1979-11-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) confirmed the decision of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Jarvis) not to make public the studies on Qucbec-Ottawa relations between 1967 and 1977. Therefore, 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 urgent and important matter.
Considering that the Progressive Conservative Party had led the Canadian people to believe that it would give them an open government; considering that the secrecy surrounding those studies and their concealment could give rise in Quebec to a negative response; and, finally, considering that some distinguished Quebec editors have stated, in connection with the referendum debate, that it would be unhealthy and suspicious if important or embarrassing files were not available for public discussion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre):
That the government reconsider its initial decision and immediately make public the studies dealing with Quebec-Ottawa relations from 1967 to 1977.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since 1976, the city of Granby, and more particularly the association formed by Granby and its twin cities, have been making representations to CIDA and asking it to provide financial assistance for a frozen fish plant project in Senegal. Since 1978, Canadian experts have been going to Senegal and creating expectations among local residents. Unfortunately, few concrete results have been obtained from these visits and talks. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance):
That the House recommend to the Minister of State for CIDA to inform Canadians and Senegalese of the current status of this project and of the date of its implementation if any.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OUTREACH PROGRAM
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) having failed to reinstate the women's Outreach funds for either the Saskatoon or Toronto projects, among others-projects which may soon have to close their doors for lack of funding-and in view of the minister having omitted women from his remarks in the House last Friday concerning the government's underlying philosophy on employment strategy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):

November 19, 1979
That women's Outreach funds be reinstated immediately and that the minister reintroduce his commitment of September to make women a priority in the government's employment strategy.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time can be done, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

standards and tax regulations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That this House censure the Royal Bank and its subsidiary for conduct unbecoming a good corporate citizen of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate in this way only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the United Nations High Commission on Refugees called upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) to permit Chilean refugee, Galindo Madrid, to remain in Canada on humanitarian grounds, and in view of the fact that the minister recently recognized the danger faced by Galindo Madrid, should he return to Chile, by granting him a ministerial permit, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) and, hopefully, supported by all members of this House:
That this House commend the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration for not returning Galindo Madrid to Chile, and urge that Madrid be permitted to continue to live and work in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the House will recognize that there is, essentially, more than a simple motion of commendation involved in this, and on balance, therefore, I would put the usual question. The motion can be put to the House for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. CN Marine operates two ferries between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, formerly leased from a Swedish company but recently purchased by a subsidiary of the Royal Bank.
In view of the fact that Roylease Limited has registered these ships in Bermuda, thereby avoiding Canadian shipping


FINANCE
Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I 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 mortgage interest rates keep on increasing; that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay) has asked the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to renew old mortgages or grant new ones for a term of one year instead of three or five; and that banks and other financial institutions cannot receive such instructions, I move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Bona-venture-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold):
That the Minister of Finance hold consultations and discussions with banks, trust companies and other financial institutions and encourage them to adopt the same policy as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


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.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a motion which I am sure is supported by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). It arises from the fact that the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board has said the federal government's projected 20 per cent increase in grain movement this year will not be met because the transportation system can only handle an extra 10 per cent. Since this 10 per cent increase means no more grain will move this year than moved two years ago under the Liberal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Win-
November 19, 1979

nipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and, I am sure, supported by the Minister of Transport:
That this House nominate the Minister of Transport for the Otto Lang grain delivery award.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF UGANDA
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I invite members to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of the minister of foreign affairs of Uganda, the Hon. Otema Alimadi.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. Late last Friday, the minister rushed into the House, interrupted the ordinary business under way, and said his budget would be presented December 11. He said he had to proceed, and he could not wait any longer. Yet outside the House he admitted there had not yet been an agreement on oil prices between Ottawa and Alberta or any idea how any higher revenues would be distributed. He said he was going to "make a few assumptions" and forge ahead anyway.
1 want to ask the minister how he can present a budget to this House which the House or the country can take seriously, with these vital questions still unanswered and unknown. Is this the type of improved fiscal management he has been pledging to this country?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to see that the hon. member is concerned about the budget and wants to ensure that it is going to be as accurate and as good as possible. The hon. member is a bit inconsistent, because for the last number of weeks and months he has been saying that a budget should be brought down immediately. In fact, if 1 had brought it down on June 6 it would not have been too soon for the hon. gentleman. But now that it is being brought down on December 11, he wants to quibble about it.
The budget will be based on our estimation of what oil prices will be next year, what they should be, and what our proposals are-which may or may not be accepted by that
Oral Questions
time. The budget will indicate what we think should be done about energy prices and offsets. If those assumptions are not met during the next year, then adjustments will have to be made. We must proceed, and we are proceeding, on the basis of what we think is best for Canada and on the basis of what we think will eventually be arrived at, or something close to it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has forgotten that at the time I began, quite properly, calling for a budget, we all assumed that the oil price increase of $2 a year negotiated by the previous government with the provinces would continue in place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Is the minister telling us, therefore, that after this House has considered, debated and voted on the budget he will throw it away and bring on another budget in a couple of weeks? Is this consistent with what the minister said in the speech given by his parliamentary secretary on his behalf in Montreal last week about abandoning fine tuning? It looks as though he is doing just the opposite, as in so many other areas.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a veritable paradigm of indignation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacEachen:: Explain, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will leave it up to the people of Canada as to what they think of the budget and how seriously it deals with the problems of this country. The oil price agreement to which the hon. gentleman has referred was an oil price agreement which the Liberal government then thought would bring us to the world level of prices for oil within a reasonable period of time. Unfortunately, world conditions have not borne out their optimism and we will not reach anywhere near world levels under that agreement. Therefore, a different agreement must be contemplated, particularly in view of this government's energy self-sufficiency policy. The hon. gentleman does not need to worry; it will be a serious budget, seriously delivered.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the House and the country are probably glad to hear what the hon. minister has just said, because what he said before was certainly not a paradigm of seriousness and concern. It was just the opposite-a paradigm of fiscal irresponsibility. Does the minister recall that in the speech delivered on his behalf in Montreal last Thursday, he said:
It would be possible for us to take the easy course and to direct policy in a fashion aimed at alleviating the symptoms of our economic difficulties; at relieving the impact on individuals and businesses. I think that course would be irresponsible.
On the following day, the minister's leader said:
-that when there is an increase in energy prices we will be looking at and introducing measures that will help those Canadians, including the elderly-
Who is speaking for the government? Was the minister speaking for the government in Montreal last Thursday, or was it the Prime Minister on Friday?

November 19, 1979
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister speaks, he is speaking for the government. But we are not like the last government, because we have more than one spokesman; so when I speak on certain occasions, I speak for the government, as is the case with the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the other 30 members of the cabinet. We are one for one, all for one and one for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET-EFFECT OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, perhaps 1 can get the Minister of Finance to explain another inconsistency. He is quoted in The Globe and Mail as having said that his mortgage credit proposal is now inconsistent with the policy that he will espouse within his budget.
In view of the fact that he has announced he will be proceeding with his budget on December 11, would the minister indicate why he is also proceeding at this time with the mortgage credit bill, which he now admits is inconsistent with budget policy, and why he would not wait until he has presented his budget so that the House could see what it contains?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in politics, as in life, consistency is not always possible.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You said it.


John Carnell Crosbie: The mortgage interest and property tax credit legislation which we hope will be debated in the House shortly will be good for the Canadian people and for this country. It will be tax relief for the taxpayers of the country. It is a piece of legislation that stands on its own, and I know it will get support from all members of the House who want to help Canadian taxpayers next year and relieve them to the tune of $575 million. This is in tune with what hon. gentlemen have been asking for-stimulation-on the other side of the House.


Mr. Blais:: A supplementary question. Are we, then, to assume that because the minister indicates that consistency is not the forte of the government on that side of the House, he agrees that the mortgage credit proposal will prevent him from using substantial funds in order to alleviate the impact upon the unfortunate whom the government is leaving out in the cold?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I might say that oscillation was the sign of the last administration; not osculation, but oscillation. In the budget that I will be bringing down, we will be showing our concern for the average Canadian as well as for the Canadian economy and the Canadian private sector. We intend to see that lower income Canadians also are protected by this government. That is our policy-fair shares to all.


DECISION OF IRAN TO CUT OFF SUPPLIES OF OIL TO U.S.- EFFECT ON CANADA'S SUPPLIES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for one of the musketeers over there, namely, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of Iran's decision to cut off two major U.S. oil companies from all Iranian oil supplies, and the implications this has for third party contracts, can the minister inform the House if Canada's oil supplies from the multinationals will be affected in any way?
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, the latest information that we have with respect to the Iranian situation is that at least two ships were denied loading on Friday. With this late information that has come to our attention, we are keeping close contact through our representatives in Tehran. We do not know the full implications involved, and it is a matter of concern to us; but clearly we will be watching the situation very closely.
There have been suggestions that the International Energy Agency may be moving up its meeting from a projected January date to some time in December in order to discuss the international situation, at which time it is hoped we can have a better look at exactly what is the world situation.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister what assurances he has from the multinational oil companies that oil contracted for Canadian markets will in no way be diminished or diverted because of other market commitments these companies may have.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the step of writing to each of the companies involved in the importation of oil into Canada, indicating the position we have taken as a government, namely, that we are going to look very closely at any diversion made except in the context of international accord and agreement. I have asked them to keep the position of the government in mind in terms of their activities of importing oil into Canada.
I wish to point out to the hon. member that, as well, in the event there is going to be any diversion in the future, or in the course of this winter, I have asked them to advise us in advance so that we can assess our position with respect to any proposed diversion of supply for Canada.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister makes public the responses of those companies. By way of a final supplementary, I am interested in knowing what specific monitoring tools the minister has in place to assure him that what the companies tell him is, indeed, what is actually occurring; or is the minister just content to be the virgin among the seven sisters?


Mr. Allmand:: "Yes" or "No"?
November 19, 1979


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the House that it is the first time I have ever been said to be a virgin. I do not mind the appellation "musketeer" from my colleague.
I want to tell the hon. member that, with respect to the oil companies, we have a number of programs in place in our country for monitoring companies and a system of independent audit of the books of companies under the petroleum monitoring act. As a matter of fact, I have now received in a preliminary way the report with respect to the operation under the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act, and I anticipate I will be tabling the figures for 1978 in the very near future.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, the president of the Mouvement cooperatif Desjardins, Mr. Alfred Rouleau, for whom both the Prime Minister and I have high regard, fearing that the privatization policy of this government may lead to confrontation proposed a moratorium and the establishment of an independent committee to analyse, review and make recommendations on the entire policy concerning Crown corporations. Is the hon. Prime Minister aware of this suggestion; does he think that such a policy already exists and, if so, when will he announce it?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a committee has been or is going to be set up within Treasury Board to study issues related to privatization, and I think that the President of the Treasury Board is now considering the names of those non-government people who could take part in such a group.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, does the right hon. Prime Minister not consider it odd to start implementing a policy without having its basic elements?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker, the first step, in our opinion, was to establish certain guidelines for identifying those Crown corporations which could be privatized and then to have a group help the government determine the efficiency of such a project.
Oral Questions


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In September, he announced the first phase of privatization and listed the four Crown corporations that were to be privatized, and their subsidiaries. He announced, also, that he was to be assisted by a Treasury Board secretariat and advisory committee.
I should like the President of the Treasury Board to confirm that the terms of reference and guidelines for these bodies have now been drafted. Also, in the spirit of the present government's attitude toward freedom of information, is he prepared to undertake to table in this House terms of reference and guidelines?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would reply to the hon. member that the terms of reference have been substantially identified and agreed to. The advisory group that the hon. member has referred to and which the Prime Minister referred to will likely be formed later this month, with a view to holding its first meeting on December 3.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board can explain the delay in setting up this advisory committee. Can he really assure us that it will be operational by Christmas? 1 mean Christmas of this year, of course.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly assure the hon. member that it will be operational by Christmas of this year. There has not really been any undue delay in setting up the board. We felt that we wanted it composed of a representative group of Canadians from coast to coast both from the business community and other sections of our economy. Second, we felt that we should not call them into session until we had substantial work for them to do, including briefings that will be available for them. Basically, they will be called together to make decisions and not just to discuss in the abstract the whole question of privatization.


SECOND LIST OF CROWN CORPORATIONS TO BE SOLD TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. On September 28, the minister announced the privatization of 11 Crown corporations and has since suggested that there is a second list of Crown corporations scheduled for privatization. Can he tell us whether this is indeed the case, whether there actually is a second list, and if so, what Crown corporations appear on that list?

November 19, 1979
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the second list which the hon. member is referring to is not so much a second list as the mere fact that when I announced the possible privatization of the first Crown corporations, I indicated that from time to time cabinet may well designate other Crown corporations it feels would be suitable to put into what we call our privatization unit study phase, which is phase two where we take a serious look at the possible privatization routes that are open with respect to any of these Crown corporations, and who the buyers may be.
In that connection, announcements will be made from time to time concerning the companies that are suitable to be put into that category. In fact, one will be referred to later this afternoon after the markets close at 3.30.

[DOT] (M30)


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, there have been rumours that some of the activities of the EDC will be privatized. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us whether or not he is considering decreasing the activities of the EDC, or whether he intends to help it or widen its role, since the corporation supports our Canadian exports?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to the hon. member, with regard to the Export Development Corporation, any suggestion of the privatization of that organization has been made only in an entirely different context. There has never been a suggestion that the EDC, as we know it, would be put back into the private sector, in the sense that private sector investors would own the equity of that organization. The privatization suggested by some groups has been in terms of, can EDC work closer with the private sector in supporting our export activities around the world? That is the only context in which privatization has ever been used in the case of EDC.

[ Translation]


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Armand Caouette (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Further to a question I asked him early in the session and put on the order paper asking for information for the years 1968 and 1969 to 1979 about whether or not the government
had spent money on scientific research and, if so, how much a year and in which provinces, I thank the minister for his reply as it indicates that Quebec received $94 million for 1976-77, Ontario $203 million-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member intend to put a question?


Armand Caouette: I should like to ask the minister whether he intends, as reported in Le Soleil of Friday last, to increase the budget for research, all the more so because the chairman of the NSERC states that it is most important, especially in the field of food research which is of prime importance in agriculture, energy and other priority projects in his department?


Hon. Heward Grafftey (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1 want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for his very important question. The announcement I made concerning the funds approved for the universities in the field of research and development will certainly help. There is now what is known as an ad hoc group in the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council which is responsible for the money granted universities and taking a closer look at the situation in the universities of the province of Quebec. As the hon. member knows, the National Research Council also has programs to help improve the situation not only in the province of Quebec but right across the country. Like the hon. member, I have made a serious study of the green paper in Quebec. In our department, we generally agree with the diagnosis given in the green paper, and as you know we will be opening an improvement centre at Boucherville to improve the whole situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. At his press conference last Friday the Prime Minister said he was disposed to release guidelines promulgated in July, 1978, covering RCMP investigations into possible national defence leaks. Will the Prime Minister tell this House if, and when, he will indeed make public these guidelines?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the indulgence of the House. I hope to be in a position to answer that question in a day or two. It now appears there is some question as to exactly what guidelines are being followed and, indeed, with what authority they had been issued. It had been my understanding they were guide-

November 19, 1979

lines that had been approved by the cabinet of the former government. That may not now be the case. We are reviewing the circumstances. I expect to be able to report to the House fully within one or two days.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last week, in the aftermath of the Mississauga derailment, the minister expeditiously and justifiably ordered the Canadian Transport Commission to conduct an inquiry into that accident. Has the minister considered that, rather than the CTC doing the inquiry, he should establish a royal commission on the broad spectrum of rail safety, because in this case the CTC will in part be examining its own jurisdiction?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, 1 am sure hon. members would want to ensure that there is carried out a full and impartial inquiry into the events and circumstances surrounding the Mississauga incident. The CTC has indicated that it will conduct a full, "no holds barred" inquiry commencing the first week in December.
Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, a number of questions have been raised about the propriety or advisability of the CTC, in effect, examining itself. Some questions have arisen as a result of that. I did undertake at the committee to take under advisement the suggestion that was proposed at that time. I say to the hon. member that at this time I am very actively considering the possibility of establishing a full-fledged inquiry under the Inquiries Act. I would first want to consult with the province of Ontario and the municipality of Mississauga before taking a firm position in that regard, in order that the terms of reference and the structure could be arrived at in a spirit of co-operation and consultation.


Edward C. Lumley: I thank the minister for his answer. I certainly want to encourage him along those lines. I now want to refer to a question I asked him last week concerning the discretionary power that he has. Would he consider separating any trains carrying both combustible materials and toxic gases in the interim until such time as the inquiry is conducted and/or the royal commission is established?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have a regulatory body that is responsible for the conduct of railway safety. That regulatory body has, in fact, issued interim orders having regard to the maintenance and inspection of journal bearings. They have also introduced an interim order with respect to the positioning of cars carrying dangerous goods. They have indicated that they will look into, and are looking into the matter of the positioning and/or the separation of toxic and inflammable goods. I have reason to believe that is currently
Oral Questions
under consideration. I suspect that if it were so desired, and in the best interests of railway safety, the CTC would in fact be considering a regulation to cover that very point.


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. In light of his reply to my question on Thursday last, will the minister tell the House if his directive to all federal departments and agencies to reduce their person-years by 2 per cent is applicable to the Canadian Transport Commission?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the 2 per cent that the hon. member is referring to is, of course, with reference to the current year; that is, the fiscal year 1979-80. In that context, the number of person-years it was suggested the CTC be reduced by was, I think, 17. That is 2 per cent of the roughly 800 people that work for the CTC over all. Where the reductions would take place is, of course, entirely up to the CTC. We do not specifically ask that they reduce employment in any particular section or operation of the CTC.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, since the Canadian Transport Commission's testimony to the transport committee clearly states that that body is short of both human and financial resources, will the President of the Treasury Board give this House a commitment that his department will provide that agency with the resources necessary to carry out the important task of railroad inspections; and will he do it now?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, the question of personnel in any agency or department of government is constantly under review. If the CTC feels it has an inadequate complement at the present time, it knows the usual channels to go through. In short, to date we have had no definitive request for extra personnel for the CTC. We can only operate if such a definitive request is made.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that a settlement has virtually been reached in the Zimbabwe Rhodesia matter in accordance with the proposals made at the Lusaka conference, could the hon. lady advise us whether Canada will now recognize Zimbabwe and extend trade relations to that country?
1438

November 19, 1979
Oral Questions


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: We have been very pleased with the progress of the talks that are taking place at the conference in London. Amazing advances have been made, and we are delighted to see them, particularly with regard to the new constitutional arrangements and the transitional arrangements leading up to an election. However, no decision has been taken with regard to a ceasefire which would have to be in place before any finalization of procedures could be brought about. We are awaiting the outcome of the London conference before any move is made by this country.


BILINGUALISM
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for the Treasury Board, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, in connection with his responsibility toward the bilingual bonus policy.
Could he tell us what progress is being made toward reaching a decision as to whether or not that policy will continue and, more particularly, whether the public service bargaining agents, the unions, bilaterally or through the National Joint Council, have been formally consulted? If so, what reaction is the hon. gentleman encountering?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: 1
undertook to take this matter to cabinet, and cabinet has approved the proposals I made on the subject of the bilingual bonus. We have contacted the unions and indicated we would like to have discussions with them. Unfortunately, because of Mr. Stewart's illness it has been impossible to do so up to the present. We do hope to meet with them in the near future, though.


Robert Knight Andras: Is this an indication of a direct contact with the Public Service Alliance and other unions, or does the minister propose to deal with the National Joint Council? I might point out that these arrangements have not been part of the collective bargaining agreements but, rather, of a general consultative process.


Henry Perrin Beatty: My inclination is to consult directly with the unions, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a matter which I am sure has engaged her concern. Has she been able to evaluate recently the situation of
Canadians in Iran, especially in the light of comments which have been attributed to students in Iran that Canadians in Iran may be held for their own safety unless the shah is returned to that country?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I thank the hon. member for his question. On an almost hourly basis we have been keeping in touch with our embassy in Tehran, and the situation with respect to Canadians, as reported by our ambassador, is normal. The operations of the embassy have been going on in normal fashion, and we have received no reports of any harassment or interference with any of the 60 Canadians who are located, for the most part, in Tehran.
1 have, of course, heard the comments which have been made by Iranian students. They have not been repeated to us in any way through our embassy or through the Iranian charge d'affaires here in Ottawa, who as recently as Friday afternoon assured the undersecretary of the Department of External Affairs that Canadians in Iran would be in no danger.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I was wondering whether, in view of the incredible revelations in London, he could give the House an assurance that there is no such situation in this country whereby back in the fifties and sixties there were people engaged in espionage work against the interests of Canada and some "sweet deal" was made.
Further-the right hon. gentleman will probably not be in a position to do this today, but perhaps he can check with the Attorney General or whoever the responsible person may be in the security committee of cabinet-can he assure the House that the reclassification of the papers involved in the Gouzenko hearing back in the fifties, putting that matter further in the deep freeze, extending the usual 30-year freeze for I am not sure how many years down the road, is in no way related to any spy activities by Canadians that were alleged by either British or American spy authorities?


Charles Joseph Clark: As the hon. member suggested, I will have to take the second part of that question as notice. I will look into it and report to him and to the House.
Regarding the first part of the question, there is no evidence to my knowledge: I say "to my knowledge" because immediately after learning of events in the United Kingdom, I initiated a request to my own officials to try to have myself satisfied as to the circumstances in Canada.

November 19, 1979


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In a decision handed down by the Federal Court of Canada late last week, it was declared that certain lands in the area of Baker Lake, in the Northwest Territories, are subject to the aboriginal right and title of the Inuit to hunt and fish thereon.
Will the minister assure the House that he intends to abide by the decision of the court and guarantee that no mining or exploration activity is allowed to interfere with the continued use of these lands by local residents?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I can say to the hon. member that, the government and I, as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will, of course, abide by the decision of the court. I might add that at the present time we are studying the Baker Lake decision, the ruling which has been given by Mr. Justice Mahoney, and that at the moment our review is not complete.


Peter Ittinuar: I would like to ask the minister how he plans to resolve the conflict between development and the settlement of native claims, when he has gone on record many times as an advocate of development in the north and has gone so far as to hail Cominco's decision to develop the Arvik mine in an area where outstanding claims have not been settled, even though the hon. gentleman has expressed concern over the prior urgency of settling claims.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I can tell the hon. member that both remain priorities. We have been meeting with people in both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories; there is a deep desire on the part of citizens not only to get land claims settled but to end the deep freeze on economic development which has marked the north for the last ten years. It is the purpose of this government to get northern Canada back on the economic track, to give people the jobs they require and, at the same time, to continue land claims negotiations. In fact, I can assure him that land claims negotiations are going on at this very moment in the Yukon.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICIZING OF STUDIES ON CONSERVATION METHODS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: it concerns the desire of the government to implement a conservation program for Canadians. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to make available the studies he has on conservation methods so that we might have an opportunity to
Oral Questions
assess the quality of the government's programming based on the quality of the advice received?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As the hon. member knows, I have tried as far as possible to let members generally have the fullest briefing, the fullest information, from my department on these matters whether of a factual nature or by way of studies which have been made. I would be quite prepared, of course, to let the hon. member have the studies which have been carried out with respect to conservation matters, together with other such information which might be available. If there is any particular area in which he is interested, perhaps he will let me know and I will try to accommodate him as soon as possible.


John Mercer Reid: In that case, would the minister make available to me the studies which were carried out by the conservation branch of his department particularly, the first having to do with price as a regulator of conservation and utilization of energy, and the second with other methods which could be used in order to encourage Canadians to conserve energy? 1 believe the department has done studies in both those areas.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There are a number of studies with respect to the items to which the hon. member refers. I will certainly take the matter under advisement and advise the hon. member as soon as possible.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister confirm if he has arranged meetings this week or next with his provincial counterparts from the prairies to discuss Indian entitlements under treaty and, if so, would he assure the House that these meetings will not take place without the presence of the Indian associations from the prairies?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to the hon. member that we are attempting to finalize the preparations respecting meetings with my counterparts from the prairies. They have asked for a meeting with me for some period of time, not only relating to outstanding entitlement treaties but to a number of topics relating also to status Indians and the responsibility to status Indians who are off the reserve. As I indicated to the hon. member, we are trying to finalize the meeting. I do not believe it has been totally finalized, but we are projecting it for next week.


William Warren Allmand: The minister did not mention if he would ensure the presence of the presidents or their delegates at those

November 19, 1979
Oral Questions
meetings, since they are intimately concerned with the policy of entitlements and whatever else he may talk about affecting their interests. Would he give that assurance to the House and would he also agree, in the spirit of open government, to provide the presidents of the associations and the official critic in this House with an agenda for those meetings?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I can indicate to the hon. member that this is going to be my first meeting with my counterparts in the provinces. I think it is important that I meet with them and that we discuss areas of concern to them and areas of concern to the federal government. If, at a later date, in a tripartite process which is in place in a number of provinces, it is agreed between the provinces, the Indian people relating to the province and the federal government that the tripartite process is the best vehicle to use, we will consider that. But I believe for this first meeting it is important that I meet with the ministers only.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General concerning the so-called "featherbed file" which has been featured again in the past few days in the press, and which the security services have claimed over a period of time does not contain names of members of the House of Commons.
I should like to ask the minister whether he can tell the House the general nature of the names that are mentioned in the "featherbed file" other than those of members of Parliament, or can he give us a general description of the purposes of the file and whether or not he has seen it, requested to see it, or intends to see it?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the "featherbed file" and the implications arising from it are now under the intense consideration of the government.


POTENTIAL HAZARDS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I think my question should be directed to the Prime Minister. The Americans have learned something from the Three Mile Island incident, and I think we have learned something from the Mississauga incident. In light of the national and international implications of a disaster on the Columbia River system and, according to recent reports, the Mica dam near Revelstoke, British Columbia, has been constructed on a generally unstable site and using below-standard material, and in view of the vulnerability of the people of the communities of Revelstoke, Trail and several other U.S. towns, is the Prime Minister aware of

independent geological and wave studies? If so, when does he intend to make these public; and, if not, will he assure the House that he intends to obtain these frightening studies immediately from British Columbia Hydro and he will use his federal powers to have the Mica dam drained if the studies confirm current speculation of grave danger to some thousands of unsuspecting souls living downstream?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, without wanting to cause anyone alarm, I will certainly seek to have made available to us studies to which the hon. member refers and other studies that might be germane. We will, naturally, not come to any conclusions as to what we would do with those studies until we have seen them.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will understand that I am not disallowing him a supplementary question, but I think if he would look at his question he would find he has already put it.

i Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to tell him that we missed him during the ten days or so he spent in Rome, I understand. We have been told in the committee on agriculture that the Agricultural Stabilization Board made a recommendation to the minister regarding a request from New Brunswick for support, or stabilization payments for the 1978 potato crop. I understand that the minister is now able to act on that recommendation, so I would like to ask whether he has taken a decision and, if it is a positive one, when is he going to announce it, and, if it is a negative one, why?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question-and I appreciate his remarks-it is true that I have received a recommendation from the Stabilization Board. I have not yet had an opportunity to consider and decide whether or not I should take that application and proceed to Treasury Board for its approval.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, since hon. members cannot ask questions directly of the minister of state
November 19, 1979

responsible for CIDA, 1 shall put my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since the Canadian government and the coastal population of Senegal have been awaiting eagerly for two years for the construction, with the assistance of Canada, of frozen fish plants, I would like to ask the minister where this project of over $12 million stands with CIDA and whether she could give us an indication on the construction schedule of those plants.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 take note of this question and 1 shall answer the hon. member as soon as possible.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In view of the statement made by the minister last week regarding the government's intentions in the field of research and development, a statement which has raised a great deal of interest among university people, does the minister intend to correct a situation which has prevailed for several years, whereby some 17 per cent to 18 per cent only of all research work undertaken in Canadian universities is done in Quebec, so that this province may receive its fair share just like the other parts of Canada?


William Heward Grafftey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier in the House, a group in the council is studying more particularly the needs of Quebec universities and we are going to build a centre in that province. Furthermore, we have designed several programs which will improve the situation mentioned earlier by the hon. member in the House.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works as the
Oral Questions
spokesman in the House for the National Capital Commission.
I would like to ask the minister if it is to be concluded that he might be considering changing or abolishing the National Capital Commission, since he has not replaced the three commissioners for Ottawa, Messrs. Lowther, Mercier and Fisher. I would also like to ask him if he intends to appoint the commissioners within the next few days. And as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask him if Bill C-13 which would terminate the National Capital Fund would prevent the commission from using those funds for public works in Ottawa and the national capital region?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the replacement of the commissioners is under current consideration. With respect to the change in the structure of the NCC, that, too is under review.
With respect to the financial operations of the commission, recent changes have been effected which require the commission to use up the non-lapsing funds that they had on deposit, and they are now required to come before the Treasury Board from time to time in the same way that any other government department or agency dealing with the Treasury Board must do.


HOME HEATING-CONVERSION FROM OIL TO NATURAL GAS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the government has stated on several occasions that Canadian home owners and others who now use oil as heating fuel should make every effort, where possible, to switch to the more plentiful gas in order to conserve our dwindling oil supplies, I should like to ask the minister if he would take the necessary action to subsidize the cost of such a changeover so that the subsidies go directly to the people involved, not to the gas companies-possibly a program along similar lines as the CHIP insulation program.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as we pointed out in material we tabled in this House, we are looking at a gas substitution program which we wish to effect in terms of the purpose of that program, that is to say, to make sure there is the greatest degree of efficiency when there is conversion to gas, a more plentiful supply of natural gas being available in our country.
Certainly I will take the hon. member's representation under consideration. There are other ways in which the government wants to deal with people who will continue to use oil-generated furnaces in order to increase the efficiency of their particular operations. I appreciate the suggestion made by the hon. member and I tell him we will give serious consideration to it.

November 19, 1979
Oral Questions NORTHERN AFFAIRS


TRADITIONAL RIGHTS OF NATIVES TO HUNT AND FISH ON CROWN LANDS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Last week, the Inuvialuit people of the western Arctic region were betrayed by the Government of Canada when a bill was passed and given royal assent which would abrogate their traditional trapping rights in the northern Yukon. In short, the government of the Yukon Territory, a Conservative government, has chosen to exercise its legislative authority over hunting and trapping on Crown lands in defiance of the agreement signed last year by the Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement and the Government of Canada.
Is the minister aware of the passage of this bill? If he is, what does he intend to do in order to honour the agreement of the Government of Canada, in the words of the agreement itself, "recognizing Canada's constitutional jurisdiction in respect of the rights of native peoples and of native lands"?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the member that, yes, I am aware of the ordinance which the Yukon legislative assembly passed and which received royal assent last week. Also, 1 want to indicate to the member that the authority to make ordinances relating to game is under the jurisdiction of the Yukon legislative assembly.
I met with the representatives, the legal representatives, of COPE last week. 1 indicated to them that the government was interested in moving forward on the COPE claim. I further indicated the number of areas of concern which had been raised, not only from the communities and the two territorial governments but from other native groups, and that those questions would have to be clarified in order for negotiations to move forward. I was pleased to see, in a press release which 1 received this morning, that COPE also has now agreed that those questions should be answered in order that negotiations can go forward.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister talked about the jurisdictional authority of the Yukon territorial government, but he failed to answer in this House as to how he will use his constitutional authority and his obligation according to that agreement, which quite clearly indicates, "To protect and confirm the interests of the Inuvialuit on lands they have traditionally used".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the point the hon. member is trying to make is exactly the reason why a final agreement is needed for COPE. At the present time there is an agreement in principle. One of the areas of deep concern is the matter of lands to which the agreement and principle refer in the Yukon but to which the representatives of the people of the Yukon, namely, the government of the Yukon, were not party. Obviously that is a question, if they are prepared to have harmony in the area, which must be resolved before any final agreement can be made.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Clarke.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-25, to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
REVIEW BY COMMITTEE OF FIREARMS CONTROL PROVISIONS On the order: Government notices of motion:
November 14, 1979-The Solicitor of General of Canada:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be authorized to review the firearms control provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada (sections 82 to 106 inclusive), and that such review extend to all aspects of the firearms control program and include the hearing and consideration of the views of the interested persons and organizations and to make recommendations with respect to any amendments, alterations or modifications thereto that appear to the committee then to be necessary or desirable;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the committee be empowered to retain the services of expert advisers and to commission studies or research to assist in its work and that it also be empowered to retain such professional, technical, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
November 15, 1979-President of the Privy Council:
That the report of the Chief Electoral Officer, tabled on Friday, October 19, 1979 (Sessional Paper No. 311-1/4), be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and

November 19, 1979

ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 237, 285, 363 and 380.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources appoint someone responsible for the sale of mining products on international markets and, if so, what is his/her name?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the Minister of Public Works, in a speech on September 19, 1979, ask for proposals for the use of lands and properties managed by the Department of Public Works and, if so, how many proposals have been received to date and for which lands and properties?
2.	Will the minister advertise which lands and properties are to be considered for use by the provinces or other interested groups and individuals and, if so, in what locations will it be possible to review the notices?


Erik Nielsen: 1.	Yes. The request was made in a speech made to the Federal and Provincial Conference of Ministers and Deputy Ministers of Public Works, Government Services and Supply and Services at St. Andrews, New Brunswick. It was made in the context of the minister's call for co-operation and support from his provincial and municipal colleagues and for the elimination of the politics of confrontation from inter-governmental relationships. As of this date, there have been no proposals received.
2.	Public disclosure of negotiations related to real estate, between two levels of government is dependent upon the willingness or desirability of both parties to discuss their interest. In this case the Minister of Public Works on behalf of the federal government is willing to make public any properties under discussion; however, the wishes of the concerned provinces or municipalities must be the controlling factor. Since no proposals have yet been received, it is impossible to determine if disclosure can be made in individual cases. In the event that
Order Paper Questions
the need for confidentiality is not required, a public announcement of the properties under consideration will be made for all negotiations of significance and naturally all transactions will be made public when they are finalized by an order in council.
The same general rules and practices apply in negotiations between the public and private sectors; however, disposals to the private sector which only take place after other levels have been consulted, result from public proposal calls that are advertised in the printed media. It will be possible to review all announcements in the office of the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has there been a freeze on all new work orders in the Department of Public Works and, if so (a) is the freeze still in effect (b) for what period of time is it anticipated that the freeze will remain in effect?
2.	Did the Minister decree that all new orders must bear his personal signature?
3.	Are there now over 4,000 work orders awaiting the signature of the minister?
4.	When work orders are not being signed, what instructions are given to employees to ensure that they can continue to be gainfully employed?
5.	What is the estimated cost for those employees that are presently without work awaiting the release of the orders?
6.	How many claims have been received from private contractors for extra costs relating to such delays?
7.	What additional costs are anticipated, resulting from the winter expenses for work that was tendered to be carried out in the late summer and fall months?


Erik Nielsen: 1.	There has been no freeze on new work orders in Public Works Canada. However, there has been a marked reduction in the number of work orders being issued due to the deferral of non-essential work during the period of restraint.
(a)	not applicable
(b)	not applicable.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Not applicable.
7.	No additional costs are anticipated.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is there a painting of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness Prince Philip in the Ball Room at Rideau Hall, arranged by the government and, if so, what was the name of the artist and (a) how much was he/she paid (b) what number of hours did he/she spend on the portrait?
2.	What department commissioned the portrait and on what date?
3.	What are the names of all the persons in the government who had anything to do with the decision to commission the portrait?
4.	What are all the qualifications of the artist that led to the government commissioning the portrait?

November 19, 1979
Order Paper Questions
5.	Does the government consider the portrait to be an outstanding example of art or otherwise?


Erik Nielsen: 1.	Yes, there is a painting of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and His Royal Highness Prince Philip at Rideau Hall, painted by Jean-Paul Lemieux.
(a)	$49,900.
(b)	Actual hours of labour are not known. The artist has stated, however, that he devoted himself exclusively to the commission during the time this work was executed from June 2, 1977 to October 23, 1977.
2.	Public Works Canada commissioned the portrait in 1977. The contract was not dated.
3.	The Honourable Jules Leger, Governor General of Canada requested, through his secretary, that the Honourable J. Judd Buchanan, Minister of Public Works, commission Jean-Paul Lemieux. The secretary said the Prime Minister "seemed favourably disposed towards it (the commissioning)".
1926-29 studied at l'Ecole des beaux arts, Montreal 1929 studied at La grande chaumiere and the Colorossi, Paris
1934 Diploma from l'Ecole des beaux-arts, Montreal 1934-37 teacher at beaux arts and Ecole du meuble, Montreal
1937 and for following 28 years-teacher at 1'Ecole des beaux arts de Quebec 1951 first prize Quebec Painting Contest 1954 Canada Council Scholarship (in France)
1956 Elected to the Royal Canadian Academy 1960	Exhibition, Roberts Gallery, Toronto
1965	Exhibition, Galerie Agnes Lefort, Montreal
1967	Retrospective exhibitions at Montreal Museum
of Fine Arts, Musee du Quebec, and National Gallery of Canada
1968	Companion of the Order of Canada
1973 Honourary doctorate from Laval University
1975	Film on his work by Office du film du Quebec Molson Prize from Canada Council
three artist show in Algiers
exhibition in Musee d'art moderne in Paris
one man show in Moscow
show at Galerie Nationale de Prague
1976	exhibition at Galerie Gilles Corbeil, Montreal
1977	Official portraits of the president of the
Assemblee nationale, Quebec, and Their Excellencies Mr. and Mrs. Leger
1978	show at Salle Wilfrid Pelletier, Place des Arts
1979	show at Myra Godard Gallery, Toronto
His paintings are in the following public and private collections:
National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa;
Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario;
Art Gallery of Hamilton, Ontario;
London Public Library and Art Museum, Ontario;
Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, P.Q.;
Musee du Quebec, Quebec;
Royal Bank of Canada, Toronto, Ontario;
Hart House, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth;
Public Works Canada.
5. What one considers to be an outstanding example of art is a matter of personal taste and preferences. The government considers that Mr. Lemieux's qualifications are among the best obtainable.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 5, consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill C-18, to amend the Customs Tariff and to make certain amendments to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960 and The Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932-Mr. Crosbie-Mr. McCain in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
On clause 2-
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, the last time we discussed this bill was on November 5. At that time I was concerned about the manner in which Bill C-18 was presented, in that it does not allow for comparison between the proposals now being made, even if one looks at the schedules, and what already was in effect.
I have some questions to ask. How much money has been made on tariffs? Have they been increased? Is this a way of raising money? Tariffs raise money. At one time it was the main way of raising money for the general treasury. In those days there was no income tax, so money was raised out of tariffs. Since that time I would think that tariffs have changed.

November 19, 1979

If asparagus costs 2.5 cents in a favourable period and 10 cents in a non-favourable period from a non-favourable trading partner, does it mean that we are giving less money to the treasury than we did under the previous schedule?
I do not want to relate clause 2 to all the numbers that are in it and ask for an explanation of each one separately, but I do say that when the department brings this before us again it cannot do so in this form. It does not say a damned thing to a member of Parliament who wants to look at it, and it does not say anything to the industry except in respect of those specifics with which that industry is dealing. As far as I know, Bill C-18 does not even indicate whether the Canadian tax structure will enjoy a net gain or suffer a net loss as a result of the passage of Bill C-18. Therefore, I see absolutely no reason why we should be faced with this bill in its present form as members cannot look at it and make a decision.
Certainly when looking at these numbers, as I pointed out before, they are downright confusing. Even if you take them in conjunction with either the annex in the French part or the schedule in the English part, that does not make it much clearer. Most of us would like to know when we are dealing with food products and with seasons which are relatively short-and the length of time that can be selected by the industries is mentioned in the schedule-whether we have corrected the shortcomings in the legislation in the past. We would also like to know whether we have substituted something that will be advantageous in the future.
I do not know whether you can say that the customs and tariff legislation was mainly responsible for our having lost our canning industry, having lost a considerable portion of our hothouse industry, and having lost a considerable portion of our horticultural industry in this country, but it certainly has played a role.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. Ritchie (York East):: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Timiskaming raised questions about the bill on November 5, and he has reiterated them now, I must say I was and am very sympathetic. I think it is a very difficult bill to appraise in the way it is drawn, but there are some very great obstacles to having it drawn so it would be easier to appraise. There are some things 1 can say that may help him with the questions he raised.
Part of the problem is that the fruit and vegetable tariff changes recommended by the tariff board were designed to be enacted as a package. They called for extensive changes in product descriptions and in the numbering of tariff items. The previous government, however, decided not to act on it as a package. When that government decided to implement the tariff decreases on March 13, 1979 but delay the increases until October, it was necessary to split up the schedule recommended by the board.
Customs Tariff
The only way to do this was to draft a new interim schedule for the period March to October, containing elements of both the pre-March 13 schedule and the board schedule. The bill was drafted in such a way that on the effective date of the increases, now October 24, virtually all of this schedule would be replaced by the new tariff nomenclature recommended by the board. Thus, schedule I deals only with the tariff decreases on fruits and vegetables which came into effect on March 13. On October 24 most of the items in that schedule were replaced by schedule V which continues the decreases using different tariff items and nomenclature and provides for the tariff increases as well. It gets very complicated, indeed, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 2, the clause we are now discussing, which is effective from March 13, 1979 to October 23, 1979, provides for technical amendments to section 15 of the Customs Tariff to take account of the renumbering and wording changes contained in schedule I. Simply put, section 15 of the Customs Tariff is the authority for the Minister of National Revenue to apply in-season duties on fresh fruits and vegetables. It must, of course, be read in conjunction with the tariff rate provisions of the tariff items bearing the numbers listed in the section. Some of these tariff items, incidentally, are amended by this bill and others are not.
Effective October 24, the amendments in clause 2 are replaced by those in clause 9 which relate to the new tariff nomenclature and rate structure contained in schedule V to the bill.
This must be more confusing than enlightening up to this point. It might be useful if I were to take the committee through one example of how section 15 works.
The first item in schedule I affected by this provision is 8702-1 which relates to fresh asparagus. The rates that are most relevant in terms of actual trade are those in the column headed "most favoured nation tariff'. The in-season duty shown here is 3.5 cents per pound, but not less than 10 per cent ad valorem. By virtue of section 15 of the Customs Tariff, clause 2 of the bill and the clause which appears immediately below the product description, the Minister of National Revenue may order this duty be applied for a maximum of eight weeks in any 12-month period ending March 31. At all other times the free rate must be applied. In exercising his authority under section 15 the Minister of National Revenue is guided by advice from the Canadian horticultural industry and the Minister of Agriculture. The in-season duty can be applied at different times in different regions of Canada to take account of local growing seasons. As of October 24, the tariff item for fresh asparagus is being renumbered to item 8701-1 in schedule V, and the in-season duty will be 5.5 cents per pound, but not less than 15 per cent.
I think there is some information about the over-all effect of these items that the hon. member might find helpful, as he has raised the difficulty of making any comparison with what has existed. I have some average numbers here that may be helpful. For instance, fresh vegetables at the time they are dutiable today bear a tariff of 9.6 per cent on average. The

November 19, 1979
Customs Tariff
proposed average rate during the dutiable period is 12.1 per cent. For the year as a whole the weighted average under existing arrangements is estimated at 5.2 per cent, and for the year as a whole at 5.5 per cent, a slight increase.
The corresponding figures-I will take only the year as a whole-for fresh fruits are, under the existing schedule, 1.9 per cent, and under the proposed average rate 1.5 per cent; and for processed fruits and vegetables, 9.3 per cent existing and 11 per cent proposed. Over all, for all categories, the estimate under the existing average rate is 5.4 per cent, rising to 6.1 per cent for the year as a whole. I can give comparable figures for each item, but I thought those average figures might be of some help in getting a perspective on what is proposed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments on averaging because I certainly do not want to ask about each specific category. Taking asparagus as an example, I gather from his explanation that it will now be numbered 2701-1 instead of 8702-2. That is not to put asparagus in a different category, but probably to put it in the new tariff with the restricted period, and it has been raised from 3.5 cents to 9.6. I suppose 3.5 cents was 9.6 per cent and the proposed rate is 12.1 per cent. I presume this me^ns that when the Canadian Horticultural Society and the Department of Agriculture have triggered the designated period, the duty will be considerably higher thereafter. 1 presume that it would amount to approximately three-quarters of one per cent, taking the difference between 5.4 per cent and 6.1 per cent. It may not be possible to use the average figure on anything except the specified commodity, but it is probably within that range.
I am not satisfied that the triggering mechanism is sufficient to meet the needs of producers. The agriculture department has always been plagued by the argument, which we have heard from the Bing cherry, grape and soft fruit producers and from the horticultural industry, that the date of applying the tariff may not always be the same and that when it is decided that the tariff should be applied it is not applied quickly enough. By the time the matter has been discussed by the Department of Agriculture and the horticultural society, it is too late. It has always been suggested that the Department of Agriculture have a much closer relationship with the tariff board so that the tariff can be triggered to meet the climatic conditions of the day or the conditions which govern the season of that particular product. This complaint has been brought up by all the agencies which I have mentioned.
The strawberry industry in southern Ontario has been plagued because of this indecision to the extent that most of the strawberries are plowed under. Most of our fresh strawberries come from outside Canada. Obviously the duty has not been triggered at the proper time.
Referring to my example of asparagus, is this eight-week period long enough? I do not know much about growing asparagus. I planted some at one time and some of it is still coming up, but it certainly is not a commercial crop. 1 am

wondering if the eight-week period is sufficient protection for our producers and whether or not it takes into consideration the varying conditions between the Elolland Marsh and the Niagara Peninsula. If eight weeks is enough, the horticultural society will be hard pressed to make all the decisions on the various crops and to get the eight-week period in the proper place for such places as the Holland Marsh, the Bruce Peninsula, Niagara Falls-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Vancouver Island.


William Arnold Peters: I did not know that asparagus was grown there, but certainly the climate is right. If it is not planted as deeply as I plant mine and fertilized better, it will probably grow there.


Henry Perrin Beatty: There is lots of fertilizer.


William Arnold Peters: If fertilizer is needed, we should use the hot air from this building and it would probably grow very well. I know that these time periods are switched around, that there are many periods and that they keep playing with them. I know that these periods do not meet the requirements of the Department of Agriculture but do they meet the requirements of the horticultural society? If they do, how is it that we are faced with the problem of losing certain commodities? Should we lengthen the time that the duty is applied? Would it be wise for me to wait and make my wine later when I can get grapes from California, or wait for the period in which the higher tariff is invoked and make my wine when I can get grapes from the Niagara Peninsula?
There have been presentations by the horticultural society and by individuals in the various industries. All these people say that the duty structure does not work to their advantage, that it is not applied soon enough or at the correct times. Yet a former minister has indicated that the horticultural society was satisfied with the duty structure.
I do not wish to go through all the commodities. Perhaps asparagus is a good example because it is used by both of us.


An hon. Member:: Raspberries.


William Arnold Peters: Raspberries come under a different category, and I have not heard that the raspberry producers suffer the same problems. Are we solving the problem by increasing the tariff by such a small amount? I suppose we could go through each commodity. Asparagus is not the example which I would have picked.
Another commodity which we do not seem to be able to produce is lettuce. Tomatoes are certainly a good example as well. Perhaps we should have an explanation as to the effect of this duty because we buy most of our produce outside of Canada and our own produce comes on stream at a specific time. Obviously, if the tariff structure is being designed to protect our producers, then it is not working because we have lost many commodities.
I took the yearly average for asparagus as 5.7 but the average over all was 5.4 to 6.1 That is a relatively small
November 19, 1979

increase in tariff. I wonder why we think that is going to solve the problem that the various commodity groups bring to the attention of members of Parliament annually.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to follow up on that line of questioning before the parliamentary secretary replies, because over the years it has concerned me as a member of Parliament representing an agricultural riding. I should like to know whether these percentages are based on the Canadian price or the American price. If, as I assume, they are based on the American price rather than the Canadian price, then the advantage of a percentage does not necessarily protect anyone.
It seems to me there are really only two reasons for a tariff. The first is to raise money for the treasury and the second is to protect Canadian producers, whether in manufacturing or agriculture. If the tariff is based merely on a percentage of the American price, then it does not often help us a great deal. As everyone knows, we are seasonally disadvantaged. We cannot usually blame the Americans, because we import more fruit and vegetables from them than from anyone else. By the time our product is at its peak and ready to come on the market, however, it is already the tail end of the American season, when their price is lower. We cannot accuse them of dumping or resort to anti-dumping legislation, because they are not selling the product to Canada at a price lower than that in California, Arizona or anywhere else. The mere offer of a product such as prunes to a broker in Seattle is enough to destroy the Okanagan price.
The hon. member for Okanagan North is sitting across the way. He knows that this happens all the time. The Canadian price is not protected by the various tariffs, because even an offer is enough to destroy the value of a particular commodity at the peak of the Okanagan season-which may coincide with the end of the California or Oregon season. I see the hon. member nodding his head with silent, sage approval. I am very pleased to have his support on this. Perhaps this does not relate specifically and always to the Okanagan, but it certainly happens to the berry crop in the lower Fraser Valley.
We are concerned about trying to develop, on the one hand, a system of tariffs that protects the local producer when his product is at its peak in market price. That cannot always be done by calendar months. No matter how adjustable they may be from one area to the other, they have to be adjustable from one season to the other. As the hon. member for Timiskaming said, there is the possibility that this is triggered when the product comes across the border and the damage has to be proved. Some commodity groups take the position that all that is needed to destroy the price is an offer to the broker who usually ships across the border.
There might be another way to look at it. First, price could be based not on a percentage of the U.S. price, regardless whether it is the beginning or end of their season, but on the cost of production in Canada; because in the United States they have certain seasonal advantages. Second, have the mechanism trigger at a time of the year adjustable to the best possible market season for Canadian produce.
Customs Tariff
On the one hand, through tariffs and their adjustability in terms of seasons, we have to give the consumer the best break we can at times of the year when the consumer is not threatened with having his price destroyed by American produce coming across the border. I am referring to produce that is available in Canada. I recognize that this is not an easy task, but I should like to know whether some consideration will be given or is being given to these questions which, perhaps, are more in the form of a representation.


Mr. Whittaker:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who just spoke brought my name into this although I had not planned to speak today. I might say that the percentage basis is what the industry has been asking for. The previous system was a rather antiquated one based on cents per pound, which did not mean too much in this day and age with the increase in prices.
We are, of course, very interested in the cost of production but I think the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody was skating around the edge of this. I do not know whether he understands it. We are asking for a surcharge that can be put in place when the sort of things happen that he spoke of, such as when an already low price goes down and the produce is coming into the Canadian market at the bottom of the scale.
I might say that just the other day the Minister of Agriculture issued a press release and announced in committee that he was going to impose a surcharge. This is something that is much better and much faster than the measures which were in place before. The industry is very encouraged and very happy with the announcement. The surcharge would be based to some degree on the cost of production in Canada and we in the industry know that this is a difficult procedure. For the first time, however, we are going to get some kind of formula that we believe, and which the industry believes, will go a long way toward solving the problem.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the hon. member for Okanagan North if I do not know as much about the fruit industry as he does, since he has spent a lifetime in it. I am very pleased to hear that these things are coming to pass to protect not only his industry but the industries of the farmers that I represent.
The parliamentary secretary was about to answer my question whether these percentages were based on Canadian values or American prices. I have no objection to percentage figures. I was not calling for a fixed figure, and if the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary was listening, I do not know whether he understood that. Do the percentages refer to the price at the beginning of the season, the end of the season, or what part of the season? On what date do they become active? That is really what concerns me. First, are the percentages based on Canadian or American prices; and, second, when do the percentages apply? Certainly the price varies throughout the season.


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, I may be able to reassure the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody by telling them that by and

November 19, 1979
Customs Tariff
large, the industry thinks this is a good bill. That is, the producers think this is a good bill and an improvement over what we had. 1 am sure they do not regard it as perfect but they think of it as a distinct and important improvement.
The two members opposite have been talking about two different things, I believe, and the subjects need to be separated. One is the season application of these tariffs and the definition of a season when they do not apply, and the minimum period that has been instituted in each case. The other is the emergency surtax situation. The rules are somewhat different for the two. The seasonal aspect is the basic part of the bill.
In most cases the minimum period for free or near-free entry has been enlarged. Within that enlargement there is full discretion as to when that applies in any given year, not only nationally but regionally. The minimum period can in fact be lengthened if the production pattern in Canada in a given region makes that desirable.
The Minister of Agriculture has a very big part in this. In a formal sense, the seasonal declaration for any given area or product is made by the Minister of National Revenue, but the Minister of Agriculture is the chief adviser. My information is that by and large there has not been any criticism of how this seasonal declaration has been made. It has been reasonably acceptable. When we get to the surtax situation there is more room for debate and questioning. In this area the government did not follow exactly what the Tariff Board had recommended. The feeling is that they did rather better than what the tariff board had recommended.
It might be useful information about that if I could give some specific because the hon. member for Essex-Windsor raised this question the other day about why it is not automatic and how long it takes. The modified system adopted by the government, which as the hon. member for Okanagan North just mentioned was announced by the Minister of Agriculture on October 22, is based on the tariff board proposal, although it is not exactly the same. The board had proposed a fully automatic surtax for only ten products. For other horticultural products it recommended a revamping of existing procedures and a time limit of 20 days for dealing with requests for emergency surtax. Instead of an automatic surtax for the ten products named by the board, the government has decided on a semi-automatic system based on trigger prices, very similar to those proposed by the board.
A fully automatic system would have posed a number of problems and disadvantages. In the first place it would seriously impair trade relations with the United States and it could place in jeopardy some important U.S. concessions obtained in the multi-lateral trade negotiations. The United States has already indicated concern that the modified system announced on October 22 may be applied in an automatic way. U.S. representatives had earlier made it clear to us that they would regard the system proposed by the board to be contrary to Canada's GATT obligations.

A second point is that the use of strict arithmetic formula to impose surtaxes with no regard to the situation in the market could lead to a very arbitrary result which could work to the disadvantage of consumers in some instances, and of producers in other instances. The risk of this happening is heightened by the fact that we do not have a data base sufficiently detailed to implement the system exactly as proposed by the board.
If we instituted a system based on a rigid arithmetic formula it would be very difficult to persuade either our trading partners or consumers that a surtax in excess of that generated by the formula might be necessary to prevent serious injury to domestic producers in certain circumstances.
It is the belief of the government that the procedures announced by the Minister of Agriculture will give us the main benefit of the board's proposal; that is to say, speed of application without its main drawbacks.
The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody also asked a specific question about the value on which the duty is levied. That value is the import value and in effect the import cost; therefore, it is essentially the U.S. price.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, 1 want to make a few comments more in the terms of a representation than a series of questions.
First of all, I agree with the parliamentary secretary when he said the producers are generally pleased with the tariff revisions that are being made in this bill. My communication with them is the same as his, that is to say, they are pleased with the revisions. But a lot of producers would have liked to see the revisions go a bit further. My opinion-and it is only my opinion-is that I think we are a little too cautious when we come to GATT. I think we are a little too concerned about being free and open traders. I am not talking about building huge tariff walls or anything of that sort, but I want to remind the House that historically in Canada the average agriculture tariff has been 1 per cent or less. That is a very low tariff when compared to tariffs in other countries or tariffs for other goods in our own country.
1 believe the producers in Canada need more protection than has been given to them in the past. I make that representation to the parliamentary secretary based on many conversations that I have had with producers, horticulturalists and producers of other commodities from one end of this country to the other. As a nation and as a people, when we talk about farm production one of our objectives must be to strive toward the goal of self-sufficiency. Many people ask what we mean by that. People say that we produce a lot of food in this country, that we have a lot of land, that we are capable of production and so on, but I want to tell the parliamentary secretary that according to the Department of Agriculture, if wo take away grains and oil seeds, in 1978 our net deficit in the production of food was about $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion. That is if you take away grains and oil seeds.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why do you do that?
November 19, 1979


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am just doing that to point out to the hon. member for Mississauga-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Take away oranges-we do not produce any.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I hope the hon. member for Mississauga will get up and enlighten us on farm goods, as he did a while back on the Indian problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If you take away the two commodities we produce in abundance, we find we are a net importer of food in Canada. According to the Science Council of Canada-that is part of my phrase on self-sufficiency for the hon. member for Mississauga-even with the oil seeds and grain that we produce in abundance on the prairies, by the year 2000 we will be a net importer of food. That concerns me.
I could point to many studies and statistics to show that agricultural land is going out of production. For example, I think of the Niagara Peninsula. A friend from there was talking to me about some of the problems that the grape growers and the wineries have. In the Niagara Peninsula a lot of good farm land is being paved over and used in a permanent sense for other than producing food. That concerns me as well.
One way of aiding in self-sufficiency-I stress one way because it is not a magical formula-is to give the producers a bit more tariff protection than we have given them in the past. That is one way of becoming a little more self-sufficient in food. I do not have to go into all the other arguments about self-sufficiency of food or why it is important. One could look at the United Nations' report made public last week. It talks about an immense crisis coming before the end of the century in terms of world food production and our capability to produce food. One can look at other stats that came out recently showing that in the world this year we will be consuming more food than we produce. That means we will be going into reserves and using food which has been stockpiled for emergencies.
This country and other countries around the world must be concerned about the production of food, and we must be concerned about producing as much as we possibly can. In the past we have said that perhaps we can rely on imports, that perhaps imports are cheaper. Perhaps we think that American chicken, eggs, fruit and so on are cheaper, but I remind hon. members that that hurts Canada in terms of the extra farmers we could have, the extra jobs we could have in producing, processing and transporting that food. It also hurts Canada in terms of balance of trade and its impact on the dollar.
If this were a more general debate, Mr. Chairman, one could give the House many statistics about the economic loss of not being self-sufficient. One could give the House figures of jobs lost in Ontario as well as right across the countrv because we are not self-sufficient in many food areas.
My representation to the government across the way is that I think there are many different fruits and vegetables and many different items where there could be another minor
Customs Tariff
adjustment upward in terms of tariffs. The member for Mississauga is concerned about costs. We are not talking about building huge tariff walls. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and reputable farm groups have good relationships with all political parties in this House. They are not talking about that either. They are just talking about some seasonal tariff protection. Some of that is provided in this bill. The bill is going in the right direction, we know that. However, a lot of producers do not think it is going far enough.
As the hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned, there is concern that perhaps the apparatus that gives us the eight-week tariff may not come into effect rapidly enough when there is a problem. The committee should be thinking more about ways of becoming self-sufficient in food, producing more of the food consumed in this country. Agriculture is the key industry, the number one industry in this country. Historically countries with a strong agricultural base are those which do best in the world community.
In terms of specifics, historically we have had no tariff on potatoes. Apples were mentioned. Apple growers in British Columbia have brought their concern to my attention. Although the situation may be relatively rosy in that province at the moment, growers in Washington and Oregon have started an immense program of planting new orchards. When they come on stream in a few years, that will cause serious competitive problems and may create a lot of difficulty for B.C. apple producers. I remind the committee of the competitive advantage the Americans have because of cheaper land costs, better growing climate and so on.
Another commodity is potatoes. Coming from New Brunswick, the Chairman knows a lot more about that than I do. New Brunswick is a tremendous potato producing area. Again we must look at the possibility of adequate tariff protection for our potato growers. It is relatively easy to get into potato crops; it is not like apples where it takes some time for the tree to grow. The potato market can be rapidly distorted with prices going up and down. It is a relatively quick enterprise to get into.
These are some of the concerns I have. They are motivated by the primary concern that one of our fundamental objectives in a food policy for this country is to be self-sufficient. For some of our foods, that will require an upward push, not a great one though, in tariffs in this country. In my opinion, that will not be a cost to the consumer in the long term but will protect consumers, giving them a guaranteed supply.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I did not understand the explanation with regard to the tariff on an American product being at the American price. I suppose it is a price at a given time in a given area. If that is so, what we are talking about is a 16 per cent advantage.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No, no.

November 19, 1979
Customs Tariff


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says no. It comes into Canada and the parliamentary secretary said it was at the American price.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Converted into Canadian dollars.


William Arnold Peters: When you bring something into Canada, you pay for it with the Canadian dollar. That causes an immediate disadvantage of 16 per cent. Our dollar is worth only 84 cents U.S. The tariff for a most favoured nation, and that applies to the Americans, is 15 per cent. That does not even cover the exchange. When translated into Canadian dollars, there is no longer an advantage.
There are two other matters about which 1 am confused. Why are we being asked to pass schedule I in November when it does not apply to some of the commodities? In Canada we do not have an asparagus crop in October. Therefore, it does not have to be changed from one number to the other. By the end of October, that does not apply. That would only apply in the spring. This bill may have been drafted two or three years ago, but I still do not understand why it should apply to October.
In schedule V, which applies to after October, there is a totally new number, section and rate. After the end of October, instead of Vh cents it is 5 Vi cents but not less than 15 per cent. It was 10 per cent previously. Therefore, it does not apply. A bill was not passed previously to make it apply so 1 do not understand why it should be applied now.
I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary how many other numbers in clause 2 do not apply. The new act will apply from the end of October. Beets, turnips, potatoes and apples are covered after October because they are stored and sold later. They are probably sold from September on. Therefore, the schedule would cover the period from September to the end of October. I presume this was anticipated. If not, it really does not matter because it would be void.
One of the problems with a new government is that it does not always check the figures of the previous government. When something is presented later than its effective date, there is no point in presenting it. I am sure the officials can advise how many items in clause 2 that are covered by schedule I and replaced by schedule V are null and void. We should not pass them. They might as well be taken out.


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has raised two questions, the first one reopening the question as to what the duty applies to. The best answer is to say that, as is usually the case, the duty applies to fair market value in the country of origin. In the example he used, the United States, that would be in U.S. dollars; the duty would be applied and the fair market value would be converted to Canadian dollars and the duty applied in Canadian dollars. The lower value for the Canadian dollar is in one sense an additional protection rather than the reverse, because the same price in U.S. dollars costs more when imported into Canada in Canadian dollars; you would have to lay out more Canadian dollars to get it.
On the other question of how much of this bill is null and void, it is proper to say that in a sense none of it is null and void. What this bill proposes is to enact into law the arrangements, including the seasonal arrangements and the tariffs, applying in seasons of high production here; they will apply next year and into the future until amended. There is some interesting history, though. These items, all of which were brought in by the November budget of last year, were never enacted. That did not matter until Parliament was dissolved, because during the interval between Parliaments the items the government of the day chose to act on happened to be only ones that introduced tariff cuts as opposed to tariff increases, and those were dealt with by a remission order.
As is ordinarily the case, the budget became effective before its provisions were enacted, but in this case, in line with the normal procedure, the remission order has to be regularized. Thus, part of the bill before us deals with something which has already been done under emergency powers, if you like. Then the bill goes on to deal with the other things originally proposed by the tariff board and contained in the budget. To me, this suggests that the whole of the bill is necessary even though parts of it pertain to things which have already been done.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the parliamentary secretary for his lucid explanation.


An hon. Member:: It won't help any, though.


William Arnold Peters: It might help. I agree there might not be any point in picking out the ones that have never been used and which were therefore triggered by the budget rather than by special order because many of them were raised, not lowered, and only the lower ones were used. In many of these cases the changes which have been made, I gather the parliamentary secretary is telling us, have involved reductions in tariffs, not increases.
Clause 2 includes all those items in schedule I so really we have lost money. Is the amount shown anywhere in this document? Is an estimate made of the sum which might have been anticipated had the changes not been made? In other words, does this indicate what revenue from duty resulting from these amendments, either raising or lowering the amounts, might have been expected? This presents us with a real problem because there is no way of knowing from what we have before us what the general purpose of these changes is- for example, whether they reflect changes negotiated under GATT. Nor do we know how they are applied. There is no indication that Canada has entered into international agreements with regard to specific commodities and I am not able to tell from the bill whether we have decreased or increased total income from duty. Some items moved up 5 per cent, say, or down 3 per cent, but from the point of view of the workings of the economic system it is impossible to tell where we are going. Maybe I am missing something. I see nothing here enabling us to estimate the results of these changes this year as

November 19, 1979

compared, for example, with last year, and 1 am suggesting we do something about this from now on. As I say, if I am missing the point I should like the parliamentary secretary to tell me. He has been very helpful so far.


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: I do not think the hon. member is missing anything that is right before his eyes at all. To answer one of the points he made, I understand that these rates were not set in negotiation with GATT but that if we wanted to raise them now we would have to go back to GATT. That is the only implication as far as GATT is concerned of which I am aware.
On the question of the effect on duty payable, there are two points to be made. The first is that the previous government chose only to put into effect those parts of the measure which lowered duties. We have estimated a decline in duties collected of about $5 million in the current fiscal year. Next year, though, we expect a slight increase in the duties collected. Taking account of the length of the season, the weighted average collection of duties is expected to rise from 5.4 per cent to 6.1 per cent, and that .7 per cent increase should mean a slight increase in duty collections.


William Arnold Peters: I thank the parliamentary secretary for that information. 1 understand, then, that the GATT figures cannot be changed here. Will they supersede or apply on top of this, or are we still going to change our customs and duty regulations unilaterally rather than in the way it is being done by GATT? Are they going to specify the periods? The understanding that many of us have is that they are going to set the regulations. This is one of the reasons we are interested in the time element of the exemption periods and the periods in which duty is applied.


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, I cannot add very much to what I said previously to the hon. member. My understanding is that, first of all, this act stands by itself, it cannot be interfered with by GATT, and, second, in effect the food and agricultural negotiations have been largely taken out of recent GATT agreements. So I think the basic thing is that, so far as the act is concerned, there is no limitation from known GATT actions.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before we pass clause 1 should like some assurance as to the trigger mechanism. 1 know it has been said by a number of people in this debate that that trigger mechanism is sufficient. It is my guess that if it were sufficient, we would still have a strawberry crop in Niagara and we would still be producing soft fruits in that area in competition with a number of other areas, which we are not.
It seems to me that in the representations that have been made to the agricultural committee it has been stated that the trigger mechanism does not work because the tariff board administers it instead of the Department of Agriculture. It has been the gist of the arguments in the representations made before the committee that if the Minister of Agriculture would triggger the mechanism, it would work. As I understand it,
Customs Tariff
they are not complaining about the times, just about how they apply it and when they apply it. I understood from the parliamentary secretary a little while ago that this might take anywhere from two days to two weeks and that there was some discussion about setting an exact date, but that was waived. Would setting the exact date or period not be much more advantageous if it were inserted in the act and lengthened, rather than having a trigger mechanism which is not very responsive to the needs of producers?
I am raising this question simply because we have a potential in Canada right now in relation to energy and developments that are taking place, and we have had great difficulty with the hot house industry in this country. Now we are going to put some more money into the hot house industry and operate it in conjunction with Ontario Hydro, using heat from nuclear plants and thermal plants to generate that kind of production.


Fred Alward McCain: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we are allowed 20 minutes.


Mr. Froese:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain some of the areas referred to by the hon. member so far as tariff agreements are concerned and so far as the trigger mechanism in this legislation proposed by our party is concerned. The fact is that, first of all, GATT has taken agriculture out of the stringent agreements which existed before and has adopted a different approach to the problem. Yet there is a ceiling on the amount that we can charge for tariffs which have been agreed to under the agreement here. For any of the upper levels to be changed there would have to be another agreement, but to go down from these is up to our country.
The mechanism which the Minister of Agriculture has proposed lately is completely new. It is something that the industry has wanted for the simple reason that previously, in order to get any tariff protection, one would have to prove injury, which many times would take months in the courts, by which time the commodity would be completely off the market. With the trigger mechanism, they will know what the commodity can bear and then can apply the mechanism even if there is only a danger. This is something that has never before occurred in the history of agriculture.
When I listen to hon. members opposite I conclude that they support this legislation. I agree that perhaps there are areas that we should consider, but let us pass this legislation since it is the best that has ever been put forward to protect horticulture in our country.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I commend the hon. member for his devotion to his party. I am not sure whose legislation this is, the Liberals or the Conservatives, but if it is going to do what the hon. member says it will, then certainly I am pleased.
In my part of the country we do not grow too many vegetables for export and we are not too concerned with

November 19, 1979
Customs Tariff
imports, but as Canadians we are concerned that we do not have the advantage of benefiting from Canadian production. We are almost totally dependent on American produce, a problem which we think should be overcome. If the hon. member is correct that it has been overcome, the legislation should specify how the trigger mechanism works. That is really what I am talking about.
The information that has been provided us during the debate is that the mechanism is triggered by the horticultural society. They have been partly successful in representing all the segments of horticulture, but there have been many complaints that they had not acted fast enough, though not nearly as many complaints as there have been that the tariff board which should be seized with the problem reaches a decision only after a certain period of time. The difficulty which the hon. member has indicated existed in the past will continue to exist under this mechanism, as 1 understand it.
My question is whether any consideration has been given to lengthening the period, say, for asparagus, from 12 weeks to, let us say, a maximum of 15 or 20 weeks between such and such dates. If we do not want to apply it for that long a period, we should still find a way of protecting our industry in the peak period. We will face difficulties because, no matter how it works, once the wholesaler starts buying tomatoes from California, for example, he would not think it was to his advantage to stop buying tomatoes from California for two or three weeks so he can buy them in Canada. So the wholesaler will get year round tomatoes from Mexico or California simply because it is easier than fitting in Canadian production. That is the only justification for applying the tariff, because I am sure the wholesaler does not care one way or the other. It is a little like the egg business. We had one person handling eggs in the Ottawa area, certainly by far the largest firm, by the name of Macartney, and this firm had never owned a hen. They bought all their eggs from the United States and delivered potatoes back to them. They did not intend to change the situation one way or another. I assume that is true with others as well.
Has the Tariff Board considered finding a better manner in which to trigger the mechanism, better than the one we have used in the past? If it has been changed from what it was in the last several years, perhaps we can give it a try. But if it has not been changed, has any consideration been given to letting the Department of Agriculture, for instance, trigger it rather than the tariff board, in order to work out the mechanisms? Normally it goes through both of them now, and perhaps another agency as well.
It has not worked out to our advantage because our fruit and vegetable industry is not in the incline, it is in the decline. The reason for passing these duties is to give protection to Canadian producers. If they are not increasing production, obviously the tariff structure should be changed. I am in favour of doing that to protect them. In a few years we will find that it is impossible to build an industry which has

disappeared, but perhaps it would be possible now to keep alive an industry which we have at the present time.
I should like to refer to the example of strawberries. When one sees hundreds of acres of strawberries being plowed down simply beause they are not profitable, then one should think of the reasons for that. One reason must be the ability of Americans to ship in strawberries during the season when Canadians are producing them. Perhaps I am wrong. We will find out next spring when there will be trouble with a number of industries.


Jake Froese: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a statement on strawberries. I take it that this could happen next spring, as the hon. member indicated, but I do not know. Personally 1 grow approximately ten acres of strawberries. We have had problems, but we hope that this measure will help to alleviate them. The problem with strawberries is not only the fact that they can be brought in at a competitive price. It is also the fact that a lever is being held over the heads of buyers in Canada so that continually they buy strawberries from Americans throughout the season. The threat is present that if they should cut off their purchases when strawberries are in season in Canada, they will not receive a supply afterwards. Some of the problems have nothing to do with price. There have been competitive prices, yet the problem exists because of that. We hope the surtax will help make the commodity a little more acceptable to Canadian buyers.


William Arnold Peters: If one looks at the schedule, one will find that there is not much duty on strawberries anyway. Under schedule 1 it is 1-3/5 cents for general tariff and the most favoured nation, but not less than 10 per cent. The schedule reads in part as follows:
The free rate shall apply during the months of September, October, November, December, January, February and March.
During the remaining months in any 12-month period ending 31st March, the specific duty or ad valorem duty, as the case may be, shall not be maintained in force in excess of eight weeks, and the free rate shall apply whenever the specific duty or ad valorem duty is not in effect.
Dealing with strawberries for processing, the schedule reads:
... shall not be maintained in force in excess of six weeks, and the 10 per cent duty shall apply whenever the specific duty is not in effect.
Again the duty for processing is 1-3/5 cents or 10 per cent for both the most favoured nation or the general tariff.
When we are losing an industry, this 10 per cent seems to be a very small amount to apply. In the one case it only applies for eight weeks on fresh strawberries, and on strawberries for processing it applies for only six weeks. The hon. member representing that area is a producer. If he is satisfied with that small amount of protection and is convinced that it will keep him producing strawberries next year, I guess I am satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 6-Applicable rates
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, clause 6(2) deals with increasing rates by order of the governor in council. Would the
November 19, 1979

parliamentary secretary explain why this is not in conflict with the general agreement with GATT? I believe the parliamentary secretary mentioned a few moments ago that it allowed for decreases, but not increases.


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, as in the past, clause 6(2) provides authority for the governor in council to restore the pre-1973 rates. Those were the bound rates before the present MTN. On the goods covered by clause 4 and schedule II, if increased imports should cause difficulties for Canadian producers when the new MTN agreements are in effect, this clause will be obsolete; but it is necessary until that time.


William Arnold Peters: Will the parliamentary secretary explain what "MTN" means?


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: The "multilateral trade negotiations" which were concluded recently but are not yet enacted into Canadian law.


William Arnold Peters: I take it that when they are this section will be redundant?


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-
William Arnold Peters: In clause 8 a number of items will be taken out, including the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each item. It reads in part:
... by inserting in the schedule to the said subsection the items, enumerations of goods and rates of duties specified in Schedule IV to this act.
What does all this mean?


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment to the schedule of general preferential tariffs covering fruits and vegetables. It is to take into account the extensive changes in wording and numbering of tariff items. There are no changes in the general preferential rates, duties or in the coverage of items as far as the effect of this clause is concerned. It is a pure technicality, I believe.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Schedule A amended
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the parliamentary secretary could give us an indication of what happens to all these numbers. It refers to "striking out", but does this include the ones we were previously discussing as being amended by schedule IV? Are they replaced by schedule IV?


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that this clause is the heart of what we have been talking about all along. This clause and schedule V that goes with it
Customs Tariff
are what set up the continuing structure for all of the items concerned; so everything we have said today in effect bears on this clause, and I think we have covered it fairly extensively.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, part II, part III and part IV involve trade agreements with other countries. I am curious to know how we make these amendments. Are they negotiated with other countries? Are these signed accords, or how do you go about doing these things? Do these changes appear in some other places except with regard to this tariff structure? These really represent negotiations between countries and, therefore,
I presume involve more than just the schedules to which we have been referring. Each of the parts refers to tariff items 104a and 106. Do we negotiate all these changes, or what did we amend?


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, first of all my understanding is that in all cases concerned we have given notice to the other countries involved. By agreement, any subsequent negotiations on these items will be after the MTN arrangements were made and, therefore, are still to be carried on, but they have acquiesced and have had notice of our taking the actions indicated here.
As to their over-all effect, it might be best if I just went through this summary of the effect. Effective October 24 these clauses amend the acts which implemented our bilateral trade agreements with New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. Under these agreements imports of certain canned fruit and fruit pulp from these countries are entitled to rates of duties lower than those from most favoured nation sources, such as, for instance, from the United States. It was decided, to implement the tariff board recommendations, that the margins of preference on processed fruit products imported from these countries be eliminated and that the higher rates which will apply to most favoured nation sources should also apply to imports from these countries as well. As the lower rates of duty are specified in the New Zealand Trade Agreement, the Australian Trade Agreement and the South African Trade Agreement Acts, it is necessary to strike these items from the acts in order to implement the high rates.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about two that were negotiated in 1932 and the one for Australia in 1960. I would like to know whether they originally came under what we refer to as the British preferential tariff and, if so, why we do not change the British preferential tariff. I imagine that in 1932 we were pretty well all colonies or dominions of Britain and, therefore, the same tariff agreement was negotiated as the British preferential tariff. The changes that have taken place since have probably been as a result of changes which occurred in those countries rather than in the agreements. Does this mean we are no longer giving them the British preferential treatment? Is that really what it means, that they are no longer getting the British preferential treatment in terms of tariff?

November 19, 1979
Customs Tariff


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, each of these rates that are affected were negotiated in specific trade agreements with the countries concerned, and it is true that for these products we are beginning to phase out the British preferential advantages or, in some cases, even a greater advantage than the general British preferential tariff. Therefore, the hon. member summed things up beautifully when he said at the end we are simply phasing these out. We are, but this is a phasing-out.
Ele will notice that the agreement with Australia will be extended by an additional year beyond what the tariff board recommended. That was because, although we have not had the formal negotiations, we had an indication from Australia that they would be a little more favourable to us with regard to cherries exported from here to there if we spread this out a little bit.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
On clause 14-Coming into force
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, clause 14 refers to bringing goods out of warehouses for consumption. 1 would like to know what effect this will have on strawberries, for instance, that are in warehouses in Canada. We have large quantities of canned strawberries in warehouses. During a period when we restrict the importation of fresh strawberries, will this have an effect on how we trigger this section? Is it related in any way to the tariff or the duty we put on a commodity that may be in conflict with a commodity that we have in storage in warehouses? I suppose it can be related to eggs that are in storage. During a period when the price of fresh laid eggs goes up considerably and there is a shortage, those eggs are brought out of storage. They would not be in competition with fresh laid eggs as they are stored eggs, but is this the purpose of clause 14, or does it have another purpose?


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this clause puts the act into effect, and because goods in bonded warehouses are not considered to have yet been imported even though they are physically in the country, the wording is designed to ensure that they shall not escape. So when they are entered for consumption by being taken out of the bonded warehouses, they are covered by this act forthwith.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On schedule I-
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, schedule I has a very limited application which ended October 31. Will members of Parliament and the people of this country be informed how much of the schedule was put into application, at what time and what the change in the duty collected would be? In other words, how does the accounting for this schedule appear and in what form? There should be some accounting as to how much of it applied and what the effect of the application was. This does not appear in the bill. How do we find out the form in which

the Tariff Board brought the schedule forward? Will it be in the form that will match what is in schedule I? My guess is that it will not, that we will never know one way or the other.
The parliamentary secretary is taking a long time to answer. It may be that the answer is not available, and if it is not, then as the Englishman would say, "pity". If there is no indication available then we are certainly sloppy bookkeepers in this country. If there is, we would like to know what effect it has had. Questions have been asked during the study of the bill. We are being very generous in giving the tariff board this bill in such a stupid form if they do not have to account for it.


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting because I thought another hon. member was seeking the floor. The items in schedule 1 were in effect from March until October and most of them have now been included in the new and continuing bill through schedule V, I believe. There are four items which continue to be effective in schedule I, and I can give the hon. member the names of those items. In their cases, there is no increase in the tariffs applying in the closed season. Those items are peas, dried apples, raisins and currants, Otherwise, the items in schedule I, in effect, are picked up by schedule V. Until this act became effective on October 24, schedule I covered the conditions on these commodities during the summer months. I would also remind the hon. member that I indicated earlier the effect of that on the collection of duty, which was a decline of about $5 million from what would have existed without those changes.


William Arnold Peters: I was of the opinion that some of the tariffs applied only because we did not increase any of them. It is not easy to pick the commodities out because the former price is not there, but only those which went down were selected. The tariffs which went up, if any, did not apply, and I understand that there were some which did not apply. This is why I feel there should be some kind of accounting for the schedule. We are merely going through a ritual in passing this bill, because we do not know how much it will cost, how much we will get out of it or how it applies in certain areas, although the individuals involved will probably know. I ask whether there will be a later accounting of what this schedule has cost, and although the expense will decrease nobody seems to know. I believe the estimate is $5 million.
When this bill takes effect, schedule V will apply and schedule l will no longer apply. At this point there should be a simple accounting of how much it will cost to put that schedule into effect. There is a lot of other information which I would like to have. Is this schedule helping anybody? Is it keeping some businesses in operation? It is a subsidy to the industry. We are giving out $5 million, and we are entitled to know if it helped and, if so, by how much. How much did it actually cost and where did the money go? Maybe this $5 million did not produce anything, but we will pass it anyway.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to obtain a clarification on schedule I, tariff item No. 9,007-1, potatoes, frozen,
November 19, 1979

whether or not pre-cooked, with or without admixture. I have some problem with the terminology. Does this include all potatoes? Potatoes in their natural state are not mentioned as such. The tariff item only states: potatoes, frozen, whether or not pre-cooked. The "not" applies to "pre-cooked", and not to potatoes in their natural state or transformed, modified as such. I should like the parliamentary secretary to indicate to the Elouse whether this tariff item includes potatoes in their natural state or merely modified potatoes. Is this a mistake? Does this item include all potatoes?


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, the item applies only to frozen potatoes.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has just said that this item applies to potatoes only. And I quote: [English]
To frozen potatoes only?


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Yes.


Eymard G. Corbin: That answers my question.
Schedule I agreed to.
Schedules II to V inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Mr. Knowles:: By leave, now.


Hon. James A. McGrath (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to congratulate the parliamentary secretary on his dexterity and facility in handling this bill. I do not wish to say much more about it, except that for many producers of agricultural commodities the tariff protection in the past has been negligible. If there had been a more successful application of duties, we would have a better fruit and vegetable industry than is the case at the present. In this country we have been willing to pave much of the area which formerly grew fruit and we have been willing to develop factories in areas that successfully grew vegetables because of weather conditions, but, Mr. Speaker, we are going to pay one hell of a price in the future for this.
I am not sure that the application of duties could have prevented some of the things that have happened. Many of them have come about as the result of irresponsibility on the part of governments designating agricultural lands for other purposes. In Canada, the amount of land that will grow fruits and vegetables is very limited and has not been well husband-
Customs Tariff
ed. If it had been, we would have an expanding industry rather than a declining industry. We have become dependent on imports of many commodities instead of finding Canadian substitutes for them. As an example, surely we could substitute some of the juices we produce in Canada for those we import from Florida. Maybe we would not have the same advertising agents as the Florida orange juices, but I am sure we could find our vitamin C in a Canadian product.
In many cases it is already too late but we are entering a totally new field of development in this country now and using resources that have never been used before for the production of agricultural products. Heat, as a by-product that has been a pollution factor in many industries, including the nuclear power plants and thermal power plants, can possibly be harnessed to develop a hot house industry that would produce many of the commodities we now import. This new industry, as well as the old, would have to be provided with enough protection to enable it to compete with other countries.
Mexico has the advantage of producing four field crops of tomatoes per year to our one. This puts us in a very difficult situation. I do not suggest we should increase our tariff structure to meet that requirement, but I do suggest that we use it to help our food industry. We should depend more on what we can grow ourselves and less upon what our neighbours may want to give us from their surplus production.
I am not sure what the changes we have made to this legislation today will do. I am not really sure how they apply or when they apply, and I do not think anybody else is sure either. This is not to say that I feel less qualified to read and understand the bill than someone else, but just that I think we really do not know how it will work. If it is successful, it will apply in a different way from one year to another.
I hope its application means that we will be able to protect some of the food industry. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I am a free trader or whether I want a high tariff. The only reason I am particularly interested in the bill and its application to agriculture is that I do not think we can gamble with agricultural production any longer. It is absolutely essential that Canada reach self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. I think we damn well can do it with vegetables and soft fruits, but our record has been one of decreased production rather than increased. British Columbia may be more self-sufficient than the rest of the country. I know that every time I go into that most favoured part of Ontario where there is the climate and the soil necessary to produce the commodities that cost so much in the store, I am aware that it cannot compete with the price of imports from the United States and Mexico.
We should take steps to ensure that our producers get a fair break, and I hope this bill will bring that result. If it does not, then our children and their children will be faced with a scarcity of those commodities that we should be able to grow in profusion if only we managed our resources better than in the past.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

November 19, 1979
Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the Elouse that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-Public Works-Status of Guy Fav-reau complex; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand)-Northern Affairs-Settlement of aboriginal land claim; the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett)-External Affairs-Foreign aid expenditures for coming year.
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 and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Motion No. 3, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski). Shall the item stand, by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


David Kilgour: If it please Your Honour, could we agree to adjourn all the other notices of motions by unanimous consent, or perhaps you have just done that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is only one and we did it.


David Kilgour: Could we deal, by unanimous consent, with notice of motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending Interpretation Bulletin IT-225, paragraph 2 of the Income Tax Act, to provide 
(a)	that a deduction of $1,000 annually, adjusted to an indexed cost of living clause, may be claimed from taxable income by an individual who is so sufficiently disabled that he cannot attend to his own personal needs or whose mobility is considerably restricted throughout any twelve month period ending in the year;
(b)	that such deduction may also be claimed by a taxpayer who is totally blind at any time in the year; and
(c)	that to whatever extent the amount is not required to reduce the disabled taxpayer's taxable income, his or her spouse or supporting parent or guardian may make the deduction.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I trust that this motion will receive the consent of the House. I have discussed the matter with members of the former government who are generally disposed to agree with it. I have also discussed it with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has said that he would be in favour of the House passing this kind of motion. I have mentioned to the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) that the government is also disposed to accepting this motion.
As hon. members know, the government has already taken the position that we do want to help the handicapped in a way they have never been helped before. That is why the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has already tabled a motion asking that a special committee be set up to study the needs of the handicapped, and it is why I take part in bringing this motion forward.
Since Mr. Speaker has already read the motion, 1 should point out how the bulletin reads at present because it is germane to an understanding of what my motion is all about. The operative phrase in this particular interpretation bulletin reads basically that a handicapped person is one who is confined for a substantial period of time each day throughout any twelve-month period in the year to a bed or a wheelchair. That is sheer lunacy. That kind of definition of a handicapped person is so narrow as to be insulting to the people who need this kind of care. That kind of regulation is designed not to help the handicapped but to help the income tax officials who have to make decisions regarding whether or not certain people are entitled to those benefits. It is not designed to help the handicapped. That is why I have brought this motion forward.
In my constituency I have one organization called the Variety's Treatment Centre for Children which has children from over 300 parents who come for help. Many are confined to a bed or a wheelchair, but some of them are not. As a matter of fact, across Canada there are many parents who are looking after their children who are not confined to a bed or wheelchair at all during the day, but who nevertheless need constant care. I say that the wording of that bulletin was done by an official looking after himself, not after the needs of the handicapped.
I point out also that the bulletin as it is today does not deal with the problem. I say that the people affected by this bulletin are not the historic kind of income tax evaders. These are not people who are looking for loopholes in the law. These are people looking for help. They are the good, responsible people of our society, not ones who are copping out of their responsibilities.
November 19, 1979

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in the cold, crass economic terms with which we have to deal so many times in our society, that if these people were not good, responsible people in our society, they could easily avoid their responsibilities as parents, or spouses in some cases, and shunt these handicapped people off to state institutions and ask the state to carry those responsibilities. If one wants to look at it in crass, economic terms, it would cost the state something like $15,000 a year to look after these people.
We have parents or spouses of handicapped people who want to maintain responsible and loving relationships with their family, but the officials of the income tax department are trying to define the provision so narrowly that as few people as possible will qualify for the benefits of this deduction rather than as many as possible. Sir, I object to that, and I know that members of this government object to that. Therefore, we want to see the wording of that bulletin changed so that we can have, perhaps through the simple mechanism of a doctor's certificate, a declaration that a particular individual needs constant care. We could have that bulletin changed from the present wording that is so restrictive to read as stated in my request, as follows:
-(a) that a deduction of $1,000 annually, adjusted to an indexed cost of living clause, may be claimed from taxable income by an individual who is so sufficiently disabled that he cannot attend to his own personal needs or whose mobility is considerably restricted, throughout any twelve-month period ending in the year;-
I have checked with many organizations across Canada already. We have been in touch with them and they are in agreement with this proposal. I am talking about organizations dealing with help for the handicapped. I know they are in agreement and that they have had their legal experts examine this particular matter. I suggest that if the House has any compassion at all, if its perspective is in any way geared to helping the relatives of handicapped people as much as possible rather than as little as possible, we should do everything in our power to make sure this motion will be carried.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member across the floor on his sentiments, his motivations and particularly his concern for parents of handicapped parents. 1 am sure we share his concern. However, in regard to this particular motion, if he takes another look at it I am sure he will realize it does not go nearly far enough. I would like to bring to his attention several points that are discriminatory. In particular, the very terminology of the motion refers only to handicapped people as "he". Since I have been a new member in this House many times we have found that females seem to be excluded. In my opinion, this is not good enough. We must be far more conscious of including "he's" and "she's" when we provide for such measures.
Second, I would like to know a little more about the present income tax deductions. It is my understanding that people are now allowed $1,600 maximum. I am wondering if this is an additional $1,000? I would not object if it is because these people need more money. However, I understand from the definitions the hon. member referred to that he was
Disability Allowance
particularly concerned with parents. Perhaps that is something he can clarify for us.
My main concern is that most handicapped people will not benefit from this measure. It is like the mortgage tax credit proposal of the Conservative government: it benefits those who are able to work and those handicapped who earn above the minimum wage. That includes very few handicapped people. Of the working handicapped people, less than 30 per cent earn the minimum wage. Many work in workshops for the handicapped. I wish the hon. member would listen because what I am saying concerns his motion. Many earn less than the minimum wage. There is no way they pay income tax. They are the ones who need help, along with the unemployed.
What we should be talking about is a tax credit to help meet the needs of handicapped people and parents of handicapped children. We should also be looking at the needs of the handicapped who are over 65. This group is growing larger every day. We are told that over one-third of the handicapped people over the age of 65 have mobility handicaps. There are very few community facilities and transportation services for these people and their income is inadequate for them and their families who must care for them at home.
There are income tax inconsistencies the hon. member should check into for handicapped workers. I am told a worker can deduct the maintenance cost of a van with a hydraulic system to lift the wheelchair, but cannot deduct the capital cost of the hydraulic system and lift.
Our main point of concern should be the reason why more employable handicapped people are not employed. There are many who could work if more jobs were suited to them and more employers were willing to handle them, including the federal government. There should be more incentives and supports for the handicapped in order that they may get off social allowances, or the handicapped person's allowance as it is known in British Columbia. There should be more money for those who work. I should explain that if a handicapped person is able to find an employer who is willing to hire him, he not only loses his social allowance but also coverage for drugs and home care he may need. Such person is not entitled to transportation programs which are essential to get to work and around the community.
We have a situation where services for the handicapped have been cut back drastically, especially transportation services. It is absolutely essential for these people to be able to get out of their prisons, which is literally what many of them are in. In British Columbia alone, over 12,000 handicapped people under the age of 65 receive the handicapped person's allowance. Many have much potential to contribute to their employment and their community. We must look into some of the special considerations there. We should be planning urban transit now that will accommodate wheelchairs for these people. This is something to which the federal government should be contributing. Our buildings, including this one, should be more accessible to the handicapped.

November 19, 1979
Disability Allowance
There are many handicapped people attending a conference in this city this week. I suggest that members invite these people to our dining room at the expense of the taxpayers, just as we have dinner at the expense of the taxpayers. Many would not even be able to get into this building. They certainly would have great difficulty getting into our dining room. That is a shocking situation. The federal government should be setting an example.
Much greater attention should be given to affirmative action programs that will include fair opportunities for handicapped people. I understand the federal government is now encouraging this in the private sector. I am in favour of that. However, we should be leading the way in our federal services. I understand that approximately 1 per cent of federal employees are handicapped, whereas in the general population 8 per cent are employable handicapped people. We very definitely must do something about opening up job opportunities and facilities that are accessible to these people.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the Conservative party made a strong promise that there would be a major change to the Canadian Human Rights Act which would provide that handicapped Canadians would have the same protection from discrimination as other protected groups. 1 have been told by a number of handicapped people and organizations that they are quickly losing faith in this government and in the Prime Minister because nothing is being done about this. There was a very strong promise to do something without delay; however, it was not mentioned in the throne speech. It has now been referred to a select committee which is really a delaying mechanism. The Prime Minister indicated that enough studies had been done and this was something he would implement. 1 challenge the government and the hon. member who presented this motion to do something about this.
In summary, we would like to see more income tax deductions for all working people. We would like to see this one applied in the form of a tax credit for those who do not earn enough to pay income tax and who will be discriminated against if this motion goes through. We would also like it to apply to unemployed handicapped people whose needs are even greater, as they receive something like $300 a month from their handicapped person's allowance.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for that motion which I consider very important and timely because, as he knows, I also have had cases in my riding which caused me certain frustrations and which I believe should receive the particular attention of parliamentarians with respect to the deductibility of certain expenses incurred as a result of the fact that they are handicapped.
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to speak at length, maybe three or four minutes, simply to make the point that we in the opposition are in complete agreement with the hon. member. The motion in question would allow an individual to claim an

allowance of $1,000 which would be indexed to the cost of living if that individual were handicapped for a period of 12 months ending in the current year.
Mr. Speaker, sad situations occur sometimes. I have cases in my riding where people are in receipt of Canada Pension Plan benefits for example. That plan pays them a pension because they are totally unable to work. They are in wheelchairs, but for very particular reasons, they cannot yet attend to their daily needs and perhaps even feed themselves and do certain household chores. For all practical purposes, those people simply cannot work. They are totally handicapped in the full sense of the word. They have a medical certificate issued by a doctor attesting that they are unable to work. They have met the requirements of the law, and in spite of that they are sometimes refused to include in their tax returns deductions which would have the effect of reducing taxes payable.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to join my colleagues of the Liberal party in congratulating the hon. member, who is very progressive in his motion. I hope the government will take this motion really to heart and see to it that it is passed rapidly and wholeheartedly.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion presented by my hon. friend from Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). In the past week I have had the privilege of attending two openings in my constituency of Brampton-Georgetown, one of a senior citizens' drop-in centre, the other of a public swimming pool, both designed with the handicapped in mind and heavily supported not only by the government but by the private sector. The swimming pool facilities allow wheelchair access to the pool and also to the whirlpool bath, a new idea which is a very worth-while thing. 1 congratulate the people, the politicians and the staff of the Region of Peel and the city of Brampton on both those worth-while projects.
There is one area 1 should like to talk about for just a moment, the issue of transportation of the handicapped. There have been numerous representations in the past seeking an extension of the general exemption for the disabled. One reason which is often given is that it would provide for special transportation costs faced by many of the handicapped in getting to and from work. One feels sympathy and admiration for handicapped persons who have the energy and ambition to get out and work. I agree with the hon. member on the other side that we should increasingly encourage these endeavours. I also believe various areas of the House of Commons should be more accessible to the handicapped.
To get back to the subject of transportation, the answer which has been given in the past is that there should not be a general widening of the exemption since this would benefit others who don't have the same transportation expenses. The general question of employment related expenses has long been a difficult issue. Under tax law, transportation expenses can be
November 19, 1979

subject to a wide variety of circumstances and personal choice. Because of this, nearly every tax system follows the practice of not allowing a general deduction for transportation expenses. That was also the conclusion of the Carter Royal Commission on Taxation.
It is a difficult problem, and the solution arrived at in the Canadian income tax context is to provide a flat-rate employment expense deduction to recognize all of the many and varied personal expenses incurred by people in earning income from employment. Up to last year this deduction was 3 per cent of a taxpayer's income up to a maximum $250. For this year that maximum allowance has been doubled to $500.
I would urge that the committee to be set up to study the special needs of handicapped and disabled persons take a fresh look at this area of transportation. Increasing importance is being given to the desire and ability of the handicapped to get into the work force where they can play a very beneficial role in society. Many adjustments have to be made. I know a number of handicapped people who drive cars and who have had to spend tremendous amounts of money getting hand controls set up in their automobiles. I think this whole matter should be looked at again with a view to providing legitimate tax deductions related to the transportation needs of the handicapped.
It is a pleasure for me to support this motion and I urge all hon. members to endorse its passage.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I must make a small contribution to this debate because of my long-standing interest in the subject of services for the handicapped. It is not my intention at all to delay the proceedings. The contributions which have been made to the debate so far make it clear there is a consensus that this motion should receive the approval of the House.
The reason I want to contribute to the debate is that my name has been associated with the proposed select committee which will be set up to study the services available to the disabled and the handicapped and to bring in a report as soon as possible for the improvement of those services and for provisions to meet the special needs of the handicapped. There has been some skepticism associated with the proposal. In fact, some speakers have expressed their skepticism here this afternoon. The CBC in its wisdom on a recent "Cross-Country Check-Up" program posed the question to the Canadian public: "Do you think the disabled deserve more than a parliamentary committee?" Of course, that question met with a very positive response: the disabled do need more than a parliamentary committee.
I think it should be pointed out that there are so many gaps in meeting the needs of the disabled that it is imperative a special select committee be brought together so that we can realize the whole program, meet the special problems of transportation and housing, education and even civil liberties which pose themselves for the handicapped. The last-named aspect is one which is under active consideration by the Human Rights Commission at the present time. I have been in
Disability Allowance
correspondence with the commission for some time and I have received an assurance from the head of the commission, who used to be a member of this House, that the time for action is now. I point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), as will be seen from the Speech from the Throne, has emphasized that the civil liberties of all minority groups will be respected, and this, of course, includes the handicapped.
There is another comment I should like to make with respect to accessibility to this chamber and other parliamentary facilities. I have already been in touch with Your Honour pointing out that this is a matter which is long overdue. It is within the purview of the committee on internal management. Certainly there should be parking places available to people who are limited in their mobility and again I have the assurance that there will be early action to deal with this problem. It underlines the necessity of getting the select committee under way with the authority of this House and I hope that some time this week it will be possible to get agreement from all parties accordingly. We already have agreement from the House leader of the New Democratic Party who is looking across at me and nodding his head in approval. I trust that we shall have the same approval from the House leader of the official opposition. He is not in the House at the moment, but if there is anyone over there who can nod his head in the affirmative, any impediment toward the establishment of this committee would be removed and we could get on with this important business.
What the hon. member has proposed in his motion this afternoon deals with only a small part of the problem. We want to get our committee under way and we want to bring in a report as early in the New Year as possible. I urge all hon. members, while supporting the motion that we have before us, to go that one step farther and make it possible for our select committee to come to grips with all the manifest problems, some of which have been outlined here this afternoon. It is imperative, because Canada is hosting the rehabilitation national congress in Winnipeg next June. We want to have our report in with the recommendations and actions on the recommendations in preparation for that congress. The year 1981 will be the year of the disabled. I hope that out of the discussion here this afternoon will come a consensus that we get our committee under way that we get on with the long delayed response of meeting the special needs of Canada's disabled and handicapped citizens.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise briefly in support of the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). I do not suppose there is a member of Parliament who has not been confronted with the problems of disabled people and how we treat them and provide for them. I hope no one will think that I have a conflict of interest because my father happens to be in the CNIB. He is a disabled person. Hardly a month goes by that I do not have some disabled person in my office. Two weeks ago a man came to my office who had his leg amputat-

November 19, 1979
Disability Allowance
ed. He is 56 years old, and he has worked with his hands all his life. He can no longer work now; he cannot get a job because of that disability. He was asking me what I can do for him. His total income amounts to $278 a month and he cannot live on it, he told me. I hope we have something coming along to assist him, but this is the problem.
Prior to that person coming to my office there was another man who came who has epilepsy. Let us look at industry's side of it. What happens to a man who comes in to apply for a job? Most industries today require him to take a medical examination before he joins their insurance plan or performs a creation job. The man tells them he has epilepsy but that it is controlled, he has been on medication for X number of years. "That does not matter", they tell him. Let me tell you that when people are being considered for a job, the man or woman with epilepsy is shuffled out and never told why. They apply for a job and then they are shuffled out because of their disability. I cannot blame the employer because if it is a job running delicate machinery, where the safety of others may be involved, perhaps the employer has a case to make. But the fact is that these people who are disabled have special problems which the rest of us do not have to face.
When 1 was a young boy, unfortunately I contracted polio and my left side was paralysed. I wore braces and crutches for many years and I missed much of my schooling, so I know first-hand what it is to be disabled, and I know what it is like to come back from it. So 1 speak with a little bit of authority.
I know the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) is very concerned with this area and I know he supports our setting up a select committee to look into the matter of the handicapped. I commend my colleague for bringing this matter forward because one of the problems with which we will deal is that a handicapped person is defined under the Income Tax Act. The income tax officials, God bless them, have to collect their pound of flesh from all of us, but they define a person who is handicapped, and they lay down certain specifications for him. We must look at that because a person who had epilepsy a little while ago and whose disease is now controlled will perhaps not come under the definition of handicapped, but the fact is he is handicapped because he still has a great deal of difficulty in getting employment, and those who live with him have difficulties as well.
I know there are others who want to contribute to this debate. 1 commend my colleague for the third time for bringing this matter forward. I know we are going to deal with it in the select committee and, judging from the expressions from all sides of the House, I think it will be a subject on which we will be able to proceed with some dispatch, thus bringing some measure of relief to these people in fairly short order.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I will only take about 60 seconds of the time of the House to urge all hon. members to vote in favour of the motion. Also, I wish to identify myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Brandon-Sou-ris (Mr. Dinsdale). I do not know how many members here know what a friend of mine who is blind told me, namely, that

a blind person has no benefits coming to him at present. He cannot even claim for transportation as a blind person. So I would like to urge every member here to vote in favour of the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if the House is disposed to pass this motion, I have no objection to this being done, but I think we should give the matter a little further thought. I commend the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) for bringing the subject before us this afternoon. He is quite right in quoting me as having said that I was sympathetic to what he is trying to do. But as my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), has pointed out, it is another one of those proposals that does not begin to go far enough. That position has been underlined by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) in his contribution. That makes me a little concerned lest our action in passing this resolution will say to the government, and will say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) in particular, when he is drawing up his budget, that if he does this the House will be happy.
I have learned that in this place you have to be happy about small things that are done, but this problem is much larger and much more demanding than is met in this resolution which simply provides certain income tax deductions for those who have enough income that they have to pay tax on it. If we are going to deal with the matter through the medium of the income tax, we should provide income tax credits. These should be credits like those provided under the child tax credit provisions where persons get even if they did not pay any income tax in the first place.
The only persons who will benefit from this resolution are people who themselves, or through their families, are paying income tax. That is a step, it is a beginning, but my fear is that if this motion receives the unanimous endorsation of the House and gets it easily in 40 or 45 minutes, the Minister of Finance will be able to say, "I can do that", and that will settle the issue. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris would never say that; he would never admit that this settled the issue. As I say, if we are to deal with it through the income tax method, it ought to be by income tax credits, but there are all those other things which ought to be done.
Frankly, I should like to see the House find the ingenuity to refer this resolution to the committee which is to be set up. I realize I am creating a procedural tangle for Your Honour. To refer a resolution at all is difficult, but to refer it to a committee which has not been set up is even more difficult. I commend my fellow Manitoban, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, on the persistence with which he has kept at the campaign for a special committee. It appears that he will get it in this session. We will be happy to give support to the setting up of that committee.
I believe this business of what we do for handicapped persons should be looked at in its totality; not just income tax
November 19, 1979

deductions for those why pay income tax, but grants and credits for those who do not pay income tax, and something to help with transportation and all other problems which face handicapped people who have a right to live lives somewhat equal to those of the rest of us.
Certainly I shall not register any objection if it is the will of the House to pass this motion. If it does, of course I shall look for the Minister of Finance to be doing something about it in his budget. If we pass this motion and he does not pay any attention to it at all, then we will find that Tory ministers of finance are no better than Liberal ministers of finance. But far better would it be to have the House agree-I suppose we could do it by unanimous consent-that this motion be sent to the committee which is to be chaired by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. It would seem to me that that would be the best course to follow this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, could I move that we call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It has been requested that we call it six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It being six o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.44 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


John Carnell 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 the Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure and honour to have the opportunity to speak to and introduce this bill at second reading tonight, and to move second reading of this mortgage interest and property tax credit legislation, and to
Mortgage Tax Credit
call on the members of the House, particularly on the other side, to drop their obstructionist tactics and join with us on this side of the House to pass this legislation before Christmas so this tax credit will become available to Canadian taxpayers and home owners for the fiscal year 1979.
I might say in introducing the legislation that it was in September, 1978, that the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who is now the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), and who undoubtedly is going to be Prime Minister for many years to come yet, first introduced this suggestion that there should be some allowance or some assistance given to home owners, or some assistance given to people who wish to become home owners, towards the heavy costs of acquiring a home and continuing to operate and own a home in Canada today. I think it was in September, 1978, that he first put in our platform and advocated a scheme such as the one that is now before the House tonight, to assist mortgage holders in Canada with the cost of financing a home and operating a home both in respect of mortgage interest and property tax.
I have in my hand now a background paper, "PC Tax Proposals," that is dated September 21, 1978, which deals with deductibility of mortgage interest and municipal property taxes, and sets out the reason why that policy was being advocated by the leader of the PC party.
This is not an income redistribution measure, this is not an incomes measure, this is a measure to do with home ownership; with owning a home and with assisting the people of Canada in becoming home owners, and, once they are home owners, in assisting them to meet the heavy costs of being a home owner, both in respect of borrowing the money to purchase the home and to surviving afterwards when you take into account municipal taxes and all the other expenses you have in connection with home ownership.
The suggestion as originally outlined by our leader, the present Prime Minister, was for a mortgage interest and municipal property tax deductibility policy. But, Mr. Speaker, that was only a technique; whether it was a deduction or a tax credit. This was just a matter of technique, and what we have before us in the House tonight is a mortgage interest and property tax credit plan.
The reason why we have changed that technique in carrying out this major change in the Canadian system is that this is far less costly to the federal government, the Government of Canada, in the sense that the property tax and mortgage interest credit will be deducted from our federal basic tax and will, therefore, not affect provincial income taxes or provincial taxation, and in no way will it affect the provincial revenue structure. That will save, because it was our pledge that it should be made in all equity and fairness; it was a point of this policy that it would not damage the provinces in respect of their own collection of income taxes.
Obviously if this had continued to be a mortgage interest and property tax deduction from taxable income, then it would have been a deduction not only from federal taxable income but from provincial taxable income, and it would have affected provincial income taxes, and to reimburse the provinces
1462

November 19, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
because of this, and to reimburse them because of its effect on other federal financial programs, it would have cost perhaps an additional about $900 million to $1 billion when the scheme was in its full effect in the fourth year.
This plan is to be phased in over four years, as was promised in September, 1978, by the Prime Minister. It was a commitment which aroused a lot of interest during the election campaign. It was one of the principal reasons, I believe, that people supported this party, and for that reason and, because it is in the interests of Canadians, we intend to see that this promise and this commitment are carried out. Apart from the general repugnance of the people of Canada for the man who was leading the government at that time and their desire to have a change after 16 years, one of the main planks in our campaign which aroused interest amongst the people was this property tax and mortgage interest plan. Not only did it arouse interest among home owners, but among tens of thousands of apartment dwellers who found it desirable because they did not want to live in apartments for the rest of their lives. They want a chance to own a home like many other Canadians.
The Liberal party, the then government, campaigned against this policy. Their campaign had absolutely no effect at all. In apartment after apartment which I went to in my own district of St. John's West, the occupants would ask me about this policy because they supported it, particularly the young who occupied those apartments because they hope one day that they will own their own homes and that this policy will assist them. The campaigns of the Liberal party and the NDP to try to persuade apartment dwellers that they should vote against this great move forward were unsuccessful. It is those people we want to assist.
I want to make it clear that this is a tax credit and that you will only get something out of this legislation if you are a taxpayer. If you are a federal taxpayer, you will get a tax credit under this legislation. If you do not pay federal taxes, then you do not get any value out of this legislation until you become a federal taxpayer because this is a tax credit and not merely refundable. If you are a home owner and a taxpayer living anywhere in Canada, you will benefit because you will be entitled to a property tax credit.
The property tax credit in the fourth year, or 1982, when this plan becomes completely mature, will be $250, whether or not you have actually paid $250 in municipal taxes. Whether or not you have paid one cent in municipal taxes, you will get a property tax credit against your federal basic tax of $250 in the fourth year of this plan.
If this legislation is passed by this honourable House, and the hon. gentlemen opposite permit it to be passed before December, you will be entitled as a home owner and a federal taxpayer to a credit of $62.50 in 1979. In 1980 you will get a tax credit of $125, and in the year 1981 you are entitled to a mortgage tax credit of $187.50. In the fourth year of the plan, 1982, you become entitled to a tax credit of $250.

If you own a home, a condominium, a mobile home anywhere in Canada or even spend money in excess of $5,000 to renovate your home, you become eligible for this assistance under the mortgage interest provisions. Whether or not you pay a cent of municipal taxes, if you are a home owner and pay federal tax you will receive $62.50 this year. If you do not get the $62.50, you will know who to blame before we are finished. The tax credit will be $125 next year, $187.50 in 1981, and $250 in 1982.
If you are also a home owner who has a mortgage on his home, and most home owners do, or on your condominium or your mobile home, then you are also entitled to get a credit for the mortgage interest you pay. The maximum amount of mortgage interest on which you are entitled to a credit is $5,000.
In the fourth year of this plan when it is fully mature, you will be entitled to deduct from your basic federal tax payable the amount of $1,500. You have a tax credit of 25 per cent of your mortgage interest up to a maximum of $5,000. In the fourth year of this plan, 1982, if it is enacted by this House, you will be entitled to deduct from your federal tax payable $1,500. That is not chicken feed. For those people on the opposite side of the House who make the welkin ring now that they are in opposition with cries about high interest rates, we must not let them forget that this legislation will be of considerable assistance to people whether they are struck by high interest rates or low interest rates.
What about the year 1979? If you are a home owner and in Canada in 1979, with a mortgage on your home on which you are paying anything up to $5,000, you will be entitled to deduct 25 per cent of that interest from your taxes payable and one-quarter of that this year. So if you pay $5,000 in interest this year, you will be entitled to a maximum credit of $312.50 on your mortgage interest in 1979.
If you are a mortgagor, a person who has a mortgage on your home, in 1980 and you pay the maximum amount of interest, $5,000, you will get a tax relief of $625 from your federal taxes payable. If you are that same person in 1981, the third year of this plan, you will be able to deduct an amount of $937.50, and in 1982 you will be able to deduct $1,250. If you take the maximum mortgage interest tax and the property tax credit, in 1979 you will have a credit of $375. In other words, when you make out your tax return in March or April, you will be able to deduct $375 from your federal tax payable. In 1980 you will be able to deduct $750, in 1981 the deduction is $1,125, and in 1982 you will be able to deduct $1,500.
If you are an individual who is fully eligible, who is paying in excess of $5,000 a year in mortgage interest each year, over the four years from 1979 to 1982 you will get $3,737.50, if you are so permitted. If other members of the House join with us in passing this legislation, you will have a benefit of $3,737.50. But if the hon. gentlemen opposite do not join with us in passing this legislation, you can thank them for preventing you from having this tax relief. We will know exactly who they are and the people will know exactly who they are, those members who do not want you to meet the cost of owning a home.
November 19, 1979

The people of Canada should understand that we do not have a majority in this Parliament. I think there are 136 members in the government. Is that the right figure, or is it 135? We do not have a majority in this House. The Liberal party members, the NDP members and the five Social Credit members can outvote us. If they do not support us in this legislation, they can stop it. It is in their hands. We can only propose; the House of Commons disposes. The hon. gentlemen opposite may be able to prevent the home owners and the taxpayers in Canada from receiving this benefit, but I do not think for a minute that they will do that. I do not think that they could find it in their hearts to do that. We will see in due course, however, because they have been making some threatening noises.
To what does this legislation apply? It applies to a mortgage or a loan which you incur to purchase a home, or if you spend over $5,000 in adding to or renovating a home. Only then can you deduct from your taxes under the scheme that I have outlined.


Mr. Axworthy:: Did you say gimmick or scheme?


John Carnell Crosbie: What is the difference between a property tax scheme as a deduction from taxable income and the scheme now before the House? The difference is that under the scheme in its final form as presented to the House, 3.8 million Canadian families will receive increased tax benefits-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For at least three times tonight, and I do not know how many times on other nights when the minister has been speaking, he has referred to this side of the House as the "honorary gentlemen" or "honourable gentlemen". I should like to request that he recognize there are others than gentlemen who, hopefully, are honourable. Will he please stop this sexist language?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have always treated women exactly the same as men. From now on I will call them "honourable persons" so that there will not be any cries of discrimination. I never realized there was any difference between us. I am a real innocent.
Let me put some figures on the record. There are 9.4 million households in total in Canada; of that number, 3.8 million families pay federal tax and have mortgages and they will get the property tax credit. There are 1.1 million who are non-taxable home owners. There are 4.5 million households who are renters-students or whatever-and who do not come under this legislation. Of the remaining 4.9 million households, 1.1 million are home owners who do not pay taxes to the federal government, for various reasons. There are 3.8 million who do pay taxes to the federal government and who have mortgages or are subject to property tax. The number of households in Canada with mortgages is 2.57 million. There are 116,885 mobile homes.
Mortgage Tax Credit
The value of mortgages in Canada was $83.7 billion in 1978. When we take the 2.57 million households with a mortgage and divide it into the mortgage debt, it gives an average mortgage of $32,500.
Of the 3.8 million Canadian home owners who pay federal taxes, who have a mortgage or are subject to the property taxes, 2.3 million will be eligible for both the mortgage interest credit and the property tax credit, and 1.5 million for at least the property tax credit, making the 3.8 million.
Of those families who are eligible, how many are helped by a change from a system of a deduction to a system of tax credits? The answer is, in excess of 3 million home owners benefited more by a change from a tax deduction to a tax credit, and less than 800,000 received less. Of those 800,000 who received less, all are in the higher income bracket. Only 300,000 received less by more than $100 through this change, all of them in the higher income tax bracket. The scheme, therefore, is directed toward those more in need of assistance by the change to a tax credit.
What is the cost of the scheme to the Canadian government, altogether? In 1979 it is $575 million. In other words, the tax credits that should be deducted next March or April will amount to $575 million. These will be deducted in 1980.


An hon. Member:: Where is the money going to come from?


John Carnell Crosbie: For the first time, Mr. Speaker, I have heard a member of the New Democratic Party ask where the money is going to come from.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: When it comes to giving the Canadian home owner a break, the NDP is immediately against it. They ask where the money is going to come from. This is the first time in my three years in this House that I have ever heard them ask that question.
The money is going to stay in the pockets of the 3.8 million Canadian taxpayers who would otherwise have paid it. That is where it is going to come from. They are going to spend the $575 million helping to meet their mortgage interest, helping to meet their property tax payments, helping to meet their insurance premiums, helping to meet their household costs, or whatever they want to use it for.
In the calendar year 1980, as the scheme is further enriched, it will cost $1,245 million. That will stay in the pockets of Canadian taxpayers in March and April of 1981, as they prepare their federal tax returns. For the tax year 1981, $2,015 million will stay in Canadian home owners' pockets to help them meet the costs of operating their homes and meeting their mortgage interest that hon. gentlemen opposite have been so concerned about, ostensibly, in the last few weeks.
In 1982, the fourth year, when the plan is fully mature, it will cost $2.87 billion. That will stay in the pockets of the 3.8 million Canadian home owners who pay federal taxes and who can deduct that from their federal tax payable. That $2.87 billion will stay in their pockets to help them meet interest

November 19, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
rates, to help them meet property taxes, to help them meet insurance premiums, to help them with repair bills or whatever they need to own and operate a home in this country.
For the first time in this country there will be in effect what has existed in the United States since 1862, a deduction for mortgage interest. This did not originate in the twentieth century, Mr. Speaker; it originated in the 1860s.


Mr. Evans:: They have tried to get out of it ever since.


John Carnell Crosbie: They have not tried to get out of it. They expanded it to all consumer credit, Mr. Speaker. It is a system that will never be left behind because it is part of the old American system.


An hon. Member:: John Evans is against the plan.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is against it. Ele decries it. That gives you some outline of who will benefit, and to what extent, from this scheme, Mr. Speaker.
The interest on all consumer credit in the United States is deductible. Their taxpayers are allowed to deduct it, but we are not suggesting that. We have a plan that will only allow the deduction of interest costs in connection with acquiring, renovating or expanding a home. It does not cover all consumer credit. It has to be for that particular purpose alone, so it is a carefully drafted scheme to help people to become home owners in Canada. It does not cover just those who own homes at present, but those who want to become home owners.
We can be defeated on this, Mr. Speaker. This is the time for the opposition to put up or shut up. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) was in Toronto on Saturday and Sunday, flexing his muscles. He was going to stop this legislation going through. 1 say, fine, let him stop it. This is a good issue for us to have another election on. The Canadian people have already shown that they want this. If the opposition is not convinced and wants to put it to the test again, then let them defeat this legislation. Let us go on and see if the Canadian people want it or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The official opposition has done nothing but cry for stimulus. The NDP is always crying for stimulus. They want more stimulus-it is almost a reflex action with them, except when it comes to the home owners of Canada. They do not want stimulus then, they want to keep them burdened with debt and high interest costs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Whelan:: Nonsense.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is stimulus. This is $575 million of stimulus for early 1980 for the home owners of Canada and for the economy, and $1,245 million in 1980, and $2 billion in stimulus in 1981. Remember the $2 billion. That
is the $2 billion they are trying to tell us that our leader forgot about when he promised the $2 billion in tax reductions. In
1981	it will be $2 billion. As our economy improves and we are in a position to give more stimulus we are going to give it. In
1982	it will be $2,875 million. They do not like this kind of stimulus. They do not like it because they did not think of it. They fought against it in the election and they are going to try to scuttle it now. They are going to try to scuttle this stimulus.
What are the three main purposes of this plan?


Lloyd Axworthy: Go ahead.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Canadian people are going to be able to afford the water that goes to their homes, and more after we implement this legislation.
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.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan, that magic place which is the only place in Canada that is wealthy enough to afford the socialists in its government, even there they have a mortgage interest deduction plan-


An hon. Member:: There is nothing wrong with those socialists.


John Carnell Crosbie: -which they proclaimed. So the Saskatchewan home owner is going to get a mortgage interest deduction from the Saskatchewan government and one from the Ottawa government. But the Ottawa government, the PC government stimulus and mortgage interest deduction, is going to be voted against by the NDP in this House, while the NDP in Saskatchewan gives its own mortgage interest deduction. What is wrong with this mortgage interest credit? Is it because it is being introduced by Tories that these idealogues down in the corner are going to vote against it? What kind of inconsistency is that? Inconsistency, thy name is NDP-neurotic and demogogic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have given you the number of families who are going to benefit by this. It is 3.8 million families, if hon. members opposite permit, because we are asking them humbly to support us. The average benefit per family will be $590 for those eligible under this program by 1982 when it is fully phased in.
There has been an argument from hon. members opposite- yes, the term members is all right, I am not allowed to use the term hon. gentlemen-that because mortgage interest rates have increased in the last few months-year, year and a half- we should not put this forward. This is the cry we have heard

November 19, 1979

from the new member from Manitoba-Haworthy-Taxworthy-the honourable Taxworthy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: He has complained bitterly in this House that we are bringing this scheme forward in light of the fact that mortgage rates have increased. The fact that mortgage rates have increased, does that not make this plan more attractive to the home owners of Canada-not less attractive, but more attractive? Is it not needed more now than it was three or four months ago when interest rates were 2 per cent or 3 per cent less? Is it not true that the higher the interest rates go-and we are going to prevent that if we can, it is an interest rate condition left to us by the government that was the government party, the government opposite, they left this interest rate condition which we are battling to get down, we are going to battle down the interest rates, Mr. Speaker, but if due to this condition left to us interest rates went even higher-would this plan not be more needed? Would that not prove how much more needed it is?
Can anyone understand why, when they are complaining about higher interest rates, they are against this plan to help the Canadian home owner? It is absolutely incredible. It is partisan-blind. It is blind partisanship and nothing else.
Second, remember this, Mr. Speaker, that higher interest rates are a temporary condition as long as we stay in power. It is a temporary condition. If the other group were in power it might be permanent. We are fighting it. It is a temporary condition.
While higher interest rates are a temporary condition, this program, as long as we are in power, is for the long term. We cannot answer for what will happen if the hon. group opposite gets back in again. Yes, they would hara-kiri this program. They would Shanghai it. They would knife it. We know they would do that if they get in, but as long as we are in, this is in. As long as we are here, this is here for the long term, not the short term.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: What more can I say, Mr. Speaker?


Eugene Whelan: Say something pretty soon.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is funny how we hear the hon. turkeys gargle once they get on the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I explained that the interest that qualifies is the interest you pay to purchase a home or to finance an addition or an alteration. We are blocking all attempts to use this bill for improper purposes. This bill is to help you to buy a home. If you renew a mortgage on your present home or if you do not have a mortgage now on your present home, but you go out and get one because you think you are going to get mortgage interest relief, you are not. The Canadian home owner must remember that. If you have a mortgage now of
Mortgage Tax Credit
$20,000 and you renew it and get a mortgage for $50,000, you can only deduct the interest on $20,000. That is how the plan works.
You cannot go out and remortgage your home and get a bigger mortgage and take advantage of this plan. But, if you leave that home, sell your present home, and go out buy another home and, in buying that other home, you get a mortgage of $50,000, fine, you can deduct all the interest on the new home. You cannot remortgage your home and get mortgage interest relief and go out and use the proceeds to buy a cabin cruiser or whatever the other party might want you to do. It is to help you to acquire a home. Or, if you have a present mortgage, it will help you better meet the costs of that present mortgage. That is why we have made that rule. It is not a general consumer credit interest deduction.
I hope the hon. lady is listening to this. To ensure the greatest degree of flexibility we have provided that a cash credit might be transferred between spouses. Spouses are those who are married one to the other.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is subject, however, to the proviso that a couple will obtain no more in total than an individual home owner. We are thinking of everything, Mr. Speaker. In other words, if you are two spouses, you can only have the same as one. There is only the one deduction, even though you are two spouses. But you can divide it between spouses. The husband can divide it with his wife, and the wife can divide it with her husband if she is the home owner.
We have also restricted the availability of these credits to individuals who own a home in Canada. We are not going to do what the opposition party might have done, and that is to allow you to deduct the interest on a home outside of Canada, for example, in the Bahamas or Panama or wherever people go when they retire. You can only deduct the interest on a home that you own in Canada. It has to be geographically located in Canada. This will ensure that the benefits from these credits go only to Canadian residents.
The credit is restricted to those who are regularly occupying the particular residence. You cannot deduct interest on a second residence. You cannot deduct interest on a summer home, a seasonal home, a recreational home or a rental property. You can only deduct interest on your own main home, the home in which you live with your spouse, or whoever you live with!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Your spouse, or your children.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


John Carnell Crosbie: Now we hear the moralists from the NDP perking up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 19, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit


John Carnell Crosbie: They are paying attention now because they think there is something racy coming.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: These credits will be available for 1959-


An hon. Member:: 1959?


John Carnell Crosbie: -should this bill pass the House before Christmas. This is November 19?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: It is November 19.


John Carnell Crosbie: November 19 is a month and two days before December 21. There is no reasons why members in this House cannot debate and discuss every angle to this legislation and have it passed by December 21.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: As a matter of fact, two or three days of debate will ventilate all the issues in this bill and then in the committee of the whole, so within a week, a week will be very, very reasonable for us to consider this bill. We ask for co-operation. We know we are going to get it because we know the hon. gentlemen are not going to deprive the Canadian people of a $575 million Christmas present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What about the byelection results?


John Carnell Crosbie: The NDP had another sweep in Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is their usual Newfoundland sweep. They never elected a member in the last provincial election, and now they are going to sweep her. They are a contagion that is now held in one part of the country.
When we come to interest rates, I just want to point out to the House that between February, 1978, and May of 1979 the bank rate in Canada went up 3.75 per cent. That is a period when the Liberal government was in office here in Ottawa. I repeat, 3.75 per cent the interest rate went up, the central bank rate and the prime bank rate. Unfortunately, because of the condition in which they left our economy, in the last six months the interest rates have gone up the same, that is, 3.75 per cent. But we are trying to do something about that increased interest rate. We are trying to protect and help the home owners of Canada against the results of the 3.75 per cent increase that has occurred since we have been here, as a result of no fault of our own. It is the result of the economic condition in which we were left.
Hon. gentlemen opposite were here for the year and a half that interest rates went up 3% per cent, and did nothing except talk when they got to the election about some other kind of
[Mr. Crosbie.)
scheme they were going to introduce. 1 hope that none of them will speak, that they will pass this in silence, that they will be so ashamed at their lack of action when they were in power that they will just let this go through without any talk.
A mortgage of $50,000 at 10 per cent interest would cost $5,000 in a year. A $50,000 mortgage at 10 per cent will give the maximum relief that I described earlier.


An hon. Member:: What about 14% per cent?


John Carnell Crosbie: They are so eager in their juvenile way to call out what about 14% per cent. I say it is a great pity about 14% per cent. It should not be a subject for partisan badinage that we are trying to do something about it. A $40,000 mortgage at 121/2 per cent interest-1 want the mathematicians in the corner to listen because they hate spending money when it does not suit them where it is spent-comes to $5,000. A $36,000 mortgage at 14 per cent interest is $5,060 a year which will give you the maximum deduction.
A $34,000 mortgage at 15 per cent interest, God forbid, would give you $5,100 in interest costs and you would get the maximum deduction. For the maximum deductions we are not talking here about $100,000 mortgages or $75,000 mortgages. We are talking about mortgages from $50,000 down to $34,000 to get the maximum at today's interest rates. That is another reason why I trust this will be rushed through the House. Does the public support this plan?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: If we are to believe hon. gentlemen opposite, the public is directly against us, the public does not want it, the public hates it. Why is it then that the Gallup poll, Mr. Speaker, if you don't mind me holding this up, shows 76 per cent support mortgage proposals? These are the gentlemen who used to go by the Gallup polls. For the last couple of years with every Gallup poll they practically beat themselves out running to see what the Gallup poll was saying. Despite the Gallup poll they got the poll right where they didn't expect it. Here is the question:
Prime Minister Clark and the Conservative government in Ottawa have reaffirmed their pre-election promise to allow mortgage costs and property taxes-up to a certain maximum limit-as deductible expenses for income tax purposes. What is your opinion? Would you approve or disapprove of this?
Approve, 76 per cent, disapprove, 13 per cent, don't know, 11 per cent.
If we add up the don't knows and disapprove, they are all over there and they represent 24 per cent of the Canadian people. We are here representing 76 per cent who have approved this plan. We say to hon. gentlemen and ladies opposite, let's get on to the hustings again and thrash this matter out and let the people decide what they want in this matter.
I referred earlier to the article by Mr. David Greenspan, a Toronto lawyer. I am informed he is a Liberal. Nevertheless, he is a sensible man, and one of the few. He is the author of "Down to the Earth". You might say what is "Down to the Earth"? "Down to the Earth" was a report paid for by the Liberal government of Canada when it was in power, a
November 19, 1979

federal-provincial land prices study. If the Liberal Party of Canada appointed this gentleman to do a land prices study, presumably he must have some expertise in the field of housing and land. That is what I conclude. Otherwise they would be saying they appointed to do this study a dumb-dumb, a ding-ding, a no-no, a know-nothing. Surely they are not going to suggest that. What did he say in The Globe and Mail of October 28, 1979? The whole article is worth reading. Here is how he starts:
To avoid being poor when they become old, working people-
The little clutch down in the corner who talk so much of the working people, I hope are listening.
-should spend their working lives building their own equity, not their landlords' equity.
That is just what this bill wants them to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: He continues:
For two generations, ownership in housing has given working people what no government social security system can come close to giving: old age security, effective, non-eroding savings; and an economic stake in society.
That is home ownership.
Working class renters who ceased to be young continued to be poor. But working class home owners were not.
That is the point he starts off making.
It would be iniquitous for public policy to encourage working class tenants to spend working lives building landlords' equity at the expense of their own long-term security.
That is what the NDP wants. That is what they advocate- keep the working class poor in their rental accommodation, let them build up equity for the landlords.
He goes on to say:
The only result for many individuals will be poverty in old age; the only result for the public will be subsidized housing for senior citizens on a massive scale at prohibitive cost; the only result for the large landlords such as the city of Toronto who specialize in low and moderate income housing will be massive wealth in buildings free of mortgages paid off by the rents of generations of tenants.
That is the point Mr. Greenspan makes that I hope hon. gentlemen will consider. They are huddled together in their misery now as a result of the byelection in Burin-St. George's.


Mr. Broadbent:: Tell us about Newfoundland.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Greenspan says in his article how this is a plan to help the tenants. That is the point he is making.
Three distinct groups of tenants exist and the fact that you don't want to help the first and can't help the second is no reason not to help the third.
The tenants by choice can afford to own houses but prefer not to. Those without choice are the real poor who can never afford to own housing which is not heavily subsidized. The third group of tenants in the middle could afford to own houses if carrying charges were lower.
That is what we are attempting to do here.
This is the prime target group for a mortgage-relief scheme.
This is good stuff so I can't resist quoting Mr. Greenspan. Referring to this government he says:
Mortgage Tax Credit
One analysis indicates that if the government's current proposal had been in full operation in 1974, home ownership could have become accessible to as many as 230,000 tenant households across Canada,
Why don't the members of the official opposition listen to this? If they had adopted in 1974 what we are proposing, by the evidence of their own expert, Mr. Greenspan, 230,000 tenant households across Canada in the metropolitan areas of Toronto, Vancouver, Saskatoon, St. John's, Newfoundland and Halifax could have become home owners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I will skip some.
But the important principle is to give tax relief in some form from the burden of home ownership. The important need is to begin, somewhere. The government's current proposal is a beginning.
That is what this is, a beginning. If we can straighten out the Canadian economy, get it vibrant and strong and throw off the years of deficits and decadence, neo-socialism, and get Canada going on a strong course again economically, in the next few years we can go on and improve this scheme. This is only the beginning.
What else does he say?
A mortgage relief scheme would help not only one large group of tenants to acquire new housing, but also home owners to carry their homes. They are struggling with the triple whammy of high interest rates, high house prices and high mortgage amounts made possible by low downpayment requirements.
He goes on with quite a bit more. He discusses other interesting issues I do not have time to go into tonight. He says this:
-if the working middle class-
That is the middle class that supports this country, pays the taxes, that is in the metropolitan areas, that is being put upon, that is fed up.
-perceives its social policy treatment by Ottawa is fundamentally unfair over a long period compared to the social policy treatment received by other classes, it will inevitably attack some programs which favour the poor.
In other words, it is time for the working middle class to receive some decent social policy treatment, and we are going to see they get it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The author goes on to explain how the wealthy can deduct their interest anyway, and the ways they can do it. We are not helping the wealthy here. They have been deducting it for years in every way you can imagine. He goes on to say:
Giving home owners of the working middle class the right to claim mortgage interest would permit them an advantage already taken by the wealthy.
Are hon. members going to vote against that? Are they going to vote to continue this for the wealthy and not extend it to the working and middle class? He then says this, and this is so right on, so completely accurate, so completely true, and so describes what we hear from the other side, that it is marvellous. He says, and I quote:

November 19, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
Mortgage relief schemes will continue to be attacked by bureaucrats, economists and upper middle class trendies.
That is what we hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is what we hear. That is the opposition to this scheme-economists, bureaucrats, socialists, and middle class trendies.


An hon. Member:: What do you think about it?


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, it is getting to them! This is my last quotation from this article, and 1 have never found an article I have more enjoyed quoting from.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Particularly since it was written by a Liberal.


An hon. Member:: Speak up, Dumbo, in the back seat over there.


John Carnell Crosbie: That's a middle class Dumbo. I hesitate to interrupt hon. gentlemen opposite, but listen to this final quotation.
Until now all major housing programs have supported suburban houses and ignored city houses. The mortgage relief scheme will be the first major proposal to help city housing compete with suburban housing.
That is why the members from metropolitan Toronto who are thinking clearly and are sitting over here support this. That is why the members from metropolitan Winnipeg support it, and those from metropolitan St. John's and Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick and Fredericton and Vancouver, Victoria and Saskatoon, Regina and Edmonton and Calgary, support it. It is because for the first time the people who live in the cities and the metropolitan areas are going to be considered by a government with respect to their housing, the people who have been paying for it all, the people who paid for it down through the glorious halcyon years while the honourable wastrels opposite spent it all on their various schemes and forgot the people who were paying for it. That's why this proposal is going to get support from our side of the House, and any of those who wish to come back to this chamber from the other side had better support it also-that's my advice to them.
What else can I say, Mr. Speaker? Oh yes, the property tax credit. Why is the property tax credit a flat rate? Every home owner in Canada, every person who owns a home, whether he pays a cent in municipal property tax or not-and most of them, unfortunately, have to pay municipal property taxes-is going to get a tax credit of $62.50 starting this year, up to $250. The reason is that in every province they have different schemes for municipal taxation. There was no way to figure out a plan under which you could deduct the actual municipal taxes paid, and be fair.
For example, in some provinces like Quebec, I believe the price of water, sewers and services is paid for by local improvement rates over a period of years, while in other provinces such

as Ontario and Newfoundland you pay for the cost of the water, sewage, sidewalks and services at the time you pay for the lot. So you have a different effect by giving relief to property taxes paid in Quebec as compared to taxes paid in Ontario and Newfoundland. In most provinces there is a kind of municipal tax credit scheme engendered by the provincial government, so you have areas where there would be a gross credit and areas where there would be a net credit, and in no area could we figure out any deduction scheme or tax credit scheme through the federal government which would suit all the ten provinces. So it's a flat rate. The good, the bad and the indifferent would all get this flat rate no matter what taxes they pay. Even some home owners in Newfoundland who don't pay municipal property tax are going to get this tax credit. Do you hear me down there?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Many householders down there do not live in municipalities. And if they live in municipalities that don't have a property tax, they are going to get $62.50 allowance for their property tax this year and $112 next year, and up to $250 in the fourth year of this plan, to help them meet the general cost of living and the other higher costs they face in Newfoundland and in other parts of the country. Whether you pay $1,000 in municipal taxes or $500, or $200, or $100, you will be entitled in the fourth year to a $250 tax credit. That is a great improvement over the scheme our leader announced in September of 1978. It is hard to improve on what our leader announces, but in this particular case it is an improvement in that particular.


An hon. Member:: In Newfoundland they didn't believe you.


John Carnell Crosbie: They must have believed me or I wouldn't be here. By the way, in case hon. gentlemen opposite have never seen one, this is a tax return.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: A lot of you never bothered to fill these out.
This is a tax return, and those who are eligible for this scheme will see a line "Taxable income-federal tax payable". And they will be able to deduct. Suppose the federal tax payable is $5,000. If they paid $5,000 mortgage interest this year they are going to be able to deduct from that. Suppose it shows they have to pay $5,000. They are going to be able to deduct $375 from it. When you make out that form and you see you owe the federal government $5,000, you are jumping with rage, and then you look down here and it says "Federal mortgage interest property tax credit", and you deduct $375. That is going to calm your rage a bit. That is $375 you would not have had but for this scheme. But in 1982, when you do it and you see $5,000 in taxes and you look down to see what you can deduct, you are going to practically collapse with relief. You are going to get $1,500 relief if you are a home owner who pays the federal government $5,000 in taxes and you are paying $5,000 in mortgage interest and municipal taxes and all the rest of it. So this is not a nothing, as the hon. member
November 19, 1979

opposite suggested. This is a substantial scheme to help home owners in Canada who are also taxpayers. So this is the tax form. Hon. members opposite should note that if they want to get this tax credit they will have to fill out the tax form first.
There is another improvement on the scheme originally proposed by our leader. Under the scheme proposed by our leader, interest was to be deducted on a first mortgage only.


An hon. Member:: Who's your leader?


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, you people are finding out who our leader is, and you will be finding it out for the next 20 years.


William James Kempling: Where's yours?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, where's old disco daddy? Our leader may like discos, but he is usually on the job. He is no sugar daddy or disco daddy.
The interest on this plan is not restricted just to interest on a first mortgage. It is interest on any loan incurred to buy a home-it could be a first mortgage, a second mortgage or a third mortgage, or any indebtedness in connection with a home. I have already mentioned that we have improved the plan by including household improvements. So the Canadian voter is not getting just what we promised, he is getting a vast improvement on what we promised. We are not trying to slinge in and put through a lesser thing than we have promised. It is better than we promised. We have performed better than we knew, or whatever that phrase is. It is a better thing by far we have builded than we knew, or whatever the phrase is.
The benefits of this scheme are the same wherever you live in Canada. The scheme does not discriminate. The plan is the same in every province. It doesn't matter whether you are a home owner in Newfoundland or a home owner in the Yukon or in Quebec. But it is a plan for home owners only, and it is a plan to help apartment dwellers who want to acquire homes. And as interest rates go down in the next few months and years, as we think they are going to, the plan becomes more and more valuable. We have to keep this in mind.
The first year's estimated cost is $575 million. It is estimated that $335 million will relate to mortgage interest and $240 million to the property tax portion. I do not have estimates of the figures for later years, but they will become increasingly great on the mortgage interest side.
So 3.8 million families will benefit, and 2.3 million will receive both the mortgage interest and property tax credit, while 1.5 million will receive the property tax credit only. By 1982 the average benefits per family will be $590. The maximum gained by changing to the credit system from a deduction system was this, that the low income taxpayer-


An hon. Member:: You have read that already.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have not read it. They do not want to hear about the low income taxpayer. They do not want to hear who is going to get the increased benefits, particularly if it is the
Mortgage Tax Credit
low income taxpayer. The maximum gain for a low income taxpayer who pays $5,000 in mortgage interest and little in property taxes is $597 by changing to the credit system. The maximum lost by adopting credits over deductions is $1,080, lost by a taxpayer with over $100,000 in income with at least $5,000 in mortgage interest and $1,000 in property taxes.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I have only spoken for an hour and I have been moderate in my approach, but I have taken an hour because there appears to be so much uninformed criticism of this proposal, particularly by the official opposition.
From the NDP we have had informed criticism. They are determined in their opposition to anything that is going to help the Canadian middle class or anything that is going to help the working class in Canada, the home owning working class. They have their own great schemes. They have a whole lot of pies in the sky, and one of those pies in the sky is a little scheme to help out in this area, a scheme which they concocted when they heard of the Clark mortgage interest and property tax deduction scheme. So probably when they speak here we will hear about that fantastic scheme of theirs which, of course, will not go into effect in Canada during the twentieth century because they are not going to be in power in the twentieth century, nor will they be in power in the twenty-first century, because they will only be in power in Saskatchewan in the twenty-first century.


An hon. Member:: Not even that.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is if they survive their wayward ways in the House and the opposition they are presenting to this measure. So it is informed criticism from the NDP, and uninformed from the official opposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a little bit of jealousy from the official opposition.
The other questions I will be able to answer in Committee of the Whole when the House goes to Committee of the Whole. We are asking the House to give this a good examination. Let us hear all points of view. We want to see everything considered, we want the bill discussed and debated in a reasonable period of time, two or three days in Committee of the Whole, and let us pass this and send it up to the Senate to get them working on it and show we can get it through by Christmas, if we can get it through the Senate, for the people of Canada and the home owners of Canada who have been waiting for this and who voted for this. It was the one issue in the campaign, apart from their being fed up with what had been happening over the past ten years, that struck their imagination that they wanted, and that they fought for. It is this plan that is now before the House in an improved form from what it was in the campaign.
This is stimulation, this is everything they are asking for, it is a stimulus for the economy, help for the home owner, help for those who pay mortgage interest rates, help for those who pay property taxes, help for all federal taxpayers. It is everything that they have been calling and crying for. If we pass this, then we can get on with the budget, and we hope there can be other good news there as well, as some of the things
1470

November 19, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
that we have to do to get the economy straightened out and get it going so that we can introduce more and more plans to help the Canadian home owner and the Canadian people generally.
I ask all members of the House to join us in expediting this through the House as quickly as we can.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) has treated this measure with the seriousness it deserves. I expect we will treat it with the same degree of levity. 1 am not sure we can quite manage the same technique of the Ted Mack comedy hour that he was able to master, but I think it is unfortunate that in the first made-in-Toryland measure that we have before the House, what we were able to do was to find more bombast than fact or reality. But I do want to pay a compliment to the Minister of Finance for the way in which he master-minded the Conservative campaign in Newfoundland, which turned out exactly as we wished. 1 am glad to see he is such a strong believer in the voice of the people, especially the vox populi of Newfoundland, because they have obviously spoken their own verdict about the first six months of the Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 am hoping that as he, in his own humble way, was able to tell us that he was prepared to sit here in a minority position and listen to the voice of the House, those who represent a majority, he will take a lesson from what was said tonight in the byelection in his home territory about the wisdom of his course and the particular direction in which his government has gone.
I would say to you as well, Mr. Speaker, that members of this group of the official opposition certainly take in mind the invocation of the Christmas spirit that the minister has brought forward. We think that nothing more is needed in treating this legislation than a good dose of Christmas charity, because what we have for 5.5 million Canadian households is an Ebenezer Scrooge for Canada's finance minister.
He seems to take great delight in patting his own back and lauding the efforts of his government for the way in which they were going to provide such a great number of goodies under the Christmas tree for the Canadian taxpayer, but one of the unfortunate omissions in his remarks is that there would be 5.5 million households who would receive absolutely nothing under that Christmas tree. Nothing is being offered them under these circumstances. Unfortunately, those 5.5 million householders are those who are most in need, who have the greatest problems in housing and in their financial position, and who are probably most subject to the extreme pressures of increased cost which is caused by the present government's program of high interest rates.
Therefore, it seems just a little contradictory, if I may say so, that this minister, who has prided himself on the get tough position, on becoming the realistic finance minister, is engaged

really in an exercise of Christmas fantasy and a vision of seeing plum puddings under the tree, and is not really addressing the serious problems of the Canadian economy. He is preparing to commit $2.5 million, of very scarce tax dollars, on a scheme that will have a very limited impact.
So once we cut through all the folderol, the down home Johnnie Carson routine that we have heard for the past hour, once we cut to the bone of what this measure is, we find it is a discriminatory tax measure that is based on bad economics, and is bad for housing. It will do very little to ease the kinds of problems that have to do with the increased cost of housing and increased pressure.
To take an opposite tack to that of the hon. minister opposite, we will try to deal with this matter with some degree of seriousness, because what is important to the Canadian public is to recognize that this is the first piece of legislation that has come before the House with the stamp of Toryism all over it. This is the first piece of legislation that gives you a very clear indication of the tone and character of what the Tory government is all about. What it translates into is discrimination and bad economic management.
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. That is the verdict that will really be the end result and end consequence of Bill C-20. That is why we are very pleased to have in front of us the fact that no longer can the Minister of Finance and his cohorts do their little jig and say it is not their responsibility, "it is the responsibility of those guys on the other side", and they are just rehashing old legislation. This is their baby and they will have to live with it.
I believe that when the Canadian public has finished looking at what was really said in the debate, and the facts and figures are brought forward, there will be dismay at what was brought about on May 22, because all those pretences, all those puffed up pretensions that they were going to provide for a realistic economic management, have been thrown out the window. All those pretensions have been placed on the altar of political expediency, have been swayed by the Svengali of the Senate, Mr. Murray, who told them, "You better look tough on this one, so get your act together".
Now we have a poor Minister of Finance who, in his heart of hearts, knows that this is a bad piece of legislation, and rather than getting up here and defending it on the basis of fact, has had to resort to fiction as a way of providing some form of support for what is obviously a bad and unworkable credit to the Canadian people.
What is interesting is the way in which this particular legislation has gone through an evolution with respect to what was brought out about a year ago, by the then leader of the Conservative party as being the cure for everything that ails the Canadian public. It was to cure lumbago. It was to get the economy going. It was a prized jewel in his concept of stimulative deficits. We do not hear that word very often any more.
November 19, 1979

That word has been wiped out of the vocabulary by hon. members opposite. They do not talk about stimulative deficits any more.


An hon. Member:: They only use it in the Senate.


Lloyd Axworthy: They only use it in the Senate, where the author exists. They have forgotten that peculiar little piece of election jingleism which they brought forward at that point in time. The reason was that it was simply a word; it had no economic substance to it. At that time the leader of the Conservative party promised that it would create thousands of jobs, that it was to get the economy going, and that it would enable people to purchase new houses. It was to do everything. It was the all-around panacea. It was little mommy Carter's cure. It was Carter's little liver pills. It was going to provide all the solutions. Just open the bottle and out it pours-until they get into the habit of actually having to do something.
If we are going to give some credit, give it to the Minister of Finance. He is making the best out of a bad case. At least he has the sense to know that the proposal put forward by Mr. Carter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: At least he knows the proposal put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) well over a year ago was unworkable and expensive. He knew that, and he was able to change it, based upon certain proposals put forward by our party and others. At least at that point in time he had not acquired the certain kind of arrogance which he has acquired in the past five weeks. At least in the summer months he was able to listen to some degree of wisdom and turn the pig's ear into a sow's ear. But it has still been left as that particular kind of bad program. He has not been able to refine it any further. We still have in front of us a mechanism which is not a silk purse by any means.
We should take a look at the objectives which Bill C-20 was put forward to accomplish. We were told that it would ease the burden of purchasing, meaning the cost of new homes. This evening the minister opposite spent a great deal of time extolling just how wonderful it would be. The only problem is that it has very little to say about the conditions we are now facing.
One of the tests of any government is its flexibility, its ability to adapt to new conditions and new problems, and not to become locked in rigidly to the past. What exists at the present point in time is an interest rate of 14% per cent, or perhaps 15 per cent by the time we reach the Christmas date about which the minister talks.
What has been the result of the 3 per cent to 4 per cent jump in interest rates? Close to one million householders have been eliminated from the housing market. They have not been added to the housing market; they have been eliminated from it. The grandiose picture we received last year of happy Canadian households marching into real estate offices to buy
Mortgage Tax Credit
new homes is being replaced by thousands of Canadian households marching in to see their lawyers because they are defaulting on their mortgages due to high interest rates. That is what we have witnessed, not a happy little group of Canadian families looking forward to their first opportunity of owning homes. Approximately 400,000 families must renegotiate their mortgages after the interest rate has risen by close to 4 per centage points.
What does that mean in actual dollar terms? On an average $50,000 mortgage, $1,800 will be added to the carrying costs. It far surpasses any benefit achieved under this program, even at the four-year mark. We are not facing a lot of new home owners; we are facing a lot more bankruptcies and defaults. That is what we are facing.
What has the government said in response when repeatedly queried in the House and before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs? We have asked the government what it intends to do about that problem. The minister in charge of housing, to his credit, said, "It is a problem but I do not have any money to do anything about it because the Minister of Finance is taking all my money to put into this tax credit program". The minister in charge of housing has a closer grasp on the situation. He is far more sensitive to what is going on. He was sort of wringing his hands before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and saying, "I know what has happened. I know the problem is there. I know people have to pay far more, but all my money has been spent. I have nothing left".
Now the Minister of Finance, sort of like little Joey Chipmunk, comes out and says, "I have all kinds of nuts to give away at Christmastime". The nuts he is giving away are the wherewithal which should be going to help families forced into bankruptcy and default. These families are receiving no assistance from the government. All the Tory government can offer them in return is, "Because of all these defaults we will have to get tougher in the law and start taking people to court". That is the only policy announcement we have heard. That is why this piece of legislation is an interesting example of how Tories deal with problems. Rather than responding to a real issue, rather than responding to something which is here and now, they are being locked into their own past and the grand words about the future which we heard from the Prime Minister. All the words are the same. They are the words which run through his speechwriter's hands.
Approximately three months ago a family trying to purchase a new home at a $60,000 mortgage level needed an income on par of about $24,000. Today the same family trying to buy the same home needs an income of close to $32,000. That is the result of Tory economic policy, those are the consequences we are facing. The minister rises and tries to bluff his way through the House by saying that somehow this will end and that there will be all kinds of new home owners. Simply, he is engaging in an exercise in delusion; simply, he is trying to fool Canadians. This jewel of Tory economic policy has turned into fool's gold. It has nothing to offer in those cases.

November 19, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit


An hon. Member:: Come to my riding and say that.


Lloyd Axworthy: If the hon. member wants me to come to his riding, I will ask him right now to issue an invitation. I will be there as soon as I can.


An hon. Member:: Your leader came there.


Lloyd Axworthy: Issue an invitation, get the meeting hall and I will be there. Let us do it next week. I have the time; you pay for the hall.


An hon. Member:: Come down and call my people fools.


Lloyd Axworthy: If the hon. member wants a meeting, he can hire the hall and I will be there. Perhaps he can be quiet for the rest of my remarks this evening and we can debate it in his constituency.
The fact of the matter is that we have proven and shown that this proposal does nothing to create new home owners. In fact in the last few months we have scared people away. Furthermore, when we talk about stimulating the economy, we can only double over in laughter at that one. The Minister of Finance, in his old standup routine, pulled out a statement from David Greenspan, who, he said, was a lawyer consultant. He said, "My God, the Liberals paid money to him and look what he had to say about how wonderful the scheme is".
I should like to read something said by a Tory consultant who had a few comments to make about the mortgage credit plan. I am referring to Mr. Larry Smith who is the analyst of the Tory government. He was just hired to examine CMHC. Do we know what he had to say? He said that the Tories have added a grotesque new twist, that if one saves up enough money to pay off one's mortgage-that if you stay in debt, that is good, because one can deduct the loan charges. But he said that it would have been far cheaper to provide outright government grants for would-be home owners to meet their down payments, rather than going through this whole exercise of a mortgage credit plan. Those comments were made by a Tory consultant to whom the government is paying good money to analyse its housing programs.
If Mr. Greenspan can be pulled out on the carpet for evidence, we can pull out Mr. Smith. Obviously the Tories felt he was good enough to examine their entire housing program. He said that the mortgage tax credit program put forward by the government is inefficient, does not make sense, and is bad economic policy. Either they should change their consultant, or start listening to him and getting proper value for their money. Their consultant is telling them what is wrong with the program.


An hon. Member:: You will take all the advice you can get.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will take all the advice I can get. The Minister of Finance, with great glee, was prepared to take advice from a Liberal. The only thing is that he chose the wrong Liberal from whom to take his advice. We are suggesting that now they have a newly minted consultant paid for by

them. They should follow their own advice and take some information from him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Also it is interesting that the Minister of Finance said that we will get a lot of jobs out of this, that it will be wonderful for the economy, and that it would be great. But one should look at the figures and read what the president of CMHC said: "In order to meet the demand this year, we will need 235,000 units of housing." Do you know what the expected projection is for this year? It is 170,000 units of housing, almost 60,000 short of what we are going to require. What a wonderful benefit this program has been.
Again it is the product of Tory policy, and again members from this side have been arguing since Parliament opened, saying that because of our high interest rates the housing market is in deep trouble. Builders are not building any more. They are simply not making the commitments. On doing a cross country interview and talking to members of HUDAC in every province, they indicated that housing starts again next spring will be down close to 20 per cent, and that we will fall far short of what we need.
What is far more drastic is that the rental market in Canada, the market that supplies accommodation for the young and the old, has already fallen 30 per cent this year and has come to a dead stop. When members of this House ask what the government is going to do about that, again the minister responsible for housing, a man for whom I have acquired great admiration, and also great sympathy, because of the job he has, says he knows this is a problem. He got up in the House on Thursday and said, "I admit the rental market is in a serious, grave situation but we have no proposals to offer."
The reason they do not have any proposal is because all the money is being gobbled up by that big turkey called the mortgage tax credit program. That is the big Christmas turkey the Canadian public is going to be given. We will not have any rental housing in Canada but we will have a mortgage tax credit program which only has benefit for 32 per cent of Canadians. You call that fair and equitable? Is that what we are to consider to be Tory programs and policies today-they propose to ignore the accommodation that is necessary for close to 40 per cent of Canadians for the sake of living up to one of Mr. Clark's silly campaign promises? Is that what we are to call good government?
It was interesting to note an article by one of the columnists the other day who said that the problem with the Prime Minister is that he has not stopped campaigning yet. He does not realize he is head of a government. He still thinks every-time he gets up on his feet he has to make another campaign speech. He wrote, "Isn't it about time he started recognizing that he has a country to govern, that he has to make some hard decisions, and that he has to establish some priorities? Is it not about time that he-"
November 19, 1979


An hon. Member:: At least he doesn't have to campaign for the leadership of his party.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 am not so sure, Mr. Speaker. It is no wonder there is no contest for leadership in the Conservative party, because there is no leader. They do not believe in leadership. The only leadership you get from the Conservative party is from Mr. Lougheed, Mr. Davis, Mr. Hatfield and Mr. Lyon. They run the Conservative party. All the Prime Minister does is carry their coffee for them. No wonder there is no leadership problem, because who would want to be a doorkeeper?
For goodness sake, Mr. Speaker, leadership is getting some motivation, having some direction and purpose. Who would want a job simply when you are there to sort of call the meetings and keep the notes? That is not leadership, so who wants it? The fact of the matter is chat leadership in this day and age in Canada is setting priorities, and what we have in front of us is a government that has gone the wrong way in setting its priorities.
You know the old story about "wrong-way Corrigan," the guy who got in his airplane heading for Los Angeles and ended up in Ireland. We have a good example of "wrong-way Cros-bie" and "wrong-way Clark." They are going the wrong way on economic policy. They do not know where they are headed.
Perhaps the most serious problem we have to face in these circumstances is the problem with the program we have in front of us, that is, that it is simply not equitable. It simply does not serve the people who need help. I would make a direct appeal to members opposite, those who profess their concern for those in need, simply to look at one substantial fact. Let us measure the housing need according to the percentage of income that must go to housing.
The fact of the matter is that on a survey done by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the government's own Crown corporation, printed in July of this year, it is pointed out that on average across Canada 28 per cent of renters must pay over 30 per cent of their income for housing, and only 12 per cent of home owners. When you look at the figures across Canada-Mr. Crosbie, the Minister of Finance, got up and said that the people of metropolitan Toronto and Victoria will be out in the streets dancing; the apartment dwellers are so happy about this program, he said, they are clapping their hands with glee-in the highrises, in downtown Toronto and English Bay. Well, I have some news for him. In my own city of Winnipeg 39 per cent of those who rent must pay over 30 per cent of their income for housing, and only 12 per cent of home owners. That is a disparity that should strike to the very marrow of this legislation.
Let us talk about Vancouver. It has 30 per cent of tenants who must pay over 30 per cent, and only 13 per cent of home owners in the same situation. Let us talk about Ontario. Let us look at London. Some 27 per cent of renters must pay 30 per cent of their income, and only 9 per cent of home owners. The case is obvious. If the analysis goes down to a simple fundamental question of need, then the argument is very clear. Who has the need?
Mortgage Tax Credit
The fact of the matter again is that needs even go deeper than that. Fifty per cent of senior citizens pay over 30 per cent of their income for rent. Fifty-one per cent of single parent families pay over 31 per cent, and 30 per cent of unattached individuals pay over 30 per cent. How are all these people being helped by the wonderful Tory credit plan? In what way have they been receiving assistance in those kinds of problems? How gleeful are they going to be at Christmastime when this House passes this legislation and they open up that tax return that Mr. Crosbie has presented us? They will ask what is in it for them. They will look at their tax return and say, "Where is my line so that I can deduct something, because I am the one who obviously has a need?" All they are going to find is a big fat zero, which again adds up to how Tories think about economics and how they think about the community. That is the kind of example we see before us.
We also have serious disparities when it comes to the age and sex of people, because what is also true is that a large number of home owners who are elderly will not receive any kind of benefit under this program. In the first year the amount is $62.50-alleluia! The government is talking about additional energy costs of $500 to $600. Again is that what we call Tory economics, upside down, topsy-turvy, that will give you $60 and take back $600, a ten to one deal? Boy, are the people at Christmastime going to be happy to hear about that one. The people who own those houses and do not have mortgages, which amounts to over two million households in this country, they are just going to be so happy with what you fellows have brought in for them! Boy, are they going to like that! That is just great for them.
The fact of the matter is that we add up again and again and again the fact that all kinds of Canadians are being discriminated against by this program.
What about the regional program? Again we have to look at who gets the benefits under this particular program. What is very clear is that provinces like the maritimes, where most of the homes are mortgage free, will receive something like 10 per cent less than the benefits in the province of Ontario. And Quebec which happens, by its own choice to have far more renters than home owners, will receive only 18 per cent even though it has 27 per cent of the population. Is that fair? Is that a contribution? We are trying to hold this country together by showing people they get treated equally, and that from region to region there is some sense of equal treatment.
We have a government that says actions will speak louder than words. The Prime Minister got up in this House all last week and said, "I am not going to go into Quebec and discuss federalism because my actions will speak louder than my words." We have his actions in front of us tonight. We have a tax bill that is going to discriminate substantially against the people of Quebec. Those are his actions to put against his words. We also have the maritimes and a province like my own province of Manitoba which will receive fewer benefits than their populations deserve.

November 19, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
While we are talking about those who deserve, I have heard the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Crombie), again a gentleman whom I admire and respect, make some statements in this House about the problems of the real core, the inner city people. I agree with the concern, but are they helped by this program? Are they going to get any assistance under this program? I suggest not, when 60 per cent or 70 per cent are renters who will receive, again under that Christmas tree, simply a piece of black coal. They are not going to receive any benefits under this program. So, let us cut through the illusion and delusion and the unreality of the Minister of Finance.
Let us cut the bombast and get down to real facts. If the government were trying to design a program that is measured against housing needs and against where the real pressures of increased costs are being felt, and if it were trying to develop a program that would respond to the present demands and imperatives of the 15 per cent mortgage rates, then this program has nothing to offer. It is bad economic management. The same amount of money could be used to get a better bang for the buck. The money could be reallocated to other priorities, and directed to where the real problems are. There is nothing that will give incentive to a first time home owner, a person renegotiating a mortgage, a renter, or an apartment owner.
We cannot take the Minister of Finance seriously, even if he tried to be serious, which he does not do very often. When we look at the facts on the matter, it has nothing to say.
Other than the problems associated with the fact that this program has nothing to do with helping housing, we should also look at whether or not it is a good economic package. I do not think there was any statement heard more often during the past election campaign from Tory members opposite than, "we are the efficient managers; we will really put the economic house in order; just watch us get there because we are really going to clean things up".
To show how responsible this Minister of Finance is, he is prepared to bring in a program which commits the Canadian taxpayer to a locked-in expenditure of $2.5 billion in four years, and $575 million this year, without even knowing where the money will come from. That is Tory economic policy. How can the minister expect members of this House to pass this legislation when he has not given us the foggiest notion, even Newfoundland the foggiest notion, of where the money is coming from? Is it coming from family allowances? Will he eliminate the index on pensions, or is he simply going to add that money to the deficit? It this going to be the additional Tory deficit that he is talking about? It is an act of sheer irresponsibility to bring in a fiscal measure and not give any indication or present anything in what he has said tonight on how he intends to pay for the measure.
The minister would like the members here to treat him seriously. He would like proper consideration of this bill. But the minister is not prepared to provide even the most common
[Mr. Axworthy.)
of courtesies to the Canadian taxpayer and say, "If you are going to get this benefit, this will be taxed in return". That is not an act of a minister of finance; that is the act of a member who is trying to play black magic and who is using smoke and mirrors, not economic tools. He has no responsibility in those circumstances.
What the Tories are really trying to do is blackmail this House. We have the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker), the Minister of Finance, and all their assistants getting up and saying, "That nasty opposition is going to obstruct this bill. We want it passed by Christmas." The government is not bringing its budget in until December 11. Why is the minister not prepared to tell us now how he will pay for this program? When will he start fessing up with the other side of the equation, that if you are going to spend the money you must show where it is coming from?
We cannot accept that kind of pig in a poke proposition. It is simply not good economics, and any member of this House who wants to have any credibility when he returns home at Christmas will not want to vote for this spending program of $600 million without even knowing where it is coming from. I am amazed that the Minister of Finance would try to pull this stunt off in this House tonight. We have been waiting to hear where the money is coming from.
Perhaps equally serious is the fact that when this minister talks about his economic management he is committing the cardinal sin of a minister of finance, which is to bring in a structural measure that will be permanent to deal with a cyclical problem. Why is this measure being introduced-to stimulate the economy? What will the economy be four years from now? The Minister of Finance does not know because even his crystal ball will not predict that. In fact some of the economists who have looked at this measure have said that we may be in a period of fairly heavy growth in four years and why would we be spending $2.5 billion-it is probably closer to $3 billion-at a time when the economy may be overheated?
The Minister of Finance is committing the major cardinal sin of committing money down the road when he does not know what the conditions will be. He does not even have a road map of where we are going. He is flying blind. He is doing his wrong-way Crosbie act. The minister is going in the opposite direction to where he has to go. We could accept it if he brought forward measures and said, "we have some housing problems in this country, inflation is going up and there is additional pressure, and I would like to bring in some measures this year to see what we can do about them. And if the problem is not solved, then we will take a look at it next year and the year after". But to make a commitment for four years down the road, God forbid!
When the Minister of Finance challenges us for an election, I think it would be in the best interest of the Canadian people to have a change of government so that at least there would be a government which is not committing that kind of hara-kiri with this country. That is what the minister is engaged in; he is foreclosing with hara-kiri.
November 19, 1979

What is even more of a problem is the fact that the minister is using discretionary income now which may be far more necessary for something else in later years. He is committing $3 billion that may be necessary for pension plans, urban transportation, or some other measure. That money will not be there then because this minister has foreclosed his mortgage. He has spent his money. He is taking out the moveable rule. He has obviously foreclosed his mortgage on a very shaky foundation.
What is maybe a more serious difficulty with this kind of measure is that it will divert scarce capital away from necessary projects into the area of housing, without knowing what our capital requirements will be. The Minister of Finance has said that the Americans love their plan and that they are delighted. On reading the study by the Brookings Institute, and I would be glad to send it to the minister, I learned from that learned institution that one of the problems with the American economy is that, as a consequence of the tax deductibility program, scarce capital was funnelled away from critical investments in productivity such as new machinery, engineering and energy, into a consumer item.
One of the reasons why the United States is falling somewhat back from other industrial areas like Japan and Western Germany is because it has had this tax credit program. That is a clear assessment by people who have analysed the American problem. This minister is castigating us for committing suicide when in fact he is condemning the economy to using up scarce capital from other critical areas four years down the road. Is that the kind of management the Canadian people can expect from this government for the next month or two while they are in power? Is this the kind of pride that they are taking in their ability, their intelligence and rationality, that they fly in the face of facts and in the face of reality?
They do not respond to problems, nor are they concerned about them. That is why this legislation is poor. It tells us a lot about how the Tories will govern. It tells us a good deal about the kind of economic programs that they are prepared to introduce.


An hon. Member:: The people will love them.


Lloyd Axworthy: We have probably heard the truth there, because from the mouths of babes comes wisdom.
The full hour taken by the Minister of Finance has been summed up in one sentence; it is a crass gimmick for votes. Now we know what the reason is. Let us push away all of the fancy economics and the aforementioned stimulants and get down to the reason, which is that they think they can worm their way into the hearts and minds of the middle-class Canadians by giving them something.


An hon. Member:: It really hurt when we announced that program.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, it does not. I have a lot more confidence in the Canadian taxpayers. I do not think that they are prepared to be hornswoggled. I have a great deal more trust in
Mortgage Tax Credit
their ability to see through the flim-flam, hogwash, and nonsense which we have heard tonight. There are alternatives.
One of the interesting omissions in the speech by the minister tonight is that he could not tell us what his other options were. He was so busy trying to do his cute routine, which he has obviously been practicising more than he practises his fiscal one-that he forgot to do what he should do as Minister of Finance and ask what his options and choices were, what different actions were open to him with the same amount of money.
In a document prepared for the government by officials of the Department of Finance and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, it was pointed out that if it was important for the government to go ahead with the tax credit program, it would be equally important to bring in a shelter allowance program or something for rental assistance. They said it could be phased in, and gave the economics of it. It would ultimately cost less than the program that is now before us. The rental allowance program could be available as part of the package.
The point that we would like to make in this debate is that with the same amount of money, with the same commitment and expenditures, we could get far better programs directed at far more important targets in the economy and housing, than those presented by the Minister of Finance.
We acknowledge that there are problems and pressures in those areas which are brought about by increased costs. Some relief is necessary.


An hon. Member:: That is a true statement.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is a true statement, and we will agree with it. What we are saying, however, is that it does not take a great deal of wit or intellect to realize what the problems are, but it takes imagination to find the best solution and use the money wisely and well. Our condemnation is that there are much better ways of spending this money. The government could have started where the real problem lies and could have provided something for rental assistance. They could have afforded an expenditure in the neighbourhood of $130 million to provide direct relief to the 50 per cent of senior citizens who pay over 30 per cent of their income for rent, and they could have provided the same amount of money for single parent families. For $120 million they could meet the enormous pressure of those increased rental costs.
Old Ebenezer Scrooge over there, who comes from Newfoundland, could have enriched his happy Christmas package for the people with the biggest problems.


An hon. Member:: He is not worried about a roof over his head.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. The hon. gentleman opposite likes to say how much he cares and is concerned. We know how much he cares and is concerned. As his first minister says,

November 19, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
actions speak louder than words. We have the actions in front of us in the legislation, so we can dispense with the words.
For a much smaller amount of money we could have provided assistance, and could have written down interest rates for first-time home owners. We could have brought 100,000 people on to the market, rather than scaring 900,000 away.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why didn't you do it in 16 years?


Lloyd Axworthy: I do not know where the Minister of Finance was for the last 16 years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where were you?


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


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 thought we made an agreement with the hon. member opposite, Mr. Speaker. I thought he was to keep quiet for the rest of my speech. I thought we had a bargain, but maybe he looks at bargains as every other Tory does-you break them after five minutes. If he has broken that one, I will come in anyway-I will get the Liberal candidate to invite me.
The fact is, we could have provided direct assistance to first-time home owners which would have provided the stimulus for an envelope of something like $60 million.
Hon. members opposite want to talk about expenditures of money. The poor minister responsible for housing does not get invited to the inner cabinet meetings to talk about the problems. In committee and in this House, he says he would love to do something about it but has not got the bucks. We just showed how to get the bucks. The Minister of Finance likes to say he is prepared to take recommendations and propositions. He has just received one-put some money into first time home owners; put some money into writing down interest rates for those who have to renegotiate their mortgages, give bridge financing so that people can get into the housing market or stay in it. The major beneficiaries of this program are not first time home owners but existing home owners who already have large mortgages at low interest rates.
The topsy-turvey equation that we are dealing with is that this amount of money is going to the people who need it least.


Mr. Fraleigh:: Come into my riding and say that.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will. We have received the invitation again, Mr. Speaker. He has just renewed the bargain. We will go back into his riding.
We think that with the same envelope-that magic word we now use-that same horizon of expenditures that we are talking about in terms of the initial $600 million going into $3 billion in four years' time, a tax credit program could have been introduced that would have been available for renters and home owners alike. With a little imagination and a little care and concern for the three-fifths of the Canadian population who receive nothing, we could have provided a basic residential

operating expense tax credit in the neighbourhood of $200 per year to provide for the increased expenditures they face through property taxation, and that they face through increases in maintenance costs and other carrying costs.
If that was the concern of the minister, and it is a legitimate concern and one that we share, a concern that cuts right across the housing market and right across every household, then he could have provided important relief and important cushioning, but on an equitable basis. Apparently that is not the Tory way of doing things. When it comes down to basic values and the basic proposition of who they think they are serving, then, as the Minister of Finance has said, they take the attitude, "We did not promise those renters anything so why should we do anything for them?" The point of dispute is that he had the capacity to do something for them. He had the opportunity to do something for them. He is making that kind of commitment. He could have aided and abetted his colleague, the minister responsible for housing, who is trying to do something for them.
Old Mr. Scrooge at Christmas time is not prepared to provide Christmas gifts for all Canadians. He is just doing it for those he thinks are his friends or, as the hon. gentleman from Kamloops said, just those people he thinks are going to vote for them. I have heard nothing more crass or more expedient in this House or in any other legislature, than that statement that "all we are doing is buying votes." That is the testimony that we have in front of us.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what we can really say is that this is bad economic policy and bad housing policy. In his first major test the Minister of Finance has come up with a clinker. I will take at face value his offer that what we should try to do is be constructive about what is going on and try to offer alternatives. God knows it is going to take a more charitable spirit than has been displayed so far to penetrate that deep fog and mist in which the Minister of Finance exists.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is badly in need of amendment. It needs to have its benefits extended; it must concentrate on the real problems in society; it must use its money more wisely, and it must have a much shorter-


John Carnell Crosbie: What about Greenspan?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance just waved at me with Mr. Greenspan's remarks. I will wave back with Mr. Smith's report. He is a Tory consultant who says the plan should be changed, revised, and thrown out. We could exchange consultants-they give us back ours, we give them back theirs, and it is an even trade. The fact is that their consultant says their program does not make sense, that it is too expensive, and that it is bad economics. I suggest they read their own consultant's report and stop reading Mr. Greenspan's. They should read the people they are giving money to, who give the same advice.
We should set the tone of this debate right now, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Finance thinks he is going to have a short, two-day stay here, I would suggest to him that he had better extend his reservations.
November 19, 1979

A lot of members on this side of the House have things to say about this bill. We want to make it a better bill and do something that really counts for Canadian home owners. We want to do something that really affects renters. We want to eliminate regional inequalities and to help the people in the maritimes whom the Minister of Finance and the minister responsible for housing purport to represent. They are getting snookered under this bill. We want to help the people in the big cities who are also getting snookered under this bill, and we want to help people in the other regions who receive little benefit under this bill.
Our dedication and commitment, Mr. Speaker, are to spend as much time as is necessary and do as much work as is necessary to help this government in its maiden effort, its virginal launching into the field of being a brand new government. It is obviously still in need of a great deal of assistance and, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to provide it.
Some hon. Mlembers: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the contribution of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie). I am reminded of the marginal notes in many a speech where it says "weak point, shout louder," because whenever the minister makes his speeches he is always shouting.


An hon. Member:: Louder, louder.


Bob Rae: 1 do not have to speak louder.
The minister knows full well that there is no economic justification for this measure, that there is no tax justification for this measure, that there is no justification for this policy as a housing policy, and as a social policy it is one of the most unfair, regressive, and selfish pieces of legislation that we have ever had brought before this House. If he is the man who is going to bring economic responsibility and fiscal restraint to Canada, where does this measure stand in this policy?
Where does this line up with the policy that we are going to have the lowest deficit in Canada's history, and that over night the Sll billion deficit is going to be wiped out? The minister knows that and we all know that the Minister knows that, and we all know that the minister fought tooth and nail to prevent this legislation from coming to the floor of this House. We know that he did not believe what he just said. The fact that he had to spend his whole speech reading from some recondite Liberal lawyer in Toronto whom no one has ever heard of, buried deep in the pages of the The Globe and Mail, in order to salvage this pathetic piece of legislation, is an indication of how desperate he has become. If the minister believes in this legislation, why does he not stand up?


An hon. Member:: Louder, Bob.


Bob Rae: Why does the minister not speak to us and speak directly to the Canadian people, and tell us how this fits directly into the policy of restraint? It has nothing to do with
Mortgage Tax Credit
restraint, and he knows it has nothing to do with restraint. It has nothing to do with providing help to those people in Canada who face a difficult economic situation, and who are facing a problem of meeting the rising cost of interest rates, housing and rent. This is not a bill that deals with that problem.
Another thing that has to be said-I know the minister has rejected it out of hand, but it has to be said-is that you went to the Canadian people on May 22, and I think there are many Canadians who voted for you because of the mortgage interest deduction scheme, but I think most Canadians are now asking themselves why they voted for you. I think those people who did, still cannot figure it out.
Many of them voted for you because you promised a stimulative deficit. Many of them voted for you because you promised lower interest rates. Now we have "Crazy Rates" as the Minister of Finance. He is giving figures for a 10 per cent mortgage. Mr. Speaker, if one goes to the bank today and asks for a 10 per cent mortgage, see how long the bank manager looks at you before he makes a phone call to the local hospital. The rates that are being charged now are 14 per cent, 14.5 per cent and 14.75 per cent, and every single benefit that you would have got back on May 22 has been more than wiped out.
The figures speak for themselves on this score. The figures show that you will get $3,750 over the four years. That is the total the minister himself quoted, namely, $3,750 in tax credits. Yet the impact of the 20 per cent rise in interest rates since May 22 has been to wipe that out entirely, and in fact has increased the cost of borrowing over a four or five-year period on a $50,000 mortgage to approximately $2,500 more than $3,750.
We have a government that gives and a government that taketh away. We have a government that bases its social policy on that old Billie Holiday song: "Them that's got, shall get; them that's not, shall not." So the Bible says, and it is still not news. "Papa may have; mama may have, but God bless the child who has its own." It is God bless the child who owns his home and the devil take everybody else. Those millions of Canadians who do not own a home or have a home, and those millions of Canadians who have paid off their mortgages, those millions of senior citizens who have paid off their mortgages, do not get the benefit from this particular scheme.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: It is all very well if you want to sacrifice people on an illusion of what they will be able to buy in the future at the same time you give them 15 per cent interest rates. If that is what the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is offering as a coherent economic and social policy to the Canadian people, then I wish him luck.
There has been much talk of the May 22 election. I simply want to talk about my own region. I am here as a representative of that region and it is of it that I want to speak. It is a diverse riding in the sense that there are many tenants in it. I would say about 20 per cent of the riding is made up of tenants

November 19, 1979
Adjournment Debate
who live in highrise apartments. Another 20 per cent is made up of people who live in housing which they rent. There are many people who have paid off their homes and there is a large number of young people who are buying homes at the extravagant interest rates which are being charged by the banks, at the instigation of the Liberal government up until May 22 and of the Tory government after May 22.
As a representative of that riding, I think that the mortgage interest deduction was one of the issues in the campaign. It was made an issue by my Conservative opponent. All I can say to him is: what kind of a policy is it where people on the same street, where people who are neighbours living cheek by jowl, some renters, some home owners, some have paid off their mortgages, some have not, get together at church meetings and talk about what the social policy of the government is, and we have this policy of organized selfishness which is put forward as a social policy by the Conservative party? We have said it before that it was in the 19th century that the Tories said in order to be able to vote one had to own property. That was the message of democracy that came forward from the Tory party in those days. Just as that was a travesty of the democratic principle, we have a travesty of economic democracy in this principle which is being put forward today as a basis for a tax credit.


Mr. McKinnon:: You are going back quite a way.


Bob Rae: They are telling us that in order to get a tax credit you have to own a home and be owing a mortgage. That is the qualification. So we have that old division created in our society between those people who own property and those people who do not own property. You cannot justify it as a social policy.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill S-3, an Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House that on March 29, 1972, the then minister of public works, the Hon. Jean-Hugues Dube, announced in Montreal, in the presence of the mayor of that city and the then minister of regional economic expansion, the Hon. Jean Marchand, the construction of a vast complex of office buildings for the civil servants of the Canadian government in Montreal. The complex was made up of three towers, which were to be built at an estimated cost of $100 million within the quadrilateral bounded by Dorchester, Lagau-chetiere, Jeanne-Mance and St-Urbain. The notice of expropriation was sent at that time, that is in March of 1972, to the 16 owners concerned in this project.
The decision of the Canadian government to built a huge federal building in that part of east Montreal was not reached without careful deliberation, and especially without consultation with the provincial and municipal authorities of the day. The decision to build in that particular spot was intended to move the heart of the downtown area slightly to the east of Montreal, and to integrate a federal presence in that most important area of social, cultural and economic buildings now located between Place des Arts and Place d'Armes in Montreal.
Of course, a lot has happened since 1972, especially when the construction plans of this building were finished around the end of 1973 and when construction of the complex should normally have started. This was just before the Olympic Games, Place Desjardins was not completed yet, there was a lot of construction activity in Montreal, and there were even fears that the Olympic facilities would not be completed in time for the games in 1976.
The Canadian government, therefore, had to postpone its project for building this government complex. It was decided to defer it until after the Olympics. After the games, after more consultation with those responsible, especially the municipal authorities, and following many representations made by various citizen groups, this government complex, which was supposed to have three towers and to be reserved for public servants, became the new project for the Guy Favreau complex which was designed for multiple uses. It was decided to replace the original project, which called for an office complex for public servants, by a project including one tower for offices and two other housing towers to allow for the reintegration in downtown Montreal of an active population willing not only to work, but also to reside in the centre of the city.
I therefore find it strange, now that this project has been announced and decided, that the plans are completed and that the foundations have nearly all been poured, that the Progressive Conservative government, right after its election, would

November 19, 1979

bring to a halt the work already under way. This enormous gaping hole in downtown Montreal is what 1 would call the hole of shame of the Progressive Conservative government, which has decided to commission a study from an eminent Progressive Conservative, the former president of the Progressive Conservative Party in Quebec, an engineer named Dupras. 1 find it strange that the government is willing to waste public funds by using, as the Minister of Supply and Services, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), has said so well, patronage in Quebec to reward certain Progressive Conservative friends by asking them to find out whether or not this project is useful.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Nielsen) knows quite well, even if he seemed to suggest the other day in parliamentary committee that the project was launched without any market study, that he does not have to ask a Progressive Conservative engineer to make a study to know that both provincial and municipal authorities want the Guy-Favreau complex to be built there as planned, that is, in the quadrilateral area bounded by Dorchester, Lagauchetiere, Jeanne-Mance and St-Urbain.
Everybody obviously knows that construction workers in Montreal are desperately looking for work. There is no major construction project now under way in Montreal. Finally, recent studies have shown that the vacancy rate in buildings in Montreal was at its lowest level. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, those are the many reasons fully justifying the Canadian government to undertake and complete the construction of such an important complex for the economic life of Montreal.


Erik Nielsen: I am surprised that the hon. member should raise this question again after the answer he was given when he first asked it in the House.
I was astonished on first taking over responsibility for the portfolio of Public Works to find that absolutely no studies had been done as to the need for office space in Montreal and that no studies had been carried out with regard to the economic feasibility of this particular project. So we are left with a hole in Montreal, a hole which says something symbolically about the country-perhaps it could be viewed as the one the previous administration got us into and left us in as a result of its caps-off economic policies. The fact is that no studies were completed.
A study is now under way. The hon. member criticizes me for selecting, as he put it, a member of the Conservative party for the conduct of this study, but 1 am sure if he is in touch with his political friends in Montreal a little more closely than he was in touch with his own department here-I am informed he was not even on the premises of the Tupper Building where the headquarters of the Department of Public Works is located-if he was, he would know that the firm selected consists of Mr. Dupras, a Conservative, and two other partners, Mr. Adjournment Debate
Ledoux and Mr. Primeau, both of whom are known Liberal supporters. That, at least, makes it two to one, with the Liberals in the majority. And as a matter of interest I am sure the hon. member, who I see smiling, is aware of the fact that both Messrs. Ledoux and Primeau are former Liberal workers for the hon. member for Blainville-Deux Montagnes (Mr. Fox) and-who else-the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). So here are two staunch Liberal party workers in a firm appointed to carry out the survey of the economic feasibility of the Guy Favreau complex.
Let me inform the hon. member that if there is economic justification, if there is a need for that project to go ahead, if the Government of Canada is justified in expending the taxpayers' money, it will go ahead. But if there is no need and the economic justification is not there-a position which should have been established by the previous administration by taking appropriate steps prior to deciding in 1972 it would go ahead with the project which it did not start until 1978-another decision will have to be taken on the matter.
The report is due by the end of this month. It will be studied and all the necessary considerations will be given with respect to the economic feasibility of the project. If those add up to a plus position, it will go ahead, but if the study indicates that it would be a waste of the taxpayers' dollars to go ahead with a project which was decided upon without adequate studies being conducted by the former administration, then, I am afraid, the people of Montreal will have to be prepared for a negative decision and will have to find some other way to put people in the construction industry in Montreal to work which will be productive, rather than to build a great edifice which will not be occupied, as the previous administration thought it might be but never took the trouble to find out whether it would be.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS-SETTLEMENT OF ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIM
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on November 12 I asked of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp) if he was going to cabinet shortly with the COPE settlement and if he would recommend approval of the agreement in principle signed by the previous Liberal government on October 31, 1978, or whether he would recommend changes or a postponement of the agreement. The final agreement was to be signed on October 31 of this year. Unfortunately, the minister did not answer my questions, nor has he clarified the issue for COPE which represents the 2,500 Inuvialuit in the Mackenzie Delta.
On October 31 the Inuvialuit, that is, the COPE people, issued a press release in which they said the following:
October 31, 1979 will be remembered as the day when the Honourable Jake Epp failed to meet the moral and legal obligations of Canada to northern native peoples.
On October 31, 1978, the Hon. Hugh Faulkner signed an agreement in principle with COPE respecting their aboriginal claims to land and resources for political and economic self-

November 19, 1979
Adjournment Debate
determination. Approximately 98 per cent of the 2,500 Inuvia-luit people, an overwhelming majority, voted in favour of the agreement in principle. Part of the agreement in principle was to sign a final agreement by October 31, 1979. What has happened since the Conservative victory? The federal negotiator has not met COPE since May 20. The minister has met COPE twice since his appointment but has not seriously dealt with the agreement and his concerns with the agreement.
Six months after the election the process is no further advanced. COPE negotiated in good faith with the previous government, but is becoming more and more concerned with the minister's refusal to negotiate. In fact COPE alleges that the minister is in breach of the provisions of the agreement. When I asked the minister if he would meet the COPE officers to resolve these differences, he said he was doing this on November 14, but, as 1 pointed out, the meeting on November 14 was with the counsel for COPE and he said he would be willing to meet with them at a further meeting. I understand that at the meeting with the lawyers on November 14 he did not give his views on the so-called alleged breaches, but he gave a commitment to submit to COPE documentation in writing of his concerns with the agreement by last Friday. Here it is Monday evening and 1 was told by COPE at a late hour this evening that they have not received those documents as promised.
How can negotiations be resumed when the minister continues to stall? Ail Indian and Inuit groups are watching the situation very closely, and the government's response and actions will seriously affect all other negotiations, the ITC Nunavut, the Dene claim, the counsel for Yukon Indians, plus specific claims. When I failed to get answers from the minister in the House of Commons, 1 put further questions to him in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on November 13. At that time the minister replied that the Conservative government was delaying its approval because, first, some native groups in the Northwest Territories had made recommendations to him about the claim. I think he had in mind the Dene and the Kititmeot Association, that is, the Inuit of the central Arctic. But as I mentioned to him, he could have signed a final settlement and made provision in it for these objections or fringe disagreements which could be settled by arbitration, as they were with the James Bay agreement, the Montagnais and other groups in the area. Also he said that he received representations from members of the House about the agreement. No doubt he was referring to the member for the western Arctic and the Yukon who are well known for their negative views respecting aboriginal claims.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: That is a fact. I heard the Minister of Public Works on Sunday morning, and it was quite revealing.

Finally the minister said that the COPE claim was being delayed while the cabinet reviewed the comprehensive claims policy. We still do not know how long that will last.
Many Canadians, including native groups, consider the policy of the present government to be a complete betrayal of their rights. The credibility of the minister and the department is in serious doubt. In committee the minister failed to tell us what he understood by an agreement in principle. Does he not feel bound by its provisions? Does he think the Government of Canada can set it aside unilaterally? Would he tolerate a native group taking the same unilateral action, if it just elected a new executive?
Today the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Penner) pointed out that the Yukon council, because of the new power given it by the minister, passed amendments to the game ordinance whereby virtually they have taken away the hunting and fishing rights of the people in the Mackenzie Delta in the northern Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Garbage.


William Warren Allmand: That is a fact. We did not receive any answers to that in the House today. We would like some answers to these questions. We would like to know what the minister considers to be an agreement in principle? Will he respect it? Will he get on with the final agreement in this case and not make us wait forever?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will try to outline once again to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) the situation with COPE. He indicated that a telex had been sent on October 31, that it was a black day, and that 1 have not signed a final agreement. I would suggest to him that he better look at the weather reports again because I received another telex the same day from a community in the Northwest Territories indicating it was a sunny day that I had not signed it. I think the hon. member better check a little closer.
I want to indicate to the hon. member that I had a meeting with the lawyers of COPE on Thursday last, as well as another member who has been representing them constantly, Mr. DeLurry. I indicated to the lawyers at that time my understanding of the COPE agreement and the interim arrangements which relate to the money to be paid by the Government of Canada at fixed periods and in fixed amounts, amounting to $10 million by 1981. Also I indicated that the lands which had been selected cannot be withdrawn or sold to another group. 1 asked them whether in the interim arrangements, which we regarded as contractual, the government at any time had breached the COPE agreement. Not only once, but a number of times the lawyer for COPE indicated that the Government of Canada had not breached the interim arrangements of the COPE agreement.


William Warren Allmand: That is not what they said in the press release.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I do not mind what they say in their press releases.
I am saying that I had a meeting with them. I know what he
November 19, 1979

said, and there were witnesses to that meeting. That is the first thing which should be understood.
Second, the member said that I have not indicated the disagreements to COPE. I met with COPE in Ottawa and in Inuvik. I met with their lawyers last week. As well, on October 26, 1 sent them a six page telex which outlined in detail the various areas where there was serious question about the possibility of coming to a final agreement if those were not clarified first.
When the member says to me that I have not outlined clearly to COPE some of the outstanding issues, I say in all sincerity that he is wrong, because I have done it, not only verbally in person here in Ottawa and in the Northwest Territories, but also in writing. I say to him that the government wants to settle land claims, but I say to him in all sincerity that there is no point in settling a land claim and having a final agreement until such time as the rights of all native people and non-natives alike are met in such a way that they can live in harmony in the Northwest Territories.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FOREIGN AID EXPENDITURES FOR COMING YEAR
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, tonight I must address a grave issue, the discrepancy between the aid of hollow rhetoric and real aid.
On November 6 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) for assurance that the $15 million aid commitment to Kampuchea, a commitment that we all fully support was not made at the expense of any existing aid programs provided by either the government or non-governmental organizations. I was shocked at her cool evasion of the question, at her flippant avoidance of what seems to be emerging as her policy on aid. It looks suspiciously like a policy of hypocrisy. I feel somewhat like Emile Zola penning his famous "J'accuse" article in pursuit of truth and justice for Louis Dreyfus.
No one would dispute the crying need for immediate and massive aid to Kampuchea. One million children are starving to death; in total, roughly 2.5 million people are near death, weakened by hunger and disease. All of Canada has been moved by their plight, and all of Canada is committed to the $15 million promised to relieve the tragedy that is unfolding in that country. But, what pride is there in knowing that the money to meet that commitment has been taken from previous commitments to other refugee relief efforts?
I understand that $2.5 million has been drawn from the food aid budget and another $2 million has come from the emergency fund. Is this true? I also have been told that a further $500,000 of the aid commitment to Kampuchea has been taken from budget moneys that had already been assigned to various non-governmental agencies' aid projects, projects that could include refugee assistance in other parts of the world.
The NGOs themselves do not know; they were not even consulted on the matter. All they know is that the money to
Adjournment Debate
back up previous commitments is no longer there. There is just the hollow shell of rhetoric, plus project work going on without the funds that were intended to pay for them, yet the Secretary of State for External Affairs had the gall to say on November 6:
I can assure the hon. member that the attention and the importance we shall be attaching to the work of the non-governmental organizations will increase, not decrease, in the years ahead.
Increase? How can it increase when it will be minus $500,000?
In repeating my question I would also like to ask about the last $10 million which has yet to be sent to Kampuchea. I understand that there is no new money left in CIDA's coffers to fulfil this commitment. Where, then, is the money to come from? What other program is the government planning to cut to satisfy the slasher, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens)?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the first part of the question 1 asked on November 6. Again I was treated to fancy political footwork rather than an honest answer to a genuine concern. I asked for assurances that Canada's aid expenditures this coming year would be adjusted for the inflation factor in Canada and around the world so that there would be no decrease in real aid given. I was told that "there will be no fewer dollars paid out next year than there has been this year". That is no answer; that is avoidance.
Every Canadian knows how much inflation has eaten into the real value of the dollar. Every Canadian can feel for the people of Zaire, struggling with a 112 per cent inflation rate this year, and the people of Ghana, struggling with an inflation rate some people have quoted as close to 150 per cent this year.
These are the people the hon. minister referred to in her maiden speech at the United Nations when she called for a recommitment to the basic human rights of "enough food, health care, education and shelter". "Problems of want must be attached directly and urgently in the 1980s", she said. I ask again, as we sit here within 50 days of the 1980s, is this government going to do its share by adjusting for the inflation rate in these struggling countries, plus adjusting for the Canadian inflation rate, and increasing its dollar commitment accordingly?
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I can have an answer to both of these questions; whether the facts I have cited are true about the money that has been taken to fulfil our commitment to Kampuchea, and whether in fact there is going to be a real increase in aid this coming year.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) on behalf of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Roche). I will try to confine my remarks to the questions raised by the hon. member.

November 19, 1979
Adjournment Debate
Let me first confirm the assurances given a few days ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) in this House that the over-all budget and aid program for the coming year will be no less in dollar terms than it is at the present. In fact, it will be higher. I am sure that the hon. member will agree that considering the difficult economic circumstances in which we find ourselves today we must exercise the utmost restraint in government spending, and no single program is exempt from restrictions.
However, I believe that the effectiveness of our aid program will not decrease in any way. On the contrary, the current environment will challenge our imagination and may very well lead to a more effective and better quality aid program. It will be our responsibility to ensure that every aid dollar spent does indeed reach its target and achieves its objectives fully, and that is to benefit the people for whom it was intended. I can assure this House that whatever new direction is given to our aid policy, the budgetary restrictions will not prevent us from responding generously to situations of emergency, as demonstrated by our recent pledge to refugees in and from Kampuchea, the emergency assistance extended to Dominica in the Caribbean, and the new food aid program to Bangladesh.
With respect to the non-governmental organizations, the importance the government attaches to them is to increase, not decrease, their activity, as suggested by the hon. member. I am pleased to inform this House that the preparation of the background documentation for the aid policy review process is now well advanced. In the near future consideration of the aid policy will be taken up by a parliamentary body, and there will be ample opportunity for members of this House to make their input to the orientation of the future aid policy. I am sure that the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam will make a very valuable contribution to this effort, and I look forward to her participation.


Pauline Jewett: Where is the $15 million coming from?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is still no answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: The
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Tuesday, November 20, 1979