the recipients, I suggest that discussion should be held with all the provincial governments to ensure that what the federal government give, the provincial government doth not take away.


Mr. Richard Janelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) for his excellent initiative in introducing this bill which aims at correcting a serious injustice concerning senior citizens. People in my constituency regularly come to my office to complain about the restrictions in this legislation because under current provisions a person whose spouse has died loses his or her only income. These persons come to us and ask, "What shall I do now, what will become of me? 1 no longer have any income. In addition to having lost my husband, I am losing my spouse's allowance." Until now the only solution for those people was to apply for welfare. They had no other alternative.

I remember when the former minister of national health and welfare introduced the amendment to allow someone who lost his or her spouse to benefit from the spouse's allowance for six months only. At that time, I told myself that we had not yet found a solution to the problem. In 1975, when the legislation was passed, the amendments introduced today by the minister should have been included. For this, we had to have a government really determined to ensure more social justice for the Canadian population. This action gives evidence of the direction taken by the Progressive Conserative Party in Canada.
Moreover, these amendments include a provision which is quite normal, a review of the spouse's allowance following the death of the recipient. This means that the government will re-evaluate the needs of the surviving spouse, taking into account the loss of certain earnings, to allow him or her to have a sufficient income to live decently. Our senior citizens are those who are most in need in our society, and the highest percentage of people living below the poverty line can be found among people aged 65 or more. The cost of achieving this social justice is not prohibitive since it is about $4.3 million.
I wonder why, when the additional six months provision was passed a year ago, hon. members opposite, the former government, did not decide at that time to make the law more equitable and more effective. Since all parties seem to agree tonight to pass this bill as soon as possible, I shall be content with these few words. Once more, I congratulate the minister for this excellent initiative.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of making a long speech, nor shall I make one, I can assure you, but I should like to say a few words on Bill C-6 which, to the hon. members of the Social Credit Party of Canada, is of prime importance. At the report stage, Bill C-6 allows the surviving spouse to receive the allowance until 65 or until he or she remarries.
First of all, I should like to congratulate most sincerely the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) for having dared, it can be said tonight, for having dared to take one step closer to greater social justice. At the insistence of all hon. members of the Social Credit Party of Canada, we had forced the then Liberal government to promise and even include in its election platform of 1974 eligibility for the pension at 60 for those who wanted it.
I swear if the Liberals had come out in a minority position, the day after they would have been forced to fulfil their 1974 election promise, but because they had a solid majority in 1974, that allowed them to water down somewhat their election promise without endangering the survival of their party. That is why we have the spouse's pension at 60 with all the disappointments that it brings, of course, to the spouse aged 60 to 65, particularly when the other spouse dies. Then it is a disaster for the surviving spouse. And how many cases we had
November 22, 1979

like that, Mr. Speaker, when the spouse had been getting his or her pension for one, two or even three years, and all of a sudden, after death, it came down to zero. That person had to go on social welfare, Mr. Speaker. That was the tragedy. Tonight, the Progressive Conservative government has done something which people are going to appreciate. Recently elected, and in a minority position to boot, the Progressive Conservative government had to make that eminently social gesture. This corrects an injustice that has been lasting for five years with the introduction of the latest amendments to give this bill even more equity.
I always say to those who want to hear me that the best government for all workers is a minority government. First, because it has to listen to the voice of the smaller parties elected by people who are in great need and eager for reform. Second, it has to serve first those who voted rather than favour those who paid for the election. The legislation necessarily becomes more social and less financial.
Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying which goes like this: "Tell me who pays you and I will tell you whom you serve". That saying is so true for the small parties which rely only on the devotion and the will of volunteer workers to be elected, whereas the major parties rely only on the millions in their election fund to come and represent those who paid them well. Canadians have already witnessed the good work we have been doing in the Elouse since the beginning of this session and I promise not to disappoint them. Read the papers and watch television-they even went as far as saying that five Social Credit members from Quebec have done more than the army of Quebec Liberal members. I urge the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and his government to continue to introduce legislation like the bill before us tonight and he can be sure our party will form a solid block to support his wonderful work.
I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we of the Social Credit party are here not to play politics but to pass the best legislation for all Canadians. If you read over the speech made on second reading by my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard), you will quickly realize that for us the welfare of our fellow citizens comes way ahead of financial interests. Such was also the case with my other colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Caouette) who was as proud as we are to speak on this bill. It is our earnest hope, to the greatest benefit of every citizen in our constituencies, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will follow his course, and he can rest assured that we support him, because since 1962 we have been here in this House to support positive policies rather than play politics.
When a government does wrong, we never hesitated at telling them and telling the people. But when it takes actions for the greatest benefit of the people as a whole, we are happy to commend it, and we invite it to go on. We Social Crediters have but one motto: To serve the people before finance.
Old Age Security
Moreover, we have always maintained and told the people that a minority government better served the interests of citizens, while a majority government was, by force of circumstances, at the service of finance first and foremost. As a matter of fact, the most significant reforms enacted over the 17 years I have been here were passed under minority governments. It seems this is once more the case with the legislation before the House, legislation that the Social Credit Party of Canada will find it is its duty to support.
in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would call the minister's attention to a matter concerning the aged, for which we have as much concern as the matters in this bill. It is the condition of married couples. In this day and age, because a couple is legally married-and I call this an injustice of our social legislation-they are condemned to lose $22.75 a month, as compared to another two people living in the same house, at the same table, whether in concubinage or otherwise. To me this is anti-social legislation, and I therefore urge the government to keep this in mind, to consider paying pensions to Canadians as citizens rather than according to their marital status. Living is just as expensive for a couple. When I brought this before the House, I got the answer that this is because life is less expensive for married couples. Life is just as expensive for a couple as it is for two brothers or two sisters living in the same house, Mr. Speaker. Yet they get $25 more a month because they are brothers or sisters or whatever. Mr. Speaker, that will be our second priority. I want to draw the attention of the House to that case so that the minister can as soon as possible introduce another amendment to correct this injustice, because that can go pretty far. We are told that it costs more, and yet if the same couple decide to go and live in a retirement home, they will get as much as a single person because then they both live in a home. Can you see how ridiculous it is, Mr. Speaker? Because they no longer live by themselves but in a retirement home, they will get the whole amount. People are paid as Canadian citizens. I solicit a favour from the minister tonight. I ask him to bring forward an amendment as soon as possible to do justice to all pensioners. I do not want to take any more time, because I know there are others who want to speak, but once again I thank the Chair for having recognized me. The minister can be assured that we are watching him and will be quick to congratulate him, or censure him if ever he goes astray.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to add a few words to the debate on Bill C-6. This is a bill in which I have a great deal of interest. I want to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) for piloting it through the House and also for being able to sell the cabinet on the idea of making it retroactive to include those widows between the ages of 60 and 65.

November 22, 1979
Old Age Security
I have heard comments from members on the other side of the House who said they had a great deal of input in this. 1 am not discounting that a bit, but I would like to point out, and I am well aware, that both in caucus and in speaking with the minister, that members on this side of the House had a considerable amount of input also.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I am delighted to see that the bill is going through. 1 say to my colleagues on all sides of the House that 1 thought it was a bad bill when it was brought in, and members should have known very well that it should have been retroactive and not discriminatory as it was. I think the minister of health is aware of that. I remember speaking very strongly in support of the original bill when a former minister, the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde), brought the bill in on a 30-day deal. We pleaded with them and pointed out that it would mean a lot of people would have to go on welfare after the 30 days, and that was it. Later on when it did come through-and 1 thank the previous minister the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin) for her efforts on that, but again I must say we pleaded with her time and again during the period when it was 30 days that it should be increased to include those up to 65. We did not get very far until about a year ago when the former minister, in her wisdom, decided to pay the spouse's allowance for a six-month period rather than a one-month period. Now she and some of her colleagues have been castigating the Minister of National Health and Welfare for being so stingy and niggardly on the way it came through originally.
It is a great idea and I appreciate it. But after being in this House seven years I know that your view depends on the side of the House on which you are sitting. I want to commend the minister. Also 1 commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on his comments regarding those unfortunate women between the ages of 60 and 65 who are in a tight bind with respect to money, as my colleagues all know. However, I am hoping that something can be done.
Hon. members can rest assured with respect to those women between 60 and 65 who are single, that some time down the pike, and not too far, the government can find money for them. This will certainly get the support of members on this side of the House, but we are just trying to conserve as far as we can the assets and the money that we have. I admit that it is not as far as many of us want to go. I hope the bill will receive third reading and royal assent this month. It will be a welcome Christmas present for a great number of widows who are not eligible at present. It will also be a great sense of relief for those who may have husbands who are very ill and who may be in the 60 to 65 age bracket.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I only want to take a moment or two, but I could not help thinking that the now Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie)

is the new minister, and the old one is sitting in the opposition benches-


An hon. Member:: The former one, not the old one.


William Arnold Peters: The former minister of health and welfare is sitting on the opposition benches.
I suppose the former minister of health must feel some regret tonight in that her bill did not go that far. This has been a very funny piece of legislation. When we first passed legislation, if the widow was between 60 and 65 she did not get any money. Then we put in an amendment. Then the widow got it for 30 days.


Monique Bégin: That is not true. It was six months.


An hon. Member:: Not originally.


William Arnold Peters: It worked out to the end of the month. It was not necessarily 30 days. It could be one day or 29 days.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification for the hon. member, since I have some seniority now, at least as a former minister of health, I obtained for widows in Canada six more months in order to give them time to settle estates and so on.


An hon. Member:: After pressure.


Monique Bégin: I also obtained $300 million more for those who are 65 and over.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I thank the hon. member but I think she is rushing my speech. I was pointing out that we had originally passed this piece of legislation for the recipient who was a widow between the ages of 60 and 65. Then this bill came before the former minister of national health and welfare and she put in the six months' provision. Certainly that was a great advantage. We are talking about 200 recipients coming on stream per month, so it is not a large number. But it meant that after the six months, after being used to getting approximately $600 when her husband died under the legislation of the previous government, she was cut off and she did not get anything more until she was 65 years of age and eligible again. This was not good. Originally she had to move out of her place within the month, depending on what time of the month her husband died, because she would not have enough money to keep the place going. Then the allowance was given for a six-month period. This minister, in passing this legislation, is providing her with an income which will be half of that provided to both of them until she reaches the prescribed age.
I asked the expert on pensions in this House about the matter. He indicated to me that there were not too many husbands in this category. In fact, the number was insignificant. Normally the women were the ones being discriminated against.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has had considerable experience in matters of health and welfare in a
November 22, 1979

previous job where I am sure he came into contact with many needy cases, mostly in the municipal field. As a result of his efforts in his previous occupation to provide people with a reasonable income, I am sure he would be quite prepared to support the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) in his contention that we should be doing something for these people on the basis of need rather than on the basis of these restrictions that involve such things as whether or not you are married, or shacked up. I do not suppose that is a nice phrase to use when talking about people between the ages of 60 and 65 who are living together for certain reasons. Differences are made, and the advantage comes in many cases if you have neglected to involve yourself in matrimony.
The example was given by the hon. member for Roberval of brothers and sisters, two brothers or two sisters, living in the same house and receiving more money than two people who were married. That highlights a need. The former minister of national health and welfare was interested in looking at, and was in that office long enough to look at a guaranteed annual income plan. All the problems of passing legislation that affects a specific number of people in specific circumstances could be overcome by providing a guaranteed annual income. This would eliminate many of the provincial inspectors who now have to decide on the financial position of the person requesting assistance.
That would not make redundant the work of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When he first came here he inherited the mantle of his predecessor who was interested in providing, where possible, pensions to aid those not able to assist themselves. I know the amount of mail he receives from people all over the country asking for assistance in correcting many of the inequalities created by our system.
1 hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will look at the studies done by previous governments to see if there is some way of eliminating some of the bureaucrats at the municipal, provincial and federal levels, who administer our hodge-podge forms of social assistance to those in need. Whether this government is in power or not, he would be more comfortable when moving on to other jobs in the other places knowing that he had accomplished something other health ministers could not accomplish, or have been unwilling to accomplish.
I am sure in the days to come the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will find loopholes in this legislation. There will be others who should and could be assisted. I hope the minister continues to turn to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for advice and encouragement. I am sure he has found it has been readily available on many occasions. In this way we can plug some of the loopholes that have made parts of our social legislation rather ridiculous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Is
the House ready for the question?
Old Age Security


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 1 ?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt motions Nos. 2 to 6?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


David Edward Crombie: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David Edward Crombie: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that my colleague, the previous minister of health, wants to speak briefly. For that reason 1 will not take very much time. 1 am obviously very happy we have reached the third reading stage of Bill C-6. 1 am happy that the report stage which we have just gone through consecrates the amendments the minister agreed to present to his cabinet colleagues.
I might say to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) that if the minister had not been successful in his efforts, he would have discovered the great truth of the saying that "Victory has many fathers and defeat is an orphan." However, we are all happy to have been fathers and stepfathers in this one. We congratulate the minister.
I will not get deeply involved in the issue of marital status which was spoken about so eloquently by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). 1 feel that many of the points he made were very accurate and valid.
This bill is obviously agreed to by members on all sides of the House. However, it has to be seen in its proper perspective. This lack of perception, cette absence de la mesure, was nowhere more evident than in the second reading speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald). She left the heady heights of world diplomacy. She left on her desk the super secret coded telegrams. She even left the rarified atmosphere of Kingston to come among us and give to the bill its real parameters. 1 wish to quote from page 475 of Hansard of Monday, October 22, some of the more juicy quotes from the hon. lady. I quote:
Mr. Speaker, as one who has spoken often in this chamber and, indeed, across this country on the plight of elderly women and the poverty in which too many of them live, 1 am pleased that my first remarks in this chamber as a member of the government are in support of a bill which will go a long way toward removing the discriminatory aspects of the spouse's allowance legislation.
Further down the page she decides that certain old wars have to be fought again. I again quote:
This bill is not a minor piece of housekeeping legislation that we should easily gloss over. To me this bill symbolizes the compassion, the common sense, and the instinct for justice and individual dignity that we, as members, must have. I am

November 22, 1979
Old Age Security
proud to be associated with this bill, but even more so with a government that so early in its mandate has moved to eliminate one of the lingering injustices in our pension system.
Then the hon. lady referred to us as "mean and callous" and talked about the "reactionary approach" of the former government. We were lectured. We were given "the treatment" by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as she wrapped herself in this legislation as one would do with a shawl. The problem in this case is that the shawl is rather short.
If this bill is a measure of the concern, care, and compassion that this government has for the needy, I hope that some members, especially the Secretary of State for External Affairs, will review her rhetoric. She made a big fuss about the bill and suggested that somehow it represented the great movement forward she expected of this government. However, she did not tell us that the inner cabinet, of which she is a member, has been fobbing off the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) by imposing on him a wholesale review of social programs, especially of family allowances, while announcing studies, reviews and seminars.
Meanwhile, the real power of the government, which lies with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), puts forward a new program for tax credit on housing to fulfil at least one campaign promise. This is the government which told us it wants to reduce the deficit. It is obvious that somebody will have to pay $1.5 billion or $2 billion which, eventually, the tax credit scheme will cost. Hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches opposite will have to tell us where they intend to get the money, whether this ill-conceived plan is to be paid for at the expense of social programs.
I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, having sat on many committees with him. He spoke about the need to do something for those aged between 60 and 65 who find themselves in a precarious economic position. I recognize this need. We have made it clear that this has a high priority. The reality is that this group, according to the figures I remember, would need some $630 million if their problem is to be alleviated. An amount of money of that kind could have been allocated if that had been a priority of the government, instead of devoting funds to a tax credit program which will help those who are not in very great need of help.
Who will pay for this tax credit program? Will it be the mothers of this country who are today receiving family allowances? Those, too, are women about whom the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed so much concern. Or will the victims of this unwise expenditure be old age pensioners? Will the unemployed, whose benefits have been consistently attacked in the politial rhetoric of the government, be made to pay for this new program? Or is the new Santa Claus of the Minister of Finance to be the Canadian consumer, the user of heating oil and gasoline, who will be hit by a stiff increase in price? These consumers, including the poor, the elderly, and all those who have been co-opted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, are being called upon to pay high heating

bills and their dollars are already stretched in comparison to their needs.
We have more faith in the Minister of National Health and Welfare than we have in a number of his colleagues. In the coming months we will follow carefully the orientation of the government of which he is a member. If he wants to fight to protect the integrity of his budgets we will support him. But if he gives in to those who want to pit against each other people who need the protection of his programs, if he allows the mothers of Canada to be robbed even to improve the lot of those who live under the poverty line, then he will find in this party those who will fight to protect ce qui est acquis-what is already acquired.
The history of social progress testifies to slow movement upward. Bill C-6 is a small step for a small group of Canadians. We approve of it, but it must not serve as a decoy, as a distraction, while under the guise of review and study the erosion of major legislative measures leaves them fragile and crumbling shells. If the minister needs assistance from members on this side to defend his program, he may be sure that that assistance will be forthcoming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand there are three or four members who would like to make a contribution to this debate, and in view of the fact that we are under a House order to end it at a certain time I shall make my remarks at this point very brief. 1 am getting a nod from the government House leader which I think I can interpret correctly. Perhaps when we reach 9.45 we can agree that, since it is not likely any recorded vote on this legislation will be asked for, we might carry on the debate until ten o'clock. Even with that extra time I may have won for other members I am prepared to make my own contribution brief so that others can take part.
As I said in my earlier remarks on the report stage, we welcome the improvement in the bill which was made in the standing committee. That improvement means that not only will those who are now on the spouse's allowance have the assurance that it will continue until age 65 if they become widows, but it has also become a fact that those whose spouse's allowances have been cut off because of widowhood at any time in the past four years will have it reinstated commencing in November. Any gain is good, so we welcome it, and I am happy to say so once more on third reading.
1 must also say, as I said at the report stage, that I still feel very strongly opposed to having a piece of legislation on our books which contains a marital test, a piece of legislation which says to a woman, in particular, " you get this pension only if you have a man." 1 hope this will soon be corrected. I invite hon. members, and others who may note what I am now saying in Hansard, to turn back a few pages and read the letter which Mr. Gordon Fairweather wrote to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie). I urge the minister to take that letter seriously and correct this problem without waiting for a review of the whole pension situation.
November 22, 1979

Having said that, 1 want simply to reiterate my conviction, after all the years I have spent in public life and all the years I have spent here, that the best thing we have done for the people of this country has been the provision of social security on a universal basis.
Universal old age pensions have changed the character of old age for the Canadian people. Universal family allowance and universal medicare have played a part from which we must not turn back. By the same token, I think that in the period between 60 and 65 we should have pensions universally available to those who are out of the labour market. I plead for that as a goal to be achieved, pensions at 60, regardless of marital status-I would say even regardless of need-provided the applicant is out of the labour market, but if that is too much for a Conservative or Liberal government to do in one step, at least let us get over this marital test and go no further than a needs test and make it equal as between men and women, equal among married persons, widowed persons and single persons. This present inequality and discrimination are a disgrace to the Parliament of Canada. Instead of our boasting tonight about the progress we have made, we should be ashamed of ourselves that the basic wrong is still in this piece of legislation.
I am obviously-and hon. members know it-thoroughly convinced of the rightness of social legislation which is based on the rights of our people and based on the principle of universality, and I hope that we will proceed in that direction, aiming toward both old age security and the Canada Pension Plan being available to all people between 60 and 65 provided only that they are out of the labour market. That, to me, is a goal toward which this Thirty-first Parliament ought to strive.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, during consideration of the bill in committee, I put a few questions to the minister, yet, today, 15 days later, 1 still have not had any replies. I trust, therefore, that this evening he will be in a position to give the figures requested. He said:

Mr. Chairman, the actual numbers I do not know, but 1 will see if I can get them for the hon. member.
[ Translation]
And he continued, and I quote:

We will do that as fast as we can.
I hope he can find the figures, because I was asking some questions regarding the welfare savings which would be made under that program. 1 think it would be interesting to know how many persons on welfare will receive benefit from that measure.
On the other hand, I think I would like to follow on the idea of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) regarding the discrimination in the bill. Even though
Old Age Security
I agree with the bill, I think I owe it to the hon. member to say that this bill is discriminatory for men because those who are 60 will not benefit. Again, of course, 1 do not want to see any measure treating the sexes differently. Even though this measure favours women, I say that men and women should be equal. With regard to this legislation they are not. [Translation]
I continue to point out all the measures we bring in piecemeal to help people. A while ago, my colleague, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle), also spoke of the people who were on social welfare before benefiting from that legislation. So we see the negative connotation surrounding social welfare which should not even exist here in the House. I remind hon. members that a bill like this one proves that a responsible government should pass measures under a guaranteed minimum income program, because no matter what the legislation is, even if it is useful and a success, for the widows in my riding-even if they do need the money they receive-to qualify for it they have had to live through a bereavement, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned a while ago, I believe discrimination is clearly involved here, that of widowhood, and to my mind that is absolutely unfair.
Just the same 1 would like to commend the minister for the amendments he has made to the legislation. 1 believe one does not repair an injustice by handing out more money but at least this time we bring in an amendment. The minister did manage to redress a wrong that was caused to persons who were not covered under the act. 1 would still like to point out that I obviously deplore the fact that this measure was not introduced earlier and that it is not part of a global guaranteed minimum income package; however, I can only voice my approval for an income support measure which bears the hallmark of a Liberal rather than a Progressive Conservative initiative. In any case, I think the people in the Mercier constituency will benefit from it, but as I said earlier I deplore that a woman has to be widowed to be eligible because I believe it is sad enough to lose her husband to be able to qualify and to change her status as a welfare recipient or as a state pensioner because of such a qualification. I can only express to the government the hope that this measure is only the first step toward a guaranteed minimum income.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak in this debate, but the intervention of the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc) has provoked me into getting up to speak briefly about this matter.
The absolute hypocrisy of hon. members opposite who get up and pretend to wrap themselves in concern for the senior citizens of this country causes me considerable concern. I respectfully point out that the thing which has caused the older people in this country to suffer most during the last ten years-during which hon. members opposite have, of course,
1622

November 22, 1979

Old Age Security
been in office-is inflation, and I think a case can be made, which is un-get-aroundable, about hon. men and women opposite. They have intentionally debauched the currency of this country.
I think a case can be made, which again is irrefutable, that successive ministers of finance, some of whom have the audacity to seek the leadership of their party, have intentionally caused the purchasing power of the dollar in Canada to be approximately halved during the last ten years.
Some hon. members may say, "How is that?" I think the clear answer is that the economy of Canada has grown approximately 50 per cent in the last ten years, and M-l-or the money supply as it is defined-has increased by approximately 150 per cent and now 160 per cent. That is the reason we have a purchasing power of approximately half of what it was ten years ago. Mr. Speaker, if you or I went down into our basements and printed up approximately $10 billion or $15 billion extra, came up and spent it in the economy, prices would have to rise, and that is exactly what has been done.
In the city of Edmonton where 1 am from, 1 am told, and I believe, that on a Monday morning after a weekend grocery sale, pensioners literally push each other to get access to vegetables and other materials which are on sale. I think the figure is that fully 70 per cent to 75 per cent of people over 65 in this country are close to or below the poverty line. The thing which is hurting pensioners in this country has to be inflation, and I say inflation was created intentionally by the previous government. We are doing our level best to try to do something about that.
It is not known by many people that a deficit is not necessarily inflationary. A deficit is only inflationary if it is not financed by borrowing, that is, if it is financed, bluntly, by the printing presses of the Bank of Canada. That is the root of the problem of pensioners of this country, and that is the most serious charge which can be made against hon. members in the official opposition.
As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) is the first to accept, this bill is a small step. It is a necessary step but, unfortunately, it does not do much in the face of the inflation older people are experiencing and have experienced for ten years in this country. I believe that had the party of the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) been in office during the past ten years, we would have had less inflation and less deficits than under the previous administration. In short, I believe that the Liberal party has been more irresponsible, financially, physically, and monetarily, than members of the NDP would have been had they been in office. The example I give is that of the government of Saskatchewan which, as perhaps members on the far left from this side of the House would know, runs a more fiscally reponsible government by far than has the former government of Canada.
In conclusion, may I urge every member of the House to vote for this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, I have decided this evening to speak very briefly on Bill C-6 introduced on October 19, because when the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was moved on October 26, I rose to tell this government that the bill tabled on October 17 includes only part of the promises and commitments that it made during the election campaign in May. As the people of the constituency that I have the honour to represent will remember, the government had stated and promised that it would bring down the age of eligibility for pensions to 60 for all citizens.
Obviously, Bill C-6 does something to improve pensions, especially for women who have the misfortune to lose their husband before reaching the age of 65 and who receive the spouse's allowance. It is obvious that this government tried everything to get the vote of retired people, but Quebeckers realized that it was a trap and did not rise to the bait.
Quite recently, in committee, without the vigilance of the Liberal members and the great experience of the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin) we are convinced that the amendment moved tonight by the minister, which will certainly improve this bill, would not have been passed. I therefore congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou and all the Libera! members of the committee. Because of this amendment, all women who have the misfortune to lose their husband before reaching the age of 65 will be eligible in the future.
Of course, once again, a certain group in our society has been neglected. As the hon. member for Mercier (Mrs. Her-vieux-Payette) said earlier, there are all the widows, all the single people, all the women between 60 and 65 who cannot join the labour market and who must apply for social welfare in certain provinces, at least in Quebec. I would refer, Mr. Speaker, to my intervention of October 26 when I spoke about a couple with an income of $3,528 in 1979-80. In view of the increase in the cost of petroleum and healing oil and in the cost of living, I still wonder how those people can make both ends meet even if they have the opportunity to live in low rental housing, because these units still cost between $200 and $250 a month. Mr. Speaker, I said that 1 would not take too much time, and I believe that Bill C-6 has some good points, but it completely ignores a whole category of people who will have to apply for social welfare to make both ends meet.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the House

November 22, 1979

would agree, may 1 propose that the very appropriate suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) be adopted to allow us not to see the clock at 9.45 p.m. as contained in the order of the House, and to continue until ten o'clock, at which time, I believe, all hon. members are prepared to support the legislation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) that the Chair not see the clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to join with those who spoke before me by saying that I support this bill. Even though it is a step in the right direction, however, I consider this a very timid step. 1 agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he talks of a pension for all people 60 years of age or over on a universal basis as long as they retire from the labour market. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) has very little room to manoeuvre budgetwise but perhaps I might suggest to him a formula which would be acceptable to the whole House and which could be part of the next budget to be brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie).
The formula would be similar to the one we had a few years ago and which was used to reduce the age of eligibility for the old age pension from 70 to 65, on a gradual basis, year after year. So, in 1980, we could reduce the age of eligibility to 64, in 1981 to 63, and so on until the age of 60 for everyone, for all those who would retire from the labour market, and this way we could phase in this budget over a period of four or five years. This would be an easy way, I believe, for the government to finance it. That is the proposal I wanted to make to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I hope he will consider it and submit it to his cabinet colleagues and on the night of the budget, next December 1 1, we will have good news for all those needy people who for the most part would like to retire but cannot. That would also allow several people between the ages of 50 and 60 to occupy the positions of people now aged between 60 and 65. That would enable young people of 20, 21 or 22 who are on social welfare to work in their place, and I think that by having a universal formula we could reduce the bureaucracy that is costing millions of dollars. I would much rather have a universal program than bureaucracies watching and snooping on everyone. That is what I wanted to say, and I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will act in cabinet as the spokesman for citizens between the ages of 60 and 65.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), 1 had no
Old Age Security
intention to speak on this measure when I came to the House tonight, but 1 cannot resist taking a moment to deal with the charge that he levelled against the former government, members on this side, the charge of hypocrisy. What exactly are the elements of the indictment of hypocrisy?
Certainly we cannot be blamed for having failed, when we were in government, to introduce a very far-reaching and important social welfare program for senior citizens. We do not think he should make that charge because we did bring in one of the most advanced measures in the world, which is fully indexed, although it was not perfect, and in fact hon. members opposite conceded that we were moving to fill the gap, a relatively small gap that was left and that has been the basis of the legislation introduced by this government. Filling that gap hardly puts members opposite in the position of being able to say that they are embarking upon a very major social program.
The indictment, specifically, by the hon. member opposite was that in doing all this and some other worth-while things in the country we had stimulated a lot of inflation. Maybe we did, maybe we did not. Inflation is an international phenomenon. Not all of it came from the social welfare programs introduced by the Liberal government. It would have been less, if there had been higher taxes during the period. I took it from what the hon. member opposite said that this new government will not do that, they will not increase inflation by giving away benefits without increasing taxes.
I have heard about a benefit which is coming to Canadians in the next few weeks in the form of a $2.5 billion tax reduction for the "best-ofF' sector of the Canadian population, those lucky enough to own homes. A lot of people in that category need the money. 1 am not saying that there should not be some measure to help people pay their mortgages and property taxes. 1 say that because of the manner in which interest rates have been driven up by this government, and the way the cost of heating homes will skyrocket after the new deal is negotiated or dictated by Peter Lougheed at the beginning of next year, there will be a good case to be made for helping some people with their mortgage interest problems, but $2.5 billion is a tremendous amount of money. After the promise by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), members on this side will be looking forward, with very great interest, to finding what tax increases will take place or what other measures will be cut back to provide this $2.5 billion. As for social conscience, the first small step of this government is to close this very small gap we were proceeding to close, too slowly, 1 think. At least we were proceeding toward closing it.
What is step No. 2? Compared to the couple of hundred million dollars which will be given to needy senior citizens, this $2.5 billion program will benefit every prosperous family in Canada. It is some indication of the priority of this government: a few hundred million, important for some senior citizens, and a $2.5 billion giveaway based on an election promise! I am looking forward to the budget, because if there is a $2.5

November 22, 1979
Old Age Security
billion tax increase in it which is progressive, 1 and all of us will be most surprised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker,
1 would also like to comment on the very short but highly partisan speech made by the new member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). I think he is a young and brilliant lawyer who arrived with the election of 1979, on May 22, but I do not know whether he is used to mingling with very wealthy people. One thing for sure, one is tempted to tell him that he is not acquainted with the facts of life and that he should be reminded of a few of them. He is a parliamentary secretary, and that is already quite good for a newcomer. He could surely exert his influence on his colleagues in his caucus. He strongly attacked the deficit, for which he blamed the previous Liberal government. He forgot to mention that the Economic Council of Canada, which is not necessarily a dangerous organization of social reform, has recently clearly established that as a result of our procedure of paying to the provinces huge sums for equalization purposes, the real provincial deficits appear nowhere while the federal deficit seems to increase and to become an inflationary factor for the country.

I should like to remind the new hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that the philosophy of his party is not very strong in the social field. The only electoral promise made by his leader, the new Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), was to give widows and widowers who lost the spouse's allowance the possibility of remaining on the program until they had reached age 65, at which time they would become eligible in their own right for old age pension.
We never heard the new Prime Minister speak of medicare. We did not even know where he stood on that. Finally we learned, because we asked questions in the House, that he had rejected the strange speech of his then minister responsible for pensions, the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), the new Minister of State for Science and Technology. The minister questioned the universality of pensions. We had to ask for a correction. Hon. members opposite did not see fit to issue a statement in order to calm the worries of the senior citizens of the country who wondered what was going on. Their lives were at stake; they have just enough to survive.
More than half the senior citizens in Canada need the GIS. That means they live in poverty. I do not think it is fair to start fooling around with words such as deficits, the supposed printing of $15 billion, or whatever the government spokesman said. That is the usual language of very wealthy lawyers who forget what life is all about. That hon. member reminded me of the new hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan).
It is always interesting to find in the hallways the householder mailings members can send four times a year to their ridings. The stories in them are extraordinary. By the

way, usually such members do not have the guts to say such things loudly in the House of Commons before the television cameras, because they know they are not true. Also it is interesting to listen to conversations in the elevators, around the Parliament buildings but outside the chamber. That new member said that I helped the Tories a lot when I spoke of "only" $200 million more needed for senior citizens who are over age 65, in receipt of the GIS, but unattached: widows, widowers, single people, separated men and women. That young man suggested that when he was back at home in wealthy Toronto, he could go around saying that the crazy Grits say that $200 million is just nothing, peanuts! That is not what I said when I spoke in the House of "only" $200 million more needed to bring all senior citizens now over the age of 65-not pre-65 but in official retirement-just above the poverty line. 1 am talking about a very conservative poverty line, the Statistics Canada one.
1 will always repeat that $200 million more are needed right away, not in ten years' time. Less than a year ago we found $300 million. I do not call that "fueling the deficit". The hon. member just forgot to say what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) did, which was a mistake. Of course he brought forth a bill which gives $10 million more to some people below age 65 who are in need, but it will cover only 5,000 people, not more. It is good, but there is nothing in it to think that this is very generous and extraordinary. It seems to me that it is to buy peace. It is nothing to me, until I see proof that the Tory government, the new government in Canada, is ready to make choices which will show its real colour.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare made a mistake; he accepted the envelope system at Jasper. That envelope system has a very bad disadvantage. It freezes the status quo of official direct expenditures, but it does not take into account the indirect expenditures through the tax system. That is the mistake which the minister and his colleagues have made. What is worse-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but it being close to 9.45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the bill now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
November 22, 1979



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Francis Fox (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, on November 5 in response to a question I put to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), he indicated that it was not his intention or that of his government to respond to the separatist government's white paper on sovereignty-association, of which the sole interpretation can be described as a call for independence. Since the right hon. gentleman took office we have heard a great deal on his side of the House about the new attitudes he wishes to bring to federal-provincial relations. We have been told that concrete steps, rather than so-called confrontation politics, would be the hallmark of his government.
I would like to put a few questions to the right hon. Prime Minister and to his representative here this evening. I would like to ask him whether responding to the white paper, which he of course refuses to do, and to the inaccuracies and distortions within it, is indeed a question of confrontation? I would also like to ask him whether responding to the charge that federation has been a dismal failure is considered by him to be a confrontation? It seems to me that it is simply not enough for the Prime Minister of this country to say that he will not participate in the referendum debate in Quebec on the grounds that he is neither a citizen nor a resident of the province of Quebec. Indeed, this is an astounding stance for the man who holds the most senior position in government in this country.
I would like to tell the Prime Minister that it is not sufficient for him to state that sovereignty-association is not acceptable to his government. To date, the Prime Minister, who talks about taking concrete steps, has taken two negative steps. He has dismantled a group within the federal-provincial relations secretariat known as the Tellier group, which was in a position to respond to some of these distortions and inaccuracies and to set the record straight. Secondly, the Prime Minister has withdrawn the federal bill on the referendum.
While all this is happening on the federal side, we face a Quebec government which was elected on a platform of good government, not a platform to take Quebec out of confederation. We see that government unhesitatingly using public funds to spread its message of independence. On the other hand, on the other side of this House we have a government, which not only has a right but a sacred duty to promote Canadian unity, refusing to use public funds to set the record straight and to fight the referendum.
I would like to remind the Prime Minister that the course of action which he has chosen to date is not to take any action at
Adjournment Debate
all, and yet on the response to this challenge rests the future of this country as we know it today. It is not a Quebec question or a French question, as the Prime Minister seems to think it is. It is truly a Canadian question, and the real issue is not the separation of Quebec. The real issue is the future of Canada, Quebec being an important part of it.
The government has been remiss in its most sacred, most important duty. It has called its failures principles-the principle of not wishing to set the record straight, the principle of refusing to respond to the detractors of federalism, and the principle of not standing up for the country in this, the most trying year of its history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Bosley (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given this opportunity to respond to the question of the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Jarvis). The part of the speech made by the hon. member that is true, is that it is not the intention of the government to publish a comprehensive document rebutting the Quebec government's white paper on sovereignty-association.
It seems to us that the opposition has not yet understood that our basic attitude toward the Quebec referendum has not, and will not, be determined primarily by the position of the government party in that province; it is based on our conception of what the federal authority of the federation should do in such circumstances, given its nature and its functions.
The Prime Minister again expressed our first role in the House on November 5, as reported at page 932 of Hansard:
In the months to come the federal government will take steps and make proposals which will continue to show Quebeckers that there is now in Ottawa a government ready to consider changes.
These changes will make federalism work better for the people of Quebec, as they will for those of other provinces.
The second role of the federal government, in our view, is to reduce conflicts and tensions between the federal authority and the Quebec government, and our deeds over the past six months have shown that this is not mere rhetoric. Our over-all efforts to improve the climate of federal-provincial relations are an integral part of what one might call our "strategy", vis-a-vis the Quebec referendum.
The government's third role is to remind all Canadians, first and foremost, of course, those of Quebec, that we must not allow the referendum being held in that province to become a national obsession. Whatever its outcome, that event will not have as its immediate consequence either the dismemberment of the country or the ultimate consolidation of Canadian unity. There again, the views of the government have been made quite clear, for quite some time, and many times. In short, the government trusts the people in Quebec, and believes that Quebeckers will ensure that their true preferences about their

November 22, 1979
Adjournment Debate
political future will be made clear-preferences which survey after survey has shown to be a continuance of the province's membership in the federation.
The people of Quebec know that the proposals of the government of Quebec are unacceptable to the federal government and to the other provinces of Canada. There has been no lack of examination of this document by politicians, interested groups and journalists. Their conclusions tend to stress that the document seriously misrepresents the history of our country and Quebec's participation in the development of Canada.
In our view it would be highly presumptuous for the federal government to prepare and distribute publications presuming, for example, to remind Quebeckers that some of the affairs in early Quebec history are expressed wrongly. I refer, for example, to the governmental reforms which led to the formation of Upper and Lower Canada. In short, the federal government believes it does not have to remind Quebeckers of the true events of their history.
Our essential job, the one for which only the federal government can provide the required leadership, is to show that Canadian federalism can be renewed quickly and for the better. That is our essential responsibility and we will not shirk it.


AIRPORTS-EXPANSION OF MOUNT HOPE-HAMILTON AIRPORT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, over the years the late, great parliamentarian, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker used to say to me "Never ask a question to which you don't know the answer in advance".
Well, sir, on October 31, during question period I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) a question on the long-awaited expansion of Mount Hope airport. Due to Mr. Diefenbaker's advice, I knew the answer I would receive in advance-that there would be no specific answer from the minister to the specific question I put to him, as reported at page 805 of Hansard for October 31, 1979:
In view of concern expressed by several mayors of Hamilton and the surrounding communities on behalf of many thousands of my constituents who have been faced for years with uncertainty about whether the airport would expand and, if so, in which direction, could the minister give the Hamilton-Wentworth area a clear indication of the kind, and direction, of expansion that his ministry is looking at-and how soon will it happen?
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that some anonymous interjection came from the other side, "What a set-up"! Well, the Minister of Transport did not know it was coming, hence a very brief, albeit encouraging reply, but that is why I am elaborating on my question this evening, in the hope of securing a more complete answer to a concern of the entire greater Hamilton area.
Let me very briefly set the stage for the answer that this House, I hope, will receive in a minute or two. Hamilton Civic Airport in my riding at Mount Hope is not what you would call one of Canada's more sophisticated or palatial terminals,

nor is our one main runway receiving rave reviews from any pilot who has, within the past few years, tried to land or take off in anything more modern than a DC-3.
To put it more bluntly, the people of Hamilton and any visitors to the industrial capital of Canada, find our ticky-tacky tin-shack terminal either a disgrace or laughable. And any pilot with more than 100 hours' flying experience-let alone the fellows who operate Nordair's 727 and 737 regularly-scheduled aircraft several times a day in and out of Hamilton-will testify that they are operating under primitive landing conditions, especially for a metropolitan area like Hamilton, and a vast and important region such as south and southwestern Ontario.
The problem is real. It has been recognized by several successive governments, for ten or 11 years now. The previous administration did a lot of studying of the expansion of Mount Hope Airport. Boy, did they study! I could never keep count of the kind and importance of studies conducted through the years on expanding Hamilton Airport. These were the latest: Air Quality Study March, 1976; Comparative Environmental Assessment, Study of Alternate Airport Sites at Hamilton, March, 1976; Hamilton Airport Agricultural Study, April, 1976, Hamilton Airport Social-Economic Impact Study, May, 1976; Hamilton Airport Social-Economic Impact Study, January, 1977; and a noise Evaluation Study which I believe is still under way.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, in the not necessarily immortal but nonetheless apt words spoken by Hamilton Mayor John A. MacDonald, "Every bullfrog in every bullrush around Mount Hope has been studied to death." It is true. There have been some 27 to 29 different studies on Mount Hope airport. There now exists the threat of yet another formal hearing of the Environmental Review Board, which could delay things for another few months.
It is this constant delay that is greatly irritating and upsetting my constituents, Mr. Speaker. Many hundreds of people have been in a chronic state of uncertainty in terms of expropriation of their land, and their potential discomfort in terms of aircraft noise levels, traffic patterns and so on, depending on which layout concept the federal Minister of Transport decides upon.
Adding to the frustrations of not only the people in the immediate environs of the proposed expansion, Mr. Speaker, but of the whole Hamilton-Wentworth region, were the empty promises of the previous administration about the great things coming to my area. The former minister of transport, Mr. Lang, created considerable excitement when he touted a $90 million expenditure to expand Hamilton airport.
Well, we have discovered that while the Liberals did an awful lot of talking about it, they were not ready to put their money where their mouths were. Had the former government allocated even half of what they promised in the spending estimates of 1977 or 1978, construction toward some form of expansion of Hamilton airport might have begun long before now.
November 22, 1979

Mind you, their concept, had the funds been allocated at all, would have ended up as the most expensive proposal. An ad hoc citizens' committee had recommended a concept known as 10-4 as being environmentally more acceptable than the then government's chosen 10-3 concept. You would have to live in the Mount Hope vicinity to appreciate the difference of these concepts to the people 1 represent. I should point out that Glanbrook and Ancaster are lovely areas.
After all talk and no action on behalf of the Liberals, 1 was delighted to play host at Mount Hope airport to the government's federal Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Vegreville, a bare six weeks after this new administration took over. The minister slipped quietly into Hamilton airport in late July, toured the facilities, met with the two very concerned mayors of the communities most affected by the proposed expansion, Her Worship Ann Sloat of Ancaster, His Worship Don Weylie of Glanbrook. It was the first time a federal transport minister had ever personally attempted to get a handle on the physical situation affecting Mount Hope and Ancaster and the people I have the honour to represent. I want to say here publicly in this chamber how much I am indebted to the minister for interrupting his incredibly busy schedule to give his personal attention to our problem. However, it remains a problem for Hamilton-Wentworth, a big problem for our area, this unholy delay in letting my constituents know what is going to happen, and when.
As the former right hon. member for Prince Albert used to say-know the answer before you ask the question. I do know one part of the answer. I know that the expansion of Hamilton civic airport is a number one priority on the minister's desk. My question to the Ministry of Transport is: what is going to happen, how soon, or how much later?


Mr. Ron Ritchie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to the comments made and questions asked by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott). As the hon. member noted, the expansion of the Hamilton airport at Mount Hope is a high priority, and I can assure him that detailed plans will be announced once the airport master plan is developed and approved, which we expect will be early next year.
In preparation for the expansion, improvements are continuing. The Minister of Transport expects to be able to announce the award of contracts for improvements to the parking lot and access road later this year. Early next year he hopes to announce the award of contracts for runway work. This should be a major step in improving the capabilities of this airport in advance of the initiation of the major development program.
The minister has had representations from several groups and organizations from the Hamilton area, all generally favouring the development but concerned various aspects of it. I know that he has taken these into consideration in reviewing the current state of plans for the expansion, and I believe that we will be able to develop this airport in a manner that will
Adjournment Debate
accommodate most of the expressed concerns and still ensure a viable airport operation. This will also be done in the most financially efficient manner possible.
The expansion will not take place overnight. At the present time we expect that it will not be until the spring of 1984 that we will have it completed, but on site construction of expansion projects should begin next fall. The further development of the Hamilton airport at Mount Hope should prove to be of major benefit to the people of the Hamilton-Niagara-Brantford area. It will permit expanded air services commensurate with Hamilton's being an important Canadian urban centre. No longer should it be necessary for residents of this area to have to rely on Toronto international airport because of a lack of airport facilities at Mount Hope.
Studies of requirements for airport facilities for the Hamilton-Niagara-Brantford area have been going on for years now and one result is, as the hon. member noted, that the expansion of the airport is long overdue. I want to assure the hon. member that we intend to proceed with the new facilities at Hamilton as quickly as practicable, with due regard for the realistic requirements for additional facilities.


FINANCE-HIGH INTEREST RATES-STEPS TO ASSIST SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, on November 20 I directed a series of questions to the Minister of Finance. The supplementary question I asked was in part as follows: Referring to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) I asked:
I wonder if he would give consideration to the report of the Canadian Tax Foundation to the minister of finance back in, 1 believe, 1977 to try to modify this rule-
That is the rule of budgetary secrecy.
-so that we can carry on a more meaningful dialogue in this House during the pre-budget period.
It was a very serious question, one that deserved serious consideration by the minister, the Department of Finance, and members of this House, for a number of reasons which I will outline. Unfortunately, I did not receive a serious or thoughtful response to that question. If you refer to page 1487 of Hansard you will see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) said:
Mr. Speaker, after the last 16 years it is certainly nice to hear that hon. members opposite want to loosen up on budget secrecy and secrecy in general. They were the paragons of secrecy. I am glad to see they have been converted.
And so on and so forth. I am delighted that this evening we have with us the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ritchie). I might say that in the past I have been very satisfied by his replies on other matters.
One might say I have an axe to grind here because the report to which I have just made reference was a report of a committee struck by the Canadian Tax Foundation at the suggestion of the then minister of finance, the Hon. Donald

November 22, 1979
Adjournment Debate
Macdonald. I was a member of that committee-it was a small committee of six people and we worked at some length to develop a program for the minister and the department to consider so as to determine whether this rule of budgetary secrecy could not somehow be modified to the advantage of the parliamentary system.
The rule today is an anachronism. There are many complex provisions in finance bills coming before this House which could easily be divulged to the public in advance so as to permit thorough and complete discussion of changes designed to modify in a structural or a major way the income tax system or, for that matter, any part of the tax system-1 was particularly interested in the income tax system. But the rule has become entrenched in our procedure, Mr. Speaker.
One has only to think back to the celebrated case of Hugh Dalton in 1947. On his way to the House to deliver his budget address Mr. Dalton, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a comment to a journalist about the budget changes he intended to introduce. The news immediately went out to the papers-in fact they were on the street at the time he was delivering his budget-and he resigned the next day notwithstanding the fact that no one had suffered or been advantaged by the disclosure. This gives us an indication of how far the rule of secrecy has been carried, to the detriment, I submit, of the parliamentary process.
There are several problems to be overcome. The first is the conception of major tax pians. These plans are now made by a small group of individuals, for the most part in the Department of Finance, and as we pointed out in our report it would indeed be unusual for a minister of finance to have the expertise and background which would enable him to assess the full implications of many of the proposals in question.
Another problem is that submissions to the Department of Finance made by individuals and groups across the country are not necessarily public. So a submission made by one group which might be to the detriment of the interest of another group would probably never come to the attention of the other group. Hence, the adversary process, which is such an important part of our system in terms of developing adequate legislation, is subverted. In fact it is ignored.
We made a number of specific recommendations. One of them dealt with the problem we have here in the House of Commons. Finance bills go to the Committee of the Whole and, as we know from the exercise we went through in connection with Bill C-17 several weeks ago, nothing is more complex today than income tax legislation. Yet the bill is taken in Committee of the Whole where no experts can be summoned to testify, no outside counselling can be obtained. It is thrust upon the members of the House and, as a number of speakers pointed out at the time, they can hardly be expected to understand and appreciate the complexity of legislation of this kind along with its implications. So one of the recommendations fundamental to our report is that technical legislation should either be separated from policy considerations, if you like, and referred to a standing committee, preferably the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs
or to a subcommittee of that group which would have the opportunity to examine witnesses from the private sector, to examine it fully and avoid the prospect of innumerable amendments.
I do not have the exact number here with me, but I counted them some years ago, and the number of amendments arising out of the 1971 tax reform bill exceeded something like 2,000 amendments at that time. Much of this could be avoided by opening up this process and making these bills available for scrutiny in committee. That is fundamental, I think, to a proper understanding and analysis of fiscal legislation.
I therefore will repeat my question and hope that I might obtain a more sensible answer from the parliamentary secretary. Would the minister and the department consider looking at the report and bringing to the House and to the attention of the public in some manner, their response to that report? That report represented many months of intensive work and investigation by members of the committee, and particularly by the people responsible for the final draft, and I think it would be a shame if that valuable exercise under the auspices of the Canadian Tax Foundation were to be ignored. I ask the parliamentary secretary to respond to that request.


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) was kind enough earlier today to give me some advance warning of the particular direction of his comments tonight, and I appreciate that very much.
As we all know, under the tradition under which we have been living, it is the unique responsibility of the Minister of Finance to provide details of any tax measures planned for the government's budget, and it is up to him under that tradition to make the decision as to whether any early disclosure of a particular measure will be in the best interest of the nation as a whole. As I am sure the hon. member knows, there are good reasons for this.
The hon. member during his very serious question referred to the report of the Canadian Tax Foundation on the budget process and budget secrecy. I am sure he will be glad to know that this report has been receiving very serious consideration from the department, and that the minister is giving it very serious consideration. At this point I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to give a detailed assessment of how far that consideration has gone because it is such a complex subject, but I can say that the minister is very strongly disposed toward as open a budgetary process as possible, having regard to the possible dangers of premature disclosure of particular measures.
That being said, as far as I can go tonight is to say that at this point the original question the hon. member asked about the treatment of small business under the forthcoming budget will have to await what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) says on budget night.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Friday, November 23, 1979