1979-12-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Roger Simmons, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Burin-St. George's.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Roger Simmons, new member for the electoral district of Burin-St. George's, introduced by the right hon. Pierre Trudeau and Mr. William Rompkey.

Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Alexander Maryasin, a Soviet Jewish refusenik, has been trying to emigrate from the Soviet Union since 1972, that his relatives in Canada have been trying to obtain an exit visa for eight years for him and his family, and that his detention violates the Soviet constitution and international law, specifically human rights decisions and the Helsinki Agreements, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming):
That this House urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to petition the government of the Soviet Union to speedily approve an exit visa and secure the movement of Mr. Maryasin and his wife and daughter to Canada, consistent with both Canada's commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms and family reunification.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will also agree with this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I move, seconded by the hon. Privy Councillor from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the estimates of the Treasury Board for the fiscal year 1979-80 having been defeated by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, leaving the Treasury Board with no funds with which to operate, this House resolves that the President of the Treasury Board be suspended.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recently announced increase in unemployment statistics for October, the representations by Indian bands and municipalities and a resolution unanimously passed by the six district welfare boards of northern Ontario asking the federal government to reconsider the termination of the Canada Works program, which has been providing needed employment in northern and rural areas of Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Penner):
That this House urges the Minister of Employment and Immigration to establish, on an urgent basis, a program to provide direct employment in northern and rural areas of Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

December 5, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRICATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent necessity to my constituency of Leeds-Grenville concerning threats made by certain government officials against at least two of the three remaining cheddar cheese producers in that part of Ontario within the last week. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That whereas the Plum Hollow and Forfar cheese factories, two producers of cheddar cheese in Leeds-Grenville. have been ordered to immediately undergo the high cost of conversion to the metric system and to commence immediately bilingual labelling of prepackaged products or face removal of their products from store shelves, the government immediately order a stoppage in such actions in view of the reportedly announced decision that such things have already been set back to January 1, 1981, by the government; and, further and finally, that nothing be done until completion of the examination of the metric system by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA REQUEST GOVERNMENT ABANDON PLANS FOR ALTERING NATURE OF CORPORATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 1 would like to move the following motion. In view of representations made by the independent petroleum marketers of Ontario, that without Petro-Canada their future is threatened by the predatory practices of the multinational oil companies operating in Canada, and given the independents' desire to maintain Petro-Canada as it now is, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House of Commons instruct the government to abandon any plans to alter the present nature of Petro-Canada as a viable Crown corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only upon unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Speaker.1


NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Therese Kiilens (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the negative reply given yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Pierre Trudeau, on the referendum, considering that we are living in a kind of euphoria following the victories of the federalist forces in the last seven byelections in Quebec, considering that we Quebec members are in a position to say to the House that we should not conclude, as a result of those victories, that federalism is no longer jeopardized, considering that Mr. Rene Levesque will have interpreted-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should put the motion.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Leduc):
That the Prime Minister include immediately that item on the agenda of his cabinet and suggest to the House another alternative to Bill C'-9 on the referendum.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on a day when he certainly should be in the House, with the developments we have seen in the last 24 hours, I will address my question to the Prime Minister. On Friday last, the Prime Minister at his press conference was asked how much consideration had been given to taking steps in case our energy supply from Iran might be cut off. The Prime Minister answered:
I suppose I have to say frankly, none.
December 5, 1979

Yesterday, we heard the very distressing news that Gulf Oil had been cut off from its supplies from Iran, this meaning that about 75 per cent of the oil imported into Canada from Iran will not be imported and we will be losing two critical shipments of oil into Canada this winter.
My question to the Prime Minister is, in view of the government's unconscionable neglect of the immediate needs of eastern Canadians for home heating fuel and gasoline this winter, can the Prime Minister assure the House that the location of alternative oil supplies will become an immediate priority of this government? In particular, will he immediately request Petro-Canada to negotiate for emergency supplies from Venezuela, from Mexico and from any other sources possible in the world, and use our national oil company to replace the loss that we have known because of the inaction of the government?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, indicate that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is in Nova Scotia today announcing the-


An hon. Member:: Bad news.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -determination of this government to move forward in developing alternate energy sources with the government of Nova Scotia so as to end an era of unconscionable neglect of the needs of maritime Canadians by the former government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should also draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. member for Outremont is calling for extra action to get oil from a country with regard to which his leader yesterday said Canada should entertain boycotts.


Mr. Trudeau:: I did not.


Charles Joseph Clark: With regard to the substance of the problem, I can say two things: first of all, that the shortages that might exist in Canada this year underline dramatically the failure of the former government to plan ahead and to bring forward the kind of energy self-sufficiency policies that would allow Canada to rely upon Canadian sources of supply. Second, I can indicate to one of the several spokesmen of the Liberal party on petroleum matters that the government is involved, and has been for some time, in discussions with other countries regarding the possibility of supplies. The government is in consultation now with Gulf and with other companies, and there is some expectation that Gulf will be able to obtain an alternate cargo to replace the cargo that was to arrive from Iran in February of 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I have no doubt people in eastern Canada will be impressed by the announcement of "pie in the sky" prom-
Oral Questions
ised for 1985, but they are more concerned about getting oil this winter. I would remind the Prime Minister that at no time when we were the government was eastern Canada or any other part of Canada short of gas and oil.
The minister of energy said the other day that he had written to the multinational oil companies concerning the possibility of diversion, this winter in particular, and the present situation of short supply is obviously an invitation to those companies to raise prices and divert supplies. What answer has the government received from the oil companies concerning the possibility of diversion to more profitable markets? If answers have been received, will they be tabled in the House immediately?


Charles Joseph Clark: Answers have been received. They indicate there is no danger of diversion. I will consult with the minister to determine whether or not the full length of the answers can be diverted-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -can be placed before the House. If it is not possible, for reasons of industrial confidence, to table those documents, I am quite sure it would be agreeable to the minister, if it would be agreeable to the companies, that we could make them available on a confidential basis to the opposition spokesman on energy matters who is a Privy Councillor. I would point out that any shortage of energy supplies in Canada this year is the result of a shortage of decisions by the former government when they were in a position to do something about it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The latest Gallup poll shows that Canadians ceased to believe those stories a long while ago. They know who is responsible for the present situation-the present government. The present supply position is an invitation to companies to raise prices. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said he would be in touch with the president of Imperial Oil, a good old friend-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Some hon. Members:: Cheap.


Marc Lalonde: I see the spokesmen for Imperial Oil are at work again on the other side. My question to the Prime Minister is simple: What reason did Imperial Oil give for increasing prices as they did in the past two days, and was he able to convince that company to reduce those prices to their former level-which was quite high enough, thank you very much.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister of energy will be meeting on Friday with the president of Imperial Oil. We shall be requesting Imperial Oil to present us with full details to justify their price increases, if they can justify them. If the details of their presentation do not justify those price increases, we will suggest to Imperial Oil that the increases be reconsidered.

December 5, 1979
Oral Questions
I should again make it clear to the House and to the country that there is no immediate answer today to a possible oil supply shortage problem which was caused by the failure of the former government over ten years to put plans in place which would provide energy self-sufficiency for the country. This is not a problem which was created six months ago. This is a problem which was created in the last ten years, and it will be resolved only if there is support in the House for the kind of measures we are introducing which will allow Canada to be in a position to supply our needs from our own resources, rather than following the Liberal position of leaving Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario dependent on unstable, unreliable foreign sources.


PLANS TO DEAL WITH POSSIBLE OIL SHORTAGES THIS WINTER
Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: I, too, would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1 say to him that whatever the origin, or how old the problem is, what the people of eastern Canada would like to know is what will be done this winter. It will be cold comfort otherwise. My questions are directed toward that end.
In light of the announcement of the Iranian cutoff to Gulf Oil, and in light of the numerous reports that the domestic oil supply situation, especially in eastern Canada, has been steadily worsening, is the Prime Minister still persisting in saying that domestic oil supplies for this winter are, in the words of his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-and I quote- "tight but manageable"; or is the Prime Minister now finally prepared to admit to the very real prospect of shortages this winter? Is the Prime Minister prepared to admit, now, to the very real prospect of shortages this winter and to the need to have a plan in place to deal with these shortages?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me, first of ail, welcome the new member to his place in the House. I do that on behalf of members of ail parties. Second, let me say that 1 am sure that he, as an Atlantic Canadian, will not share the view of the hon. member for Outremont-


An hon. Member:: He does.


Charles Joseph Clark: -that a policy being announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to look at the possibility of contributing to the energy security of Atlantic Canada through the use of tidal power is, to quote the hon. member for Outremont, "pie in the sky". That might be a central Canadian attitude; it is certainly not an Atlantic Canadian attitude.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 can indicate to the hon. member that, as I have said, Gulf is reasonably confident that it can make up its supplies from other than Iranian sources. We have received an indication that no diversions are expected from other companies supplying Canada. We are looking now for other supplies which might be available on an emergency basis.
To come to the last question, the National Energy Board has now, as a result of increased consumption in Canada and some other activities, come to the conclusion that there may be limited shortages this winter in Canada. As a consequence of that, it is our intention to appoint members to the Energy Supplies Allocation Board by the end of next week. We very much regret that the failure to plan ahead on the part of the former government has left Canada exposed, particularly, Atlantic Canadians.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to the Prime Minister, I am not sure he got the message as to the point of the question. It is to find out if he realizes that there is a problem, a concern in eastern Canada about oil supplies. I will try it one more way for him.
In view of the unthinkable hardship that the unplanned-for oil shortages will mean for Canadians-and, again, particularly eastern Canadians and those in the Atlantic provinces-is the Prime Minister prepared to stick by his latest commitment made just moments ago? I understand he made one in the House on November 6, albeit somewhat under duress at the time; but he made another one in the last few moments, that the Energy Supplies Allocation Board will be appointed in the next week. Do we have the firm undertaking of the Prime Minister now that that will indeed be the case, or will he renege as he did on his earlier promises?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 realize precisely the problem which exists in Atlantic Canada. The problem in Atlantic Canada is that the people of that region have been left by the Liberals to rely upon Iran rather than being put into a position where Canadian consumers can be relying upon Canadian supplies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If there are shortages anywhere in Canada this winter, those shortages will be a direct result of the failure of the former government to plan ahead and to put in place an energy self-sufficiency policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are determined to stop Canada's reliance upon the Irans of the world, and to build a policy of Canadian self-sufficiency. That is the policy we are following. With regard to the problems caused by the former government, they have to be addressed by this government now. I repeat that it is the determination of the government to put the board into
December 5, 1979

place by at least the end of next week, as I indicated a moment ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot help but point out to the House at this point that, as a result of a combination of long questions and long answers, we have used 15 minutes to ask two questions, which I think is a modern record for longevity.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question will be short and to the point. Yesterday, the president of Chrysler International met with members of the cabinet to discuss the future of the Chrysler Corporation in Canada. Could the Prime Minister tell the House the government's point of view and the basic principles that are involved in these negotiations? More specifically, will he tell the House to what degree, if any, an agreement between Chrysler of Canada and the Government of Canada is dependent upon an agreement between Chrysler and the government of the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me answer very briefly. We do not intend to make any agreement or any announcement as to an agreement until we know the nature of the agreement made between the U.S. government and Chrysler in the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: Precisely along that line, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister the following question: Given the need, not only to maintain existing jobs in the Chrysler facilities here in Canada but also to obtain future jobs for Chrysler, would the Prime Minister tell the House why the Government of Canada could not, now, enter into an agreement with the Chrysler Corporation under certain conditions, one of them being the continuing economic viability of the corporation internationally, instead of waiting until this important Canadian matter is settled in the U.S.A.?


Charles Joseph Clark: The question at issue in the United States is sufficiently central to any decision that might be made with regard to the engagements entered into by the Government of Canada that we need to know the details and the implications of those decisions before we can make policies respecting an agreement between the Government of Canada and Chrysler of Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question which concerns the over-all nature of the package that the government is negotiating with the Chrysler Corporation. Would the Prime Minister assure the House that when an agreement is reached-if it is reached, and one hopes it will be-between the Government of Canada and Chrysler Corporation, it will pertain to all aspects of the industry, parts production, research and development, and assembly operations in Canada?
Oral Questions
Second, will he assure the House that if other than financial guarantees are to be offered by the Government of Canada- and I am thinking of cash-in return for that cash, the people of Canada will get equity participation in Chrysler?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for International Trade has reported frequently to the House that we are looking at a wide range of matters, including the impact on parts manufacturers and other questions in relation to this matter. I think it would be premature, at the least, for me to try to signal to the leader of the NDP the contents of an agreement which is not yet in the final stages of negotiation. I simply am not in a position to do that at this stage.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Armand Caouette (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I should like to put my question to the Prime Minister. With regard to the policy of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, could the Prime Minister confirm whether the department intends to make certain changes to the special region of Montreal and if so what are those changes and when will they be implemented?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of State for Economic Development intend to announce today in Montreal a policy aimed at altering the implementation of the DREE arrangements for the Montreal and Outaouais regions.


CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that his minister is away, could he make this announcement and also advise the House whether these changes will affect the Outaouais and northwestern Quebec regions?


Charles Joseph Clark: I shall reply concerning the Outaouais and Montreal regions, Mr. Speaker. Over the four-year period of the program, DREE intend to support at least 500 projects in the region. We hope that these projects will generate nearly $500 million in investments and create some 29,000 permanent new jobs.

December 5, 1979
Oral Questions


REQUEST STATEMENTS BE MADE IN HOUSE BEFORE BEING MADE OUTSIDE
Hon. Pierre De Bane (Matapedia-Matane):: In the opinion of the right hon. Prime Minister who would like to restore the importance of Parliament, is it not improper to have three senior cabinet ministers in Montreal this afternoon to announce that new designation for both the Ottawa and the Montreal regions without giving the House of Commons details of the new changes which will be announced directly in Montreal?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to take the time of the House of Commons to make such announcements, as the hon. member will certainly understand. We have always tried to give Parliament priority for announcements, and I think that a positive change in attitude toward Parliament has been expressed by the government. But to deal specifically with the question raised by the hon. member, the announcement will be made later today in Montreal, at three o'clock, I think.
On the questions asked by the hon. member for Abitibi, 1 had the opportunity, two or three minutes ago, to announce the details here in the House of Commons before an announcement is made outside the House.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. John C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and preface it by saying that I am really amazed, and in wonderment, at his inadequate answer to the Leader of the NDP, coming from someone who has proposed openness of government over many years.
We on this side-and, no doubt, the NDP-have had to learn about Chrysler through evidence put before the U.S. Congress. May I put this proposition to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the Chrysler negotiations, in terms of the maintenance of 3,000 jobs in Canada and the conversion in Canada from V-8 to V-6 engines, and the fact that we might have light-bodied, fuel-efficient trucks in Canada, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he would be in favour of indicating, at least in principle, that the Canadian government looks favourably upon giving assistance to Chrysler in order to help the matter go to the United States Congress?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as we have demonstrated by the introduction, for example, of the freedom of information bill-which the former government would never have introduced-and by a number of other actions, we are certainly prepared to be open with the House of Commons. The question posed by the Leader of the NDP, and repeated by the hon. member for Hamilton East, had to

do with whether or not we would declare the details of an agreement that has not been made. Of course we would not. We cannot, because the agreement has not been made.
As I indicated, in what 1 think were clear terms, to the Leader of the NDP, the decisions that are at issue in the United States are sufficiently central to Canadian decisions that we will not be able to make that kind of announcement in Canada until there has been some indication of the agreement in the United States. The hon. member has asked me a question regarding our attitude in principle. I can indicate, in principle, that if there is an arrangement that would be beneficial to Canada and to Chrysler, we would be prepared to contemplate it.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was in the House, I believe, yesterday when the Minister of State for International Trade indicated that the government was prepared, in negotiation with Chrysler, to consider any one of several options. One was grants, one was subsidies, and one was Canadian equity participation in Chrysler Canada. His minister in the other place, Senator de Cotret, indicated in a press conference yesterday that he was prepared to consider, and saw likely, subsidies or grants but unlikely Canadian equity participation. I feel this is a very important subject for Canadian guarantees.
1 am asking the Prime Minister if a study came out of his government where privatization is precluding the government from considering Canadian equity participation in any arrangement entered into with Chrysler Canada. Further, would the Prime Minister be prepared to consider some other innovative policies with respect to Chrysler and, 1 put to him, Canadian employee participation in the ownership of Chrysler as well as Canadian employees on the board of directors?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of State for International Trade indicated in the House the other day, the question of equity participation is among the options being considered. When we indicate the options being considered, we will not, until we are further along in the negotiations, be able to indicate how seriously they will be considered in a particular case.
The hon. member has asked whether the policy of this government to return to the private sector those Crown operations which can be more effectively carried out in the private sector would preclude us from considering equity participation. Of course, the answer is no, that it would not. Concerning the question of other innovative ideas, 1 will discuss with the Minister of State for International Trade and his colleagues whether it would be viable for us to consider the possibility of employer participation.


Some hon. Members:: "Employee."
December 5, 1979


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed, if the hon. member for Hamilton East discovers any other innovative ideas, we would be prepared to consider them also.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In an article in Canadian Aviation magazine, the minister indicated that he was ready to make a decision on the sale of Nordair to one of the bidders, which includes Eastern Provincial Airways. Would the minister indicate whether the EPA proposal is being given active consideration, and would he also indicate what other bids are under consideration and when a final decision will be made?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the disposal of Nordair is currently a matter which is being considered by cabinet. 1 expect a decision very soon.


INFRASTRUCTURE TO ALLOCATE OIL SUPPLIES IN EVENT OF SHORTAGE THIS WINTER
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the fragile situation with home heating oil this winter.
The Prime Minister announced that he will set up the emergency board, but that is only the first step. In light of the admission by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in committee the other day, that the National Energy Board figures on supply are at least one month behind, the reports by National Energy Board officials yesterday indicating that they are very concerned about the world supply, and the fact that Ontario refineries have been underestimating the oil demand for the province, can the Prime Minister assure us that the necessary infrastructure is now in place so that the government can react quickly to allocating oil supplies in case there is a shortage and will be able to guarantee that Canadian homes and industry will not be without heat this winter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has been consulting very actively over the last couple of weeks, and longer than that, regarding nominations for the Energy Supplies Allocation Board from the provinces, from consumer groups and from others. We expect to have all of those in and to be in a position to act by the end of next week.
Oral Questions
Also, we would expect to have in place such infrastructure as would be necessary, should it be decided that there is an emergency of the kind that is necessary to activate the powers associated with the board. On the basis of evidence now before us, we do not anticipate having to declare that emergency in the immediately foreseeable future.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the one part which is still very worrisome is that, according to the timetable, it takes 60 days to implement an allocations system. Given the time lag with any of these figures, 1 am afraid we may not have that guarantee which the Prime Minister thinks is there. By way of a final question, can the Prime Minister update us on the status of the negotiations with Venezuela and Mexico about securing additional oil supplies, given the fact that the chairman of Petro-Canada said in committee last week that his company has been inactive in pursuing these negotiations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the 60-day provision is also a matter of concern to the government. It is precisely for that reason that we are moving early to put the board into place and to establish such infrastructure as may be possible to put in place, prior to any action having to be taken. We expect that those acts of foresight will allow us to reduce the lead time to which the hon. member referred.
If I may come to the second part of his question, there are active negotiations and active discussions now with Venezuelan and Mexican officials. The minister himself has been directly involved. It has been our view that it would be more effective to use intermediaries other than Petro-Canada.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH MEXICO FOR OIL SUPPLY
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on that same matter with regard to the negotiations with Mexico. In view of the fact that as of May there was an initialed agreement with Mexico providing for the sale of 50,000 barrels a day in 1980, and 100,000 barrels a day in 1981, to Canada, that that agreement simply awaited the planned arrival in Canada of the President of Mexico, for final ratification and announcement, that the price between Canada and Mexico was at world prices and not spot prices, that I am informed- of which I would like to have confirmation and explanation- that the only contact with Mexico on that agreement since the election is a message to scratch the word "Petro-Canada" from the agreement, and that there have been no further serious negotiations of any substance whatsoever, can the Prime Minister confirm and explain the neglect, in the face of a potential shortage of oil with which we are all dealing right now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the information of the hon. member regarding the contact with Mexico is false. There have been a number of contacts in relation to a Canada-Mexico oil agreement, including conver-

December 5, 1979
Oral Questions
sations involving the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada and the foreign minister of Mexico regarding that arrangement. It is our expectation and our hope that it will be possible for that negotiation to be concluded at or before the visit to Canada of the President of Mexico, which we expect will occur some time in the spring.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question relating to the Prime Minister's final comment. Would the Prime Minister explain to the House, again based on information which 1 have been given, that there has been little or no contact with the President of Mexico to re-invite or reconfirm his invitation to Canada which was postponed, understandably, during the election period? Also, the Prime Minister might explain or confirm that there is a serious deterioration, as a result of this inept performance by this government vis-a-vis Mexico, regarding relations between those two countries which are so important to both countries?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can only suggest to the hon. member that he find a new source of information, because the two pieces of information he has put forward in the House this afternoon are categorically false. There have been extensive conversations involving Canada and Mexico in relation to the visit of the president. It is our expectation that the very good relations between the two countries will continue and, indeed, be improved by the president's visit here. I would suggest to the hon. member very seriously, because I know his respect for the House and for the truth, that he find a new source of information.

[ Translation]


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the minister of patronage, 1 would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On behalf of the workers, and especially of the unemployed from the Lauzon Shipyards and from Marine Industries, and on behalf of the unemployed in general in Canada, I want to say to him that these people are fed up with promises and meetings. 1 need only remind the Prime Minister of the promises he himself made in Levis where about 30 people came to see him. He met the president of the Lauzon shipyard workers and made a great many promises at that time.
1 would, therefore, like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in light of the new federalism he was promoting during last weekend's convention in Quebec City, the province of Quebec will be getting some of the $150 million in contracts announced by the previous government. More than three-quarters of those contracts have already been awarded in other

provinces. Are there any left for Quebec? In particular, are there any-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: For the contract, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Terrebonne.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Could he tell the House whether decisions have been made to remedy the difficult and even critical situation with regard to federal meat inspection in Quebec, a situation resulting from a shortage of qualified staff and an increasing demand for services from Quebec businesses?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question and 1 appreciate his representations on this very important matter over the last couple of weeks. I am in a position today to indicate to the hon. member and to the House that a meeting has been scheduled, and will be held within the next two weeks, between the assistant deputy minister in charge of meat inspection in my department and his Quebec counterpart.
We are very confident that we will be able to fulfil the need for federal inspectors at Quebec plants from now until January I. As of January 1, we will be in a better situation to have additional people available to carry out meat inspection in the plants of Quebec. On April 1, 1980, with the co-operation of my cabinet colleagues and, particularly, with the co-operation of the President of the Treasury Board, there will be 31 new inspectors brought on staff. That should solve our difficulties.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL SOON ANNOUNCE SUBSIDY FOR EASTERN CANADA POTATO GROWERS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to revert to a question I asked the Minister of Agriculture 17 days ago exactly. I should like to know whether he has had the opportunity to look into a request for subsidies on behalf of eastern Canada potato growers, whether he has made a personal decision in this regard and whether the Treasury Board has come to a decision. If so, when does the minister intend to make a public announcement?

December 5, 1979


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, when I responded to this same question some 17 days ago, it appeared that we would be in a position to proceed with the application of the Treasury Board. However, in the interim new information has come to light and we have had to recalculate that proposal. The recalculation should be completed within a matter of days, whereupon 1 will be moving forward to Treasury Board.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Premier of Newfoundland yesterday issued a statement expressing his very strong concern that the minister has opened up the northern fishery to factory freezer-trawlers to operate off Newfoundland.
Has the minister examined the statement of Mr. Peckford and, if so, what is his response to his very real concern that these developments, if not stopped, will seriously prevent the inshore and nearshore cod fishery from recovering to its full potential, as well as depriving many seasonal fish plants of much needed employment opportunities?


Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, 1 want to say to the hon. member, and through him to the premier, that there is no intention of opening up the northern cod stocks or any cod stocks to factory freezer-trawlers. We will not permit processing at sea for any traditional groundfish species. However, we are permitting the replacement of existing trawlers by freezer-trawlers. It is a policy which is permitted under the existing regulations. In effect, what we are doing is ending the uncertainty which was created by the two years of indecision of my hon. friends sitting opposite.
In so far as the future of that stock is concerned, the fears of the premier are quite groundless. For example, for this year, 92 per cent of that particular cod stock will be landed at Newfoundland plants. We are planning to increase the inshore TAC for Newfoundland for next year.


ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY-ALLEGED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL POSITIONS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Because of the negative response to the announcement by the minister with respect to inshore fisheries and, more particularly, with respect to his recent statement on Atlantic salmon, could the minister explain to the House the difference between his position and the position of the minister of natural resources for the province of New Brunswick? Mr. Bird
Oral Questions
indicated over the weekend that he completely disagreed with the position taken by the federal Minister of Fisheries on the Atlantic salmon fishery of New Brunswick.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, and indeed I have been told, that the salmon policy which I announced last week has the support of the government of New Brunswick. That is a situation to which my hon. friend is not accustomed and, hence, he cannot understand it. That position is supported by the government of New Brunswick. 1 have no problem whatsoever stating to the House that the steps we took had the full co-operation, after consultation, of the government. Both parties were aware that the steps taken had the conservation of that threatened and endangered species in mind, as well as a meaningful enhancement program to allow the stock to grow.


FREEZER-TRAWLER POLICY
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the question of the hon. member for Humbert-Port au Port-St. Barbe. It involves quoting from yesterday's press release of the Premier of Newfoundland, the like of which we have not seen since the debate on Term 29. 1 direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Premier of Newfoundland said:
Implementation of Ottawa's freezer-trawler policy would be an outright betrayal by the federal government of this province to mainland corporate interests-
He went on to say that the present government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question, he should put it forthwith.


Bill Rompkey: Does this gap that is widening between the federal government and the province of Newfoundland not call into jeopardy all future discussions between the two governments, and does the Prime Minister not agree that this is not simply a minor irritation but, indeed, an open sore on the fresh face of federalism?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 would certainly hope that it does not call into question all future discussions on other questions with the government of Newfoundland. The Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated the position of the Government of Canada in a telex to the premier that has been made public. It indicates the determination of the Government of Canada to exercise its federal jurisdiction in a way that will recognize the historic interest of Newfoundland cod fishermen in the northern cod stock.
It also recognizes that both federal jurisdiction and the participation in fishing and harvesting that stock by fishermen from other parts of Canada is an essential element of any national policy. That is the position indicated by the Canadian minister, and that is the position of the Canadian government.

December 5, 1979
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS


APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND ADDITIONAL STAFF OF CRTC
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Recently we heard the acting chairman of the CRTC, and those of us who were present got the impression that his workload is very heavy. Can the minister tell us when he will appoint a chairman to the CRTC? This gentleman does have a tremendous workload, particularly due to the fact that the minister is more or less saddling him with new hearings on pay television which are not necessary because such hearings have already been held. When does the minister intend to give this man the staff which he needs in order to fulfil his functions?


Hon. David MacDonald (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the question is an important one. We have engaged in a rather wide-ranging process of consultation in order to ensure that, not only in the case of the new chairman to be appointed but in the case of the other two members to be appointed, we will have outstanding people to provide service to a rather important institution in regard to telecommunications policy for this country.

Please allow me, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the House to the presence in your gallery of a woman of great importance to the cultural life of Canada, Mrs. Antonine Maillet, who recently was awarded the Prix Goncourt of France.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the congenial Minister of the Environment. It concerns two extremely important projects at either end of the country, namely, the proposed flooding of 12,000 acres of farmland by B.C. Hydro, and the proposal for putting a highway through the heart of the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia which will destroy some of the best farmland in that province.
Will the minister promise full-scale environmental impact studies before either of these projects goes ahead, and will he recommend to cabinet the possibility of cutting off fundings for Highway 101 in Nova Scotia unless an alternative route is found which will not destroy good farmland?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of the flooding of land in the event that a dam is built in British Columbia, that is a matter which is, of course, fundamentally the responsibility of the province of British Columbia. I will be discussing the entire situation shortly with the new minister of

the environment in the province of British Columbia. 1 was to meet with him on Friday of this week. Unfortunately, 1 will not be able to attend, so that meeting will be rescheduled.
On the question of farmland and the highway, 1 will be discussing that matter with my officials and my colleagues and will be able to give the hon. member a more satisfactory answer at a later time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In May of last year, the former minister of the environment said that a federal land use policy would be announced shortly thereafter. I should like to ask the minister when we can expect that announcement, in view of the fact that we are losing thousands of acres of prime farmland every year. According to the government, we are not now capable of feeding our people in almost every foodstuff area except grain. When can we expect that important study?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the studies have been completed and the cabinet document on federal land use policy is being prepared and will be delivered to cabinet shortly. I must point out to the hon. member and other hon. members that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over any land in the country that comes within provincial jurisdiction or which is alienated into private ownership. As a consequence, the actual power of the federal government to control land use in the country is understandably limited.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has just indicated to me that he would like to make his intervention on the matter on Monday. If that is convenient, then 1 will hear that matter on Monday, when 1 think 1 should be in a position to decide the matter finally. I have given it some consideration already and 1 would not anticipate that I would have to reserve it any longer than that.
1 have a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan).


MR. WHELAN-NEW NATIONAL FOOD POLICY-REMARKS OF PRIME MINISTER DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege, because yesterday in this House the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), in answer to one of my questions, indicated to the people of Canada and the members of this House that there were documents missing from the files of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, these documents are readily available. They are in pretty nearly every member's office in Ottawa. They are
December 5, 1979

also in the Library of Parliament. One document that 1 would like to table is in the Library of Parliament. It is entitled "Canada, Department of Agriculture: A food strategy for Canada." The other document, "Canada, Food Strategy", was issued publicly.
A ministerial meeting took place in January, 1978, which outlined the food policy that we had. I feel very strongly that yesterday the Prime Minister misinformed this House and probably hurt the philosophy of Parliament and the rights of members. I do not know whether he intended his remarks in a jocular fashion, but many people called me about them afterwards. Some have read the documents and wanted to know what the Prime Minister meant. I replied that 1 did not know what he meant. His reply to my question is reported in Hansard at page 1984 in part as follows:
We looked in his files, we looked in the files of the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs. Having no guidance from that front-
The documents are there for anyone who wants to see them, Mr. Speaker. I think this is a very serious question of privilege and a confrontation with this House.


Charles Joseph Clark: On that question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, ever since the former minister began to talk about a national food strategy, we have been interested to find some evidence of agreement between the former minister of agriculture and the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs. We were also trying to find some evidence that progress had been made toward putting into effect the national food strategy of which the two former ministers had spoken often, though usually in differing terms.
We looked for some evidence of real progress having been made toward a national food strategy. As we could not find any in the Department of Agriculture, we assumed that probably, having regard to relative influence in the former cabinet, we would find it in the office of the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs. We did not find that kind of evidence anywhere. I know the former minister has published a great number of documents.
The difference between that old government and this new government is that we are acting to put in place a national food strategy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Charles Joseph Clark: While I am on my
feet, Mr. Speaker, let me say I owe an apology to the House leader of the opposition party. 1 attributed a statement of his to the former prime minister. It was with the House leader of the opposition, not with the former prime minister, that the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) was in disagreement when he suggested that we should be looking for trade with a country regarding which the House leader of the opposition said on Monday we should be imposing sanctions.
Privilege-Mr. Waddell


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I noted at the time that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) had made a mistake. I understand also that his mind is not subtle enough to understand that there is no contradiction between my position and the view taken by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde).


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in order to set the record straight. At page 1823 of Hansard for November 29, in a discussion with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) about untendered government contracts, I put the following question:
-whether he would now investigate, as well, the awarding last summer of a $30 million contract to Media Buying Services Limited, headed by one Peter Swain who directed the Progressive Conservative advertising campaign during the recent federal election.
Those are the words I used, Mr. Speaker. What I should have said is as follows:
-whether the Prime Minister would now investigate, as well, the $1.8 million untendered contract last summer to Media Buying Services Limited as placement agents for potentially $30 million in government advertising. Media Buying Services, incidentally, being headed by one Peter Swain, media adviser to the Progressive Conservative campaign during the recent federal election.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the correction of the record. I think it might be useful, knowing his interest in this matter, to indicate to the hon. member and the House that we acquired the very good idea of going to an agency of management for advertising from the successful practice of the Schreyer government in Manitoba.


MR. WADDELL-ENTRY TO THE SENATE BARRED
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which mainly concerns the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and myself, but which also affects other members of Parliament and all Canadians who believe in democracy.
During the question period, the hon. member for Skeena and 1 wished to put some questions to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since we could not do that in this House, we went to the Senate to try to put the questions. We were barred at the door, assaulted and thrown out on our ears.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I understand that this is the job of the guards and I sympathize with them, but for us it is an unbearable situation. We cannot put questions in this House to this minister who is dealing with very important matters and that is very unfair. The hon. member for Skeena and I would ask you to use your good offices to persuade the Sergeant-at-Arms
2038

December 5, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Peters
to permit us to go into the Senate and ask these questions, or in the alternative-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: On that question of privilege raised by my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, 1 want him to know that if he would consent, we would be very pleased to appoint the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the Senate so that he would have a voice there.


Mr. Knowles:: Never!


MR. GUAY PRIME MINISTER'S ATTITUDE REGARDING ORAL QUESTION ASKED IN HOUSE
Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A while ago, during the oral question period, my personal rights were encroached upon. I rose on behalf of several thousand unemployed, shipyard workers, not only from the province of Quebec but from the whole of Canada. 1 thought I had put a very important question to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and I see that, even now, he does not deign to listen to me because he is talking with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald). That is indicative of the importance he attaches to the unemployed. There are more than 5,000 unemployed in our Canadian shipbuilding industry. I merely want to say, Mr. Speaker, that since the right hon. Prime Minister did not deign to give me a reply, 1 shall see to it that the shipyard workers unions and the workers throughout Canada are advised of the scorn he showed for the importance of the question 1 put to him just a few minutes ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House understands full well, 1 am sure, that it was the Speaker, and not the Prime Minister, who decided to turn down the question put this afternoon by the hon. member for Levis. Despite the importance and urgency of the matters being brought up, it is absolutely imperative that the questions always be put according to our practice and precedents.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order partly in relation to the question period today and partly following some comments Your Honour made during the question period. Many members of this House are denied the opportunity of asking questions. 1 was one of those who was here when question period went on as long as members wanted to ask questions. I have seen question period

go on until eight or nine o'clock at night under previous governments. We reformed the rules to eliminate that so as to make question period more meaningful and allow most members to ask whatever questions they wished.
The question period is structured and it is being structured by the parties, but there does not seem to be any control, advice or instructions being given to individual members or ministers as to how question period would be most advantageous for members of Parliament as well as for the viewers who now watch question period. I can raise this without much difficulty because I am not one who has participated unduly in question period over the last few years.
I have spoken to many members who I find are totally dissatisfied that they cannot ask questions. 1 agree that many of the questions are not properly asked. Some questions have too long a preamble and in some cases Your Honour has to ask if the member has a question. After two or three minutes it is not always obvious whether a question has been asked.
I would like to see you, Mr. Speaker, enforce a set of rules that would be designed in such a way as to allow the elicitation of the largest number of questions possible. I would like to see you charged with making the decision autocratically as to when there is too much preamble and not enough question. This would allow as many members of Parliament who wished to ask questions.
It would seem to me that if a member on behalf of his constituents wished to ask a question, he should be able to do that at least within a week, but if he cannot do that within a week, then obviously the question is out of date and there is really no point in asking that question. It seems to me that we have given you that responsibility by shortening the question period, making it only three-quarters of an hour rather than an unlimited question period, and if members are to be satisfied we better extend the length of question period or, as members of Parliament collectively, we should make a decision that there will be less preamble and more question.
If a snappy question is asked of a minister, he is going to be in difficulty if he does not give a snappy answer. Sometimes a member goes all over the waterfront in asking a question. Certainly the first two questions that were asked today were fairly good speeches and probably would do the members credit in having asked them in the way they did if they were making a speech, but questions they were not.
I know Your Honour has a great deal of other responsibilities and the job is not a cinch anyway, but the House has really given you the responsibility for meeting the requirements of allowing as many questions as possible in that very limited three-quarters of an hour that we have allocated for this purpose.
Question period is really now the window of Parliament as far as the public is concerned. I think they must be as disgusted as 1 am sitting here listening to many questions and answers knowing full well that there are many other members who would be able to ask questions on behalf of their constituents if they were given the opportunity. 1 have no objection to
December 5, 1979

the maiden speech that was made by the new member today. That was his first opportunity to rise in this House, and I appreciate your not having done anything about it.
However, I would ask you if you could discuss this matter with the House leaders or any other interested group, whether a committee or not, to ascertain whether there is some way of being able to put more questions in the question period. As well, perhaps you could have more control over the type of questions that you allow so that the end result will be that all members of Parliament will be in a better position to ask questions given the limited time in which that can be accomplished.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a point which is of concern to all members of the House. I think he has seen the efforts that I have made from here to try to admonish members, particularly at the beginning of question period, as I did again today. The primary difficulty in this seems to be those who lead off the question period. The putting of a long question, as was the case today and has been the case in many days, at the beginning of question period invites a long answer. In fairness, it is very difficult for the Chair to move in immediately with the first question of the day and try to be very severe and cut short that question. When that question is allowed by the Chair to be a moment or two long, it invites at least an equal answer. Today, for example, the first question and answer of equal length absorbed five full minutes. At that rate, by the time the leader of the New Democratic Party had finished his questions, the question period would have been over if we had continued at that pace.
It is a very difficult chore. 1 try to admonish members, and here we are dealing with experienced members of the House. The hon. member raises the point that we are dealing with members who are inexperienced and are new but the difficulty is that it is the experienced members who at the head of the question period consistently feel, for whatever reasons-and they are valid reasons-that their question at that point is quite important. It is indeed important; it should be and perhaps it deserves extra treatment. But it does not seem to me to contribute to the importance of the question or the answer by making them overlong. What it does do is contribute immensely and immediately to the frustration of many members. I now have a list running for several days of many members who have simply been denied access to the question period. It is very difficult for them to continue to suffer this denial at the price of an extended performance at the beginning of question period.
I have asked several times for the co-operation of members and I plead with members again to examine this matter to see why it is that members at the end of the question period have to be expected continually to put questions and get answers in a minute or two. They seem to put effective questions and get effective answers. 1 am wondering why the same thing cannot be done at the beginning of the question period as this would multiply immensely the opportunity for distribution of time and participation throughout the question period. I ask that again, and I ask for co-operation from members on both sides
Point of Order-Mr. Peters
of the House in putting shorter questions and shorter answers, as I think this would go a very long way towards solving the very legitimate matter raised by the hon. member.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could take just a minute or two on the same point. 1 want you to know on behalf, I am sure, of most members of the House that if members do not respond to your plea for co-operation most of us in this House would be fully supportive of you if you were to get really tough and just cut them off. It seems to me that if that happened once or twice to a member, even an experienced one, members would start co-operating with you and that would be better for all of us.
1 suggest the same thing goes in respect of answers by the government. If they tend to be windy and drag the answers out, and if they do not respond to your plea for co-operation, you should just get really tough and cut them off, and I am sure you would have the overwhelming support of members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but 1 do want to make a point. We have witnessed a very considerable change in the question period over the last while, not beginning in the present Parliament. The question period evolved quite directly and quite obviously into almost a self-disciplining situation during the last Parliament. When I sat on the government side I thought that development was very much to the advantage of the opposition. When this Parliament opened, Your Honour, and when my leader extolled your virtues, one of the points he made was that we hoped the same rights that had been accorded to the opposition in the last Parliament would prevail in this Parliament.
We are prepared to look at changes in the question period, but we will resist very vigorously any attempt to deny to the opposition the rights which were so advantageously and effectively employed by the present members of the government against us when we were in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure this House could be tempted to discuss this at great length. I think the point that has to be made is that it must be understood that the Chair is not going to lose during the question period. I have nothing to lose during the question period. I do not put questions. I have to try to preside, not on my behalf, but on behalf of hon. members, and the victims of disorder during the question period are not those who have the responsibility to preside, but those who are trying to participate. They are the ones who pay the price, and that is the concern I am attempting to express.
Therefore, I hope all of these interventions will be examined in the light, not of reducing participation during the question period or of access during that time, but, instead, of increasing it.

December 5, 1979
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as you know, the House gave approval in principle to the government's Bill C-20 regarding property tax credit. That having been done, I consulted with my colleagues, the other House leaders, to see whether there would be any possibility of arranging an allotment of time for the Committee of the Whole proceedings. I wish to advise the House that this was done pursuant to Standing Order 75C, and that the represen-tives of the parties were unable to reach an agreement under Standing Order 75A and 75B on the allotment of time for the Committee of the Whole stage on Bill C-20, to amend the Income Tax Act and provide a tax credit with regard to mortgage interest and home owner property taxes.
In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I therefore give notice of my intention to move a motion on Friday, December 7, 1979, allocating one sitting day for the consideration of the proceedings at that stage of this bill so this debate can continue.


Some hon. Members:: Open government.


An hon. Member:: It is the only way to deal with a filibuster.


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh!

[ Translation]


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. 89, 213, 231, 313, 321, 383, 387, 401, 409, 413, 417, 436, 577 and 653.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM-RIMOUSK!


Mr. Allard: I.	Since 1978, did the Department of National Health and Welfare finance projects in the constituency of Rimouski as part of the New Horizons Program and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?

2.	Is the department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1.	Please see list A.
2.	Please see list A.
1. List of New Horizons Projects Approved for the Constituency of Rimouski, Quebec
Project No.	Name of Organization	$ Amount
1978-1979		
4-A2864	Club de 1'Age d'Or Saint-Pierre-du-Lac, Val-Brillant	$ 2 505A2968	Le Cercle d'Age d'Or de TAmitie, Rimouski	4 1123171	Club de l'Age d'Or, Ste-Angele de Merici	3 4393276	Corporation de 1'Age d'Or de Notre-Dame-du-Lac, Notre-Dame-du-Lac	4 4753387	Club de l'Age d'Or, Cabano	7 0163566	Club de l'Age d'Or de Nazareth, Rimouski	8 3203595	Le Club de l'Age d'Or "La Rigolade de St-Pierre de Lamy", St-Pierre de Lamy	4 7933661	Club "Age d'Or"-Pointe-aux-Peres, Pointe-aux-Peres	3 0453917	Les Pionniers, St-Narcisse	8 8984000	Club Recreatif du Domaine Charles-Eugene Parent, Rimouski	5 260Total	$51 8631979-1980	4-A3688	Age d'Or St-Michel du Squatteck Inc. Squatteck	$ 4 429A3950	Club de 1'Age d'Or de St-Anaclet, St-Anaclet	2 8904118	Les Rimouskois, Rimouski	5 105A4162	Club de l'Age d'Or St-Germain, Rimouski	3 274A4184	Club de l'Age d'Or de St-Eusebe, St-Eusebe	3 844A4235	Le Club de 1'Age d'Or de Packington Inc., Packington	1 841Total	$21 383There are two	further projects under review.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of National Health and Welfare's payroll on March 31, 1979?


David Edward Crombie: (a)	Eight thousand eight hundred sixty permanent employees of whom 190 were continuing part-time- working more than 15 hours per week, but less than full-time hours.
(b)	Six hundred fourty-six term employees over six months and an estimated 680 term employees less than six months.
December 5, 1979


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For each province, what was the decrease or increase rate of capital expenditures in the Canadian mining sector for (a) 1978 (b) the First nine months of 1979?
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister	of Energy,	Mines andResources):	(a)	(b)Province or Region	1977 to 1978	1978 to 1979(per cent)	Atlantic Region	- 4.8	32.8Quebec	-57.9	2.2Ontario	-22.7	31.6Prairie Region	17.9	- 5.2British Columbia	-19.3	35.4Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories	- 2.3	-15.6
Notes: (1) Disaggregated data unavailable for Atlantic and prairie regions;
(2) Partial-year data for 1979 unavailable; and (3) Data shown for 1979 results from survey of company investment intentions and thus may differ significantly from actual data.
Source: Statistics Canada, Catalogue 61-206.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare received complaints that two departments, cardiovascular and renal and neurological are causing delays in the approval in Canada of compounds that have been marketed in England and Europe for several years?
2.	Have some compounds been stalled for more than two years?
3.	Is there a manpower shortage and, if so, is it the government's intention to take immediate measures to rectify this situation?


David Edward Crombie: 1.	A number of pharmaceutical companies awaiting completion of reviews of new drug submissions by the bureau of drugs have complained of the delays in the division of cardio-renal and arthritis drugs, central nervous system drugs, and the division that reviews anti-infective (antibiotics) drugs. A four-month backlog of submissions exists in all three divisions.
2.	If a drug manufacturer is not issued a notice of compliance for one or two years, it is because of problems with drug quality, safety concerns, or inadequacy of efficacy data.
3.	There is a shortage of pharmacologists, pharmacists and physicians to carry out reviews of manufacturers' submissions. In the light of the increasing work load, a review of staffing needs is being conducted.


Mr. Cossitt: According to the government records or knowledge, during the period of time that the former Prime Minister vacated the premises of the official residence of the Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive, were any items removed that were paid for, belonged to or in any way in whole or in part, the property of the government and, if so (a) under whose instructions were the items removed (b)
Order Paper Questions
what is a complete list of all the items (c) what was the approximate original cost to the taxpayers of the items (d) did the former Prime Minister pay the government any amount whatsoever toward the cost of the items and (i) if so, in what amount (ii) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works):: (a)	Items of furniture were moved to Stornoway, the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition, at the request of the Leader of the Opposition. The items in question were mutually agreed upon by the parties concerned after discussions took place between them.
(b)	The complete list of items moved is as follows:
2	large easy chairs 1 sofa
3	brass end tables
1	brass tea wagon 3 lamps
2	arm chairs
1	wicker lamp
2	brass end tables 1 floor lamp
1 safe
3	chairs 1 sofa
1 night table 1 high boy and dresser 1 chair 1 end table
1	brass bed-head board & foot
2	end tables 1 chair
1 dresser and bookcases assorted linen for beds assorted towels 1 canoe
(c)	The furniture moved was from the personal living quarters, and not from the "official rooms" at 24 Sussex. The total approximate cost to the taxpayer of the above items was $14,000.
(d)	The former Prime Minister did not pay any money toward these goods that were transferred.
(i)	Not applicable.
(ii)	As the former Prime Minister is still an MP and the Leader of the Opposition, he is entitled to reside in Stornoway which is the property of the Government of Canada, and as such, has not removed any property belonging to the taxpayer from those designated premises.

December 5, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare aware of a bulletin issued by the Canadian Dental Association claiming that up to 7,000 of the 50,000 Vietnamese refugees being admitted to Canada are carriers of Hepatitis B Virus and that (a) the Canadian Dental Association has advised its members not to treat any of these people unless they have been tested to see if they carry such virus (b) provincial governments have been requested by the Canadian Dental Association to establish specific dental units for treatment of Hepatitis B Virus in major populated centres (c) Hepatitis B Virus is extremely dangerous and quite different from Hepatitis A Virus, normally found in Canada?
2.	(a) What is the policy of the government on this matter (b) has the minister discussed it with provincial departments of health (c) what action has the department taken, if any, or is prepared to take?


David Edward Crombie: 1.	Yes, the minister is aware of the bulletin issued by the Canadian Dental Association claiming that 7,000 of the proposed 50,000 Indo-Chinese refugees may be carriers of hepatitis B virus.
(a)	The minister has decided that all Indo-Chinese refugees arriving in this country will be tested for hepatitis B virus by the Canadian Red Cross blood transfusion service.
(b)	The results of the tests carried out by the Canadian Red Cross laboratories will be forwarded to the appropriate provincial department of health within five to seven days of the blood specimens being taken.
(c)	Although advice given to the department by experts has in general been reassuring respecting the potential risk of hepatitis B virus, a further program of testing of hepatitis B virus among the arrivals from Southeast Asia is being carried out by the department to establish the parameters of the problem and the most appropriate manner of dealing with it.
2.	As mentioned, the policy at the present time is to carry out tests on all immigrants;
(b)	The department has discussed this matter with all provincial departments of health who had been invited to meetings of an expert committee on refugee health problems over the past two months;
(c)	The department, as mentioned, is prepared to take tests on all refugees of all age groups and the results of these tests will be made available to the provincial departments of health concerned.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975 (d) 1976 (e) 1977 (f) 1978 (g) 1979, did the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada apply for a grant to the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so, for what amount?
2.	For each year, was the application approved and, if so, in what amount?


David Edward Crombie: 1.		Yes	2. Yes
		Amount requested	Amount granted
(a)	1972-73	S 500,000.00	$500,000.00(b)	1973-74	547,479.00	457,500.00(c)	1974-75	600,000.00	600,000.00(d)	1975-76	600,000.00	600,000.00(e)	1976-77	1,314,464.98	600,000.00(0	1977-78	1,105,844.66	600,000.00(g)	1978-79	973,209.00	600,000.00


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) In each of the past four years, how many "near misses" or what is commonly referred to in Air Traffic Services lexicon as "losses of separation between aircraft" have occurred between Air Canada aircraft and other aircraft (i) in Canadian airspace (ii) elsewhere (b) what was the location of each occurrence and what was the identity of the other aircraft involved?
2.	In which cases were investigations conducted and what (a) were the results (b) action, if any, was taken?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: L (a)(i)
(a) (ii)
Year	Losses of Separation
1978 -	6
1977 -	6
1976 -	8
1975 -	11
Formal records for situations outside of Canadian not maintained.	
(b)
Case 78-1 Case 78-2 Case 78-3
Case 78-4 Case 78-5 Case 78-6
Case 77-1 Case 77-2
Case 77-3
Case 77-4
Case 77-5 Case 77-6 Case 76-1
Case 76-2
Case 76-3
Case 76-4
Case 76-5
Case 76-6
Location
Near Fredericton, N.B. Near St. John, N.B. Vicinity of Quebec Airport
Vicinity of Quebec Airport Near Cold Lake, Alta. Northeast of Vancouver, B.C.
Near Sept-Ues P.Q. Atlantic Ocean (SCAD Fix)
Near Greenwood, N.S.
Near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Near Sioux Narrows East of Winnipeg, Man. East of Sept-Iles, P.Q.
East of Millinocket, Maine
East of Hudson Heights, P.Q.
Vicinity of Mirabel Airport, P.Q.
East of Toronto, Ont.
East of North Bay, Ont.
Other Aircraft
Laker Airways Fit. 42 Canadian Civil C-FAZI Canadian Civil C-GTRC Quebecair Fit. 155 Pan American Fit. 122 Canadian Military call sign RAM 153 American Navy 00JFN Royal Dutch Airlines Fit. 691
Military Airlift Command 40644 Canadian Pacific Fit.
Air Canada Fit. 161 Lufthansa Fit. 452 Northern Wings Fit.
Trans Mediterranean Fit. 313
Air Canada Fit. 793
Scandinavian Fit. 941
Canadian Pacific Fit.
Canadian Pacific Fit.
December 5, 1979

2.
2. (a) (b)
Order Paper Questions
Case 76-7	East of Thunder Bay, Ont. Air Canada Fit. 145	Case	75-6	Controller error	Controller requalifiedCase 76-8	Near Hudson Heights, P.Q. Iberian Fit. 971	Case	75-7	Controller error	Bulletin issued toCase 75-1	Near Fort Chimo, P.Q. Scandinavian Fit. 911	improve awarenessCase 75-2	Near Sherbrooke, P.Q. United States Air Force	Case	75-8	System deficiency	Airspace review, nocall sign ETTA 32	further actionCase 75-3	Near Quebec Airport, P.Q. Canadian Civil	Case	75-9	System breakdown	Controller counselledC-GODR	Case	75-10	System breakdown	PerformanceCase 75-4	Near Montreal Airport, Air Transit Fit. 1002	Development ProgramP.Q.	institutedCase 75-5	Near Toronto, Ont. American Civil N5116	Case	75-11	System breakdown	Training programCase 75-6	Near Thurso, P.Q. Air Canada Fit. 163	revisedCase 75-7	Near Sault Ste. Marie, Air Canada Fit. 244	Briefing routinesOnt.	intensified
Case 75-8 Vicinity Saskatoon Airport, Sask.
Case 75-9 Near Empress, Sask.
Case 75-10 Near Beechy, Sask.
Case 75-11 Near Reflex Lake, Sask.
Canadian Military (call sign Viking 11)
Air Canada Fit. 217 Air Canada Fit. 130 Canadian Pacific Fit.
An Air Traffic Control (ATC) loss of separation results when the required spacing between IFR-instrument flight rule-aircraft is not maintained.
There is no definition of "near miss" however, it is commonly used to describe critical situations when avoidance action is required by the pilots.
All reported cases are investigated.


[Stage Direction]
Sample	Findings	ActionCase 78-1	Controller error	Control requalifiedCase 78-2	Procedures inadequate	Procedures revisedHuman factors	Controller referred to Regional Medical OfficerCase 78-3	Controller error	Controller counselledCase 78-4	Controller error Procedures not followed	Controller counselledCase 78-5	Controller error	Data board format revisedCase 78-6	Procedures vague	Procedures revisedCase 77-1	Controller error	Unit direction initiatedCase 77-2	Controller error	Flight data methodsPilot error	revised Crew reprimandedCase 77-3	Controller error	ATC bulletin issued to improve controller awarenessCase 77-4	System breakdown due to	Airways realigned toheavy traffic workload	segregate flowsCase 77-5	Controller error	Controller counselledCase 77-6	Controller error	Data sector reconfigured Controller requalifiedCase 76-1	Controller error	Concerned units made aware of readback requirementsCase 76-2	Controller error	Review of direct routing requests/requirementsCase 76-3	Inefficient control practices Unit to rectify deficiencies	Case 76-4	Controller error	Controller proficiency checksCase 76-5	Controller error	Awareness package disseminated nationallyCase 76-6	Pilot error	Referred to airline for actionCase 76-7	Controller error	Procedures corrected, wrong way altitude study initiatedCase 76-8	Pilot error	Study initiated on clearance violationsCase 75-1	Controller error	Controller counselledCase 75-2	Controller error	FAA to rectify American deficienciesCase 75-3	Inexact ATC Procedures	Procedures revisedCase 75-4	Controller error	Bulletin issued to improve awarenessCase 75-5	Controller error	Controller counselled
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): On March 31, 1979, how many (a) female (b) male persons received the old age security pension?


David Edward Crombie: On March 31, 1979, there were 2,145,383 recipients of the Old Age Security pension. Information to indicate the sex of Old Age Security pension recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, data compiled for the month of June 1979 only indicate that 46 per cent were male recipients and 54 per cent female recipients.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): During the fiscal year 1978-79, what amounts were spent for (a) old age pensions (b) spouse's allowance paid to persons aged 60 to 65 (c) Guaranteed Income Supplement for spouses and, how many (i) female (ii) male persons received such allowances?


David Edward Crombie: (a)	Old Age Security Pension
(b)	Spouse's Allowance
(c)	Guaranteed Income Supplement
Number of recipients March 31, 1979 2,145,383 75,292 1,161,610
Amounts paid Fiscal Year 1978-79 $4,130,612,910 126,301,725 1,234,160,749
Information to indicate the sex of Old Age Security, Spouse's Allowance and Guaranteed Income Supplement recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, data compiled for the month of June 1979 only indicate the following percentage distribution:
Type of benefit Old Age Security Spouse's Allowance Guaranteed Income Supplement
(i) Female 54 per cent 92 per cent 60 per cent
(ii) Male 46 per cent 8 per cent 40 per cent

December 5, 1979
Order Paper Questions SOULANGES CANAL


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was the Soulanges Canal sold to the province of Quebec and, if so (a) on what date (b) under what terms and conditions?
2.	Has the government taken any position concerning the re-opening of the canal?
3.	Was the government approached by the government of the province of Quebec, in the last year, with any proposal for the use of the canal or did any discussions take place during this period?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Transport Canada advises as follows:
1. Governor in council transferred to the province of Quebec, on February 11, 1965, by Order PC 1965-251, the administration and control of the Soulanges Canal and the reserve of land of the said canal, subject to the following condition:
Her Majesty in right of the province of Quebec will permit Her Majesty in right of Canada to store on the upper entrance wall of the Soulanges Canal, during the period extending from the close of navigation of Lake St. Francis each year until the opening of navigation on the said lake the following year, at such location or locations thereon as may be mutually agreed upon between the deputy minister of the Quebec department of roads and the Deputy Minister of Transport Canada, the navigation buoys and other aids to navigation on Lake St. Francis.
The governor in council also authorized by the said order the payment to the province of Quebec the sum of $416,000.
2 and 3. Not to our knowledge.


Mr. Herbert: Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in a speech he made in the House of Commons on October 22, 1979, express concern for a very vulnerable segment of our society, the newly bereaved, near aged widow and did he say, as printed at page 459 of Hansard "at the age of 60-plus it is clearly unreasonable to assume that they would be able to go out and fully sustain themselves on the labour market" and, if so, what is the estimated number of women aged 60 to 65 who were widowed before they attained the age of 60 and how many of these widow's husbands, at the time that they died, were (a) 65 or over and in receipt of the old age pension (b) aged 60 to 65?


David Edward Crombie: Yes. Statistics are available from the 1971 and 1976 censuses to establish the age distribution of widows. Statistics indicating the age at which women become widowed, or the age of their spouse at the time the spouse died, are not available.


Mr. Nystrom: 1. What budget has been made available to the Grain Transportation Task Force and specifically, what amounts have been budgeted for (a) transportation

and communications (b) professional services (c) printing and distribution of report(s) (d) material and supplies (e) salaries and per diem allowances?
2. Are all members of the committee also members of the Progressive Conservative Party?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1. With respect to the Grain Transportation Task Force, the amounts spent to November 14 are:
(a)	transportation and communication	$6,943.27(b)	professional services	1,552.57(c)	printing and distribution	of reports (est.)	400.00(d)	material and supplies	266.00(e)	salaries and per diem allowances	nil
2. Yes.


Mr. Herbert: Is the government undertaking research or the publishing of the results of research in the private sector, that would identify drugs that are chemically equal but not therapeutically equivalent?


David Edward Crombie: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council has mentioned question No. 436 and immediately after question No. 477. I am sure he meant question No. 577.


David Kilgour: That is right, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 5 and 11 are acceptable to the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Report on the Compliance Audit of Selected Personnel Administration Positions prepared by the Evaluation Program Group, October 1977, Treasury Board.
Motion agreed to.
December 5, 1979
[Stage Direction]
STEVENSON AND KELLOGG LTD Motion No. 11-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by Stevenson and Kellogg Ltd. on a new classification system for the government.
Motion agreed to.
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 8 and 24?
PUBLIC SERVICE-JOB CLASSIFICATION Motion No. 8-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the study on certain occupational groups in the public service intended to determine the extent of job classification accuracy.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), the only study conducted on certain occupational groups in the public service was the classification audit in the national capital area and the nonnational capital area. This study was tabled in Parliament by the President of Treasury Board on December 18, 1978. On behalf of the minister 1 would, therefore, ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement and I would, therefore, ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest study by the Department of Justice on the comparison of the application by provincial courts of federal laws.
Mr. George Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, there is no such study as that requested by the hon. member in his motion No. 24. Therefore, 1 ask that this motion be withdrawn.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Transfer for debate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mortgage Tax Credit PRIVILEGE


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I notice that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is in his seat today. I was under the impression that he would be tabling a committee report today, a report which we on this side of the House consider to be extremely important and which would affect our work. I wonder if, under those circumstances, we can be advised as to why such report has not been tabled since it has quite an effect on the conduct of this House?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simply that I have not got the report. If I have the report on Friday I will table it. There was no direction as to time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 4, consideration in committee of Bill C-20, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax-Mr. Crosbie-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Tuesday, December 4,	1979, clause 1 of the bill was under
consideration.
On clause 1-


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred to make my speech before the second reading stage of the bill but since I did not want to delay the vote unduly, I agreed to postpone my intervention to this stage of this bill. This afternoon I would like to give the House the reasons which motivated my voting in favour of Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax.
At the same time I would like to explain to the hon. Minister of Finance the amendments I would like to see made to clause 2 of the bill so that he may consider them now and I hope agree with them. Bill C-20 is a measure designed to bring about a tax rebate and help young couples who want to raise their families in the best conditions possible. As for me, any
2046

December 5, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
measure intended to facilitate single unit home ownership will meet with my support. Yet, I think that this measure should be integrated into a more general family policy.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard during the debate all those grand theories for and against Bill C-20. It has been said that it is a discriminatory bill. I should like to remind my hon. colleagues that all bills that the House passes discriminate against parts of the population or particular groups of citizens, and I will give as an example the measure we passed to make sure that those people over 60 years of age who are entitled to the spouse's allowance will keep receiving the allowance until they are 65, after the death of their pensioned spouse over 65. That measure discriminates against all single persons between 60 and 65 years of age, but that did not stop the House from supporting it unanimously.
So this is a similar case. It is a tax cut intended for a particular group of Canadians who are or will become owners of single-family dwellings. Some have said that the legislation puts at a disadvantage some provinces where the number of home owners is not as great as in others. That is why I thought of moving an amendment, or rather two amendments, to change the proportion of tax credits applicable to mortgage interest and property tax. When we come to clause 2, I intend to ask the minister to consider the possibility-I would appreciate it if the minister listened carefully to what I am saying-of reducing the tax credit in respect of mortgage interest to $1,000 from $1,250, and of increasing the tax credit in respect of property tax to $500 from $250, thus leaving the allowable maximum the same as it is now, at $1,500. That would help more the Atlantic provinces and Quebec where more people own homes that are mortgage-free or almost completely paid.
So a higher tax credit for property tax would be, I think, much fairer and would not affect future government spending.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to housing and single-family dwellings, there is some concern, and rightly so, about the future of single-family homes in Canada. Only recently, the Quebec provincial home builders Association at its convention held in Chicoutimi, I think, spent a whole weekend looking into the future of single-family homes, in Quebec in particular, all the more as the majority of buyers of this type of housing are in the 25 to 44 age group. Most are young couples with or without young children or who intend to raise a family, of course, in the best conditions possible. I think we might have erred in our housing policy in that large housing projects have been promoted rather than smaller single-family or multiple family dwellings, with the result that there are now terrible social problems in those large projects. There are communication, public transportation problems, the solution of which requires millions, if not billions, of dollars. As to the singlefamily dwelling, it causes the least social problems and no congestion in downtown areas because they are located mainly in the suburbs.
I should also like to deal with the situation of tenants who are ignored in this legislation, but it is a comfort to think that the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation stated a few days ago that he was in favour of housing subsidies for senior citizens. It is perhaps the group of tenants that are the most penalized at present by rental or heating costs, energy costs in general and the cost of living. If the government wants to go further in that direction, it will surely get the support of my colleagues on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to say this legislation is going to cost $2 billion or $2.5 billion in four years. It is more difficult to try to figure what this legislation may save in social allocations, in unemployment benefits and other government expenses when we know that in Quebec alone more than 150,000 unemployed are looking for work in the housing sector. If this measure is going to boost housing construction, I think it represents a step in the right direction even if it is a small step.
1 would like the government to examine the question of public transportation in the big cities and their suburbs in order to reduce the costs incurred by single dwelling owners. As I said earlier, they tend to live in the suburbs of big cities where the atmosphere is more favourable to raise their families. It should be part of a global policy which the government should examine without delay. We need answers that will be of real interest to the whole population.
Those who think that single-family dwellings are more expensive in the way of infrastructure are either misinformed or inexperienced. There may not be too many members here who in the past had an opportunity to plan, develop and build a municipality mostly made up of single-family dwellings. This was part of my experience, and I can say that infrastructure costs were lower than those in large centres or housing projects, and social problems in my town are much less acute than in larger cities.
Those are some of the reasons why I supported the bill. I feel that the tax credit approach can be handled with a minimum of intervention by officials and will not create an unnecessary and costly bureaucracy. It is simply a matter of completing an income tax return and adding mortgage interests and property tax receipts, and from then on computers take over.
The Minister of Finance suggested he would not accept amendments that could change the nature of his bill or the nature or make up of income tax returns. I say to him that all that is involved in the amendments I shall be moving to clause 2 is a transfer of amounts, and the only thing to do is to change the computer program. There will be no need to change the income tax returns which are already printed and will be sent to taxpayers within a few weeks.
Mr. Chairman, this is what I had to say, the few explanations I wanted to give to hon. members and to my constituents who also support the bill. Since we heard all sorts of comments

December 5, 1979

during the debate, 1 should like to conclude by saying, as 1 often do, that in every area the experts are always right, except when things go wrong, at which time they turn to politicians to solve the problem. So, in the long run, it is always a political decision. Whatever the experts may think, it is my view that as politicians and elected representatives of our fellow citizens, it is our duty to make decisions, and I hope that jointly we made the best possible one.
I have the firm intention when we come to clause 2, to move two amendments, and 1 hope the Minister of Finance and the government will accept them for the benefit of home owners, especially those in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.


Mr. Veillette:: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to rise in the House. Several of my colleagues have already expressed their views regarding this bill to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax. I expect that the remarks and suggestions made by all speakers in the course of this debate on Bill C-20 will be taken into consideration in order to offer Canadians a fair scheme for all those who have housing needs. Mr. Chairman, I say housing needs because I do consider that Canadians need shelter the same way they should have clothes. This to me is a basic rule. What I find detrimental and unfair is that the government opposite tries to make Canadians believe that this scheme is a product of their imagination when in fact it is derived from the ideology of the Liberals who for years have made serious and extensive studies on the possibility of establishing a scheme which, through an allowance, would encourage Canadians to become home owners in the proper sense of the word.
Because of an election promise, the government now introduces this bill with the firm intention of having it passed before the holiday season. Does the government want to make a Christmas gift to the Canadian public? Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell my friends opposite that when a father makes Christmas gifts to his children, at least he tries to be fair to the whole family so that everyone can be happy during the holidays.
Mr. Chairman, the government is anxious to keep its election promise because it wants the Canadian people to forget the mistakes of the past. They have introduced this bill too hastily without making an in-depth study of this matter, just as they did in the case of the election promise to move the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. We all know that to save face the government had to send Mr. Robert Stanfield as ambassador extraordinary to the Middle East and that on his return, Mr. Stanfield immediately and quite logically submitted his report, following which the Prime Minister stated not too long ago in the House that he had made a mistake and had to withdraw. We all know that the government had to change its plans concerning Petro-Canada and is now making every effort to find an answer to keep its election promise.
Mortgage Tax Credit
Because of all this, Mr. Chairman, 1 am afraid that this government, just to prove its efficiency, will implement this last promise even though it is certainly detrimental to the Canadian people.
In view of the irresponsibility of this government in the past, I find it hard to believe that this bill will prove beneficial for the whole population. Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not against a mortgage tax credit. What I oppose in this bill is the fact that a group of Canadians, who are already privileged in certain respects, will benefit from additional advantages to the detriment of other Canadians who do not have the good luck to be home owners. I am thinking especially about the middle income worker who is lucky enough to own a home in which one floor or one part could be converted into an apartment. This home owner could not benefit fully from the exemption because of subclause 2(7)(c) which reads:
qualified home does not include a property for any period during which it is used principally for the purpose of gaining or producing income,
We can say that, basically, this bill will contribute to increasing the gap between various groups of Canadian citizens. This gap, of which the government is certainly aware, is becoming increasingly wider, and a responsible government with coherent policies should try to bridge this gap as soon as possible, but our friends opposite are doing everything to maintain these disparities and even to make them worse, which is more serious.
Mr. Chairman, the government should reconsider this bill and review it substantially to make it more equitable for the underprivileged members of our society, for the workers who are trying very hard to earn enough money so one day they too might become home owners like many others.
Mr. Chairman, I am also thinking about all those people who have worked hard for years to buy a small house. What makes it worse is that those people had to work even harder to repay their mortgage as soon as possible so that they would not be swamped with interest charges. 1 know of wives who had to get a job to help their husbands with that mortgage. Today, through their hard work, those people have managed to repay their whole mortgage but will not be able to benefit from this bill as proposed by this government. Mr. Chairman, if this program were improved so that all prospective home buyers, including tenants or people who pay little or no federal income tax, may have access to housing, this program would certainly be much more acceptable.
Mr. Chairman, at present we have many social programs. Take old age security for instance: as I see it, all senior citizens get a cheque; take family allowances: every mother gets her cheque every month. So, Mr. Chairman, 1 wonder why all tenants who wish to buy their own house eventually could not avail themselves of government assistance.
Mr. Chairman, I will not support this bill and here is why: According to recent rumours, the government would draw the money necessary to cover the cost of this program from the

December 5, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
family allowances budget. On this matter, I must say to the government that it would be compounding injustice to take the funds from there. The hon. Minister of Finance will present his budget only in December and we shall not know until then where the money will come from. One thing I know for sure is that eventually someone will have to foot the bill and there is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that it will be the vast majority of Canadians who will not even benefit from that tax credit who will have to pay the bill through a direct or disguised income tax increase. I imagine that that concealed tax, Mr. Chairman, will be a 30 per cent excise tax on gas which the government is ready to levy on all Canadian drivers.
To briefly put it, I blame the government for introducing this draft without an in-depth study and a thorough consideration of the matter. This is easy to realize when we look at the fact that the people who have rather high mortgages and pay over $1,500 in income tax to the federal government are those who will benefit from the bill. This measure which I feel is quite exceptional confirms what I said before, that the government wishes to increase disparities among Canadian citizens.
With this new tax credit, the government is not increasing the number of potential claimants, at least not more than under the previous plan for tax deductions. Renters are entirely excluded from the scheme which is too bad, because they are first-class citizens; they are as Canadian as the home owners and they are entitled in the same degree to the services of the federal government.
As usual, Ontario is the winner at the expense of Quebec because the number of home owners with mortgages high enough to be eligible for that tax credit is 20 per cent higher in Ontario than in Quebec. To thwart those unfair measures at the national level as well as the individual level, I suggest to the government it should reassess the matter and remove those disparities. I therefore advocate a policy designed to rationalize Canadian housing through considerable assistance to home ownership. In closing, Mr. Chairman, 1 reaffirm that I am not averse to the idea of a program that would facilitate home ownership and as a result would stimulate the building industry, and I hope the government will benefit from the constructive remarks of my colleagues. I also hope that the government has fully analysed the financial situation of the country and 1 look forward to the day when it can tell us how we will pay for that luxury without, however, increasing the national debt.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Chairman, I too would like to rise in opposition to the proposals in front of us. There is no doubt that there is a tremendous need for action in the field of housing in our country today. The difficulties faced by a vast number of people in the "middle class" and in the lower income group in meeting their monthly mortgage payments is

making it increasingly difficult for people to own their homes and to live with any degree of security.
All members of the House are committed to the notion that families should be able to enjoy a secure home which will provide warmth and shelter in the years ahead without that simple basic necessity becoming a major economic problem in their lives. Indeed, I think the government recognized the need for action in the field of housing. I think that the record of the former government in that respect was a dismal one. There were cutbacks in all sorts of housing programs in the last few years that had a detrimental effect on the provisions of adequate housing for Canadians. Under the Liberal government we had high interest rates, which I think was the reason for which the Tory policymakers introduced the mortgage tax deductibility scheme during the last election campaign.
Tory candidates were going around the country saying to new home owners: "Look at the difficulties you are having in securing a home under this Liberal government; elect us and we will do something about it". As 1 hear Liberal members of the House make grandiose proposals for housing, I cannot help but smile and wonder where they were seven or eight months ago. In fact, their heart was in a much different place than it is today. It is amazing how such a switch of the heart and of the mind can take place in such a short period of time.
There were cutbacks in housing while the Liberals were in government, but now in opposition they have become progressive. It is quite a conversion. Of course, such a conversion is not restricted to the Liberal party. We have seen a similar conversion taking place among members of the Conservative party. They were criticizing high interest rates when they were in opposition and promising to do something about it, but in fact they continued down the same road with this insanity until now when the home owners are facing interest rates which are anywhere from 14 per cent to 15 per cent.
The number of defaults that are occurring across the country is alarming, there is no doubt about it. Many Canadian home owners are facing a period of crisis in attempting to maintain their homes and to hold on to what they have invested in their homes and what they paid in down payments to secure a shelter and a roof over their heads. But is this measure before us going to help? I am afraid it is not. It is not a housing program.
Had the government decided to move $500 million into CMHC or had it decided that in four years' time they would drop another $2.2 billion directly into housing in this country, we might have had a housing program. If the government decided to use $500 million to secure urban land, bringing down the cost of urban land in this country, then we might have the beginning of a housing program. If they decided to use the $2.2 billion which they will be spending four years from now in building co-op and low income housing, then indeed we might have a housing program. As it is, we do not have one. We have vast sums of money invested in a program which will slide through the hands of consumers and home owners into the pockets of the banks and developing companies like a piece of fat passes through a goose.
December 5, 1979

(t was under the Liberal government that we saw a tremendous increase in the holdings of land development companies. For example, Nu West, a major land holding company and developer, increased its assets in 1973 from $89 million to $482 million in 1977. This was done under the Liberal government. The Liberal government allowed this type of exploitation of Canadian home owners.
In 1973 Cadillac Fairview had total assets of $900 million and in 1978 they had doubled to $1,800 million. In 1973 Bramalea had $147 million worth of assets and in 1978 it had $347 million. A few large developing companies acquired a monopoly situation. They were able to boost up the cost of land to a point where in cities such as Toronto and Vancouver one has to pay an extra $25,000 for a lot. This is because of the exploitation which the former government allowed to occur. Thus, the Liberals must accept full responsibility for that development, there is no doubt about it.
I join with members opposite when they condemn the Liberal party for allowing that to occur. It was a major rip-off of Canadian home owners. It is why urban land prices in Canada today are so much higher than they are in the United States. There is a lot of land in Canada, and obviously it is ridiculous that land should cost more here than in the United States. Obviously it must have been a sweet deal for the former government to have allowed such a major rip-off to have occurred. It should have been investigated under the Combines Investigation Act and the monopolies act. It should have been prevented. Had it been prevented, Canadian home owners would have saved thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. When I hear them now plead for the average home owner, I become cynical about the political process. Where were the Liberals a year ago, two years ago or three years ago when they allowed this rip-off to occur?
Will the present government do anything about it? No, they will not. Will they tackle the real reason why housing in the country is so expensive today? No, they will not. They will not go after the developers. Somehow or other, once a party becomes the government it becomes the friends of the same type of folk who were friends of the former government. Something must happen the moment one passes to the government side; one must acquire a whole new different mentality and a new set of friends. We see no change. In fact, I fear that the bill before us today will only benefit the very same developers. Yes, it will increase the cost of housing because the benefits received by the average home owner under this proposal eventually will find their way into the cost of houses. The cost of homes will increase by the amount of the benefit given to home owners by the proposed act.
Who will benefit from this? Who will benefit from the increased cost of housing? Surely it will be the land developing companies and the banks. It will not be the average home owner. It will not make housing more accessible to the average home owner. Eventually it will drive up the cost of housing rather than reduce it; it will increase inflation rather than decrease it.
Mortgage Tax Credit
I cannot understand the economic thinking of the government on this particular proposal. In fact, I cannot understand the thinking of the government in the entire area of economic policy. The government and the Minister of Finance claim that the proposals before us today are to stimulate. Yet on the other hand the minister defends higher interest rates because he suggests it is time to reduce consumption, not to stimulate. On the one hand we have stimulation, on the other we have the opposite. It is a jig which they must do in Newfoundland; one step one way and another step the other way. It must be called the splits. It is the Tory splits. I am afraid it is the country that is hurting; it is the country that is being torn apart. They are inconsistent policies, policies which are to stimulate at the same time as tackling inflation and decreasing consumer demands. It is schizophrenic. A schizophrenic proposal such as this must originate in the fogs of the maritime provinces.
I, and I think the Canadian people, would dearly welcome a new, imaginative initiative on housing. One can imagine what the government could do if the amount of money being spent on this program was directly spent on housing. It would break up the urban land monopolies. It would actually start reducing the cost of housing for Canadians. We could get into land banks. We could get into co-op housing on a massive scale. It would actually reduce the cost of housing in this country. By doing that, all Canadians would benefit. At present the proposals before us, as many members and tax economists have shown, will benefit only people with higher incomes.
If these sums of money were to be used for housing, we would reduce and in fact subsidize interest rates. One can imagine what it would do for housing if we were able to reduce the interest rate to 8 per cent for all families earning $25,000 or less a year, or if we were able to reduce it to 9 per cent for all families earning $30,000 a year.


An hon. Member:: What about those who earn $31,000?


Douglas Jung: Those people who earn $31,000 are in a position to pay what the market will bear. Now we are helping those who are earning $31,000 and more per year, generally at the expense of those who are earning less than that. That is why I suggest that the measures before us are unfair as well as unsound. Not only are they unfair in terms of the distribution of wealth according to income groups; they are also unfair according to geographic location. We could do so much for housing if the amount of money being spent in this tax bill was spent directly on housing. Why not do it? If these types of expenditures will be made, surely a housing program of $2.2 billion would be something every Canadian would welcome. I am sure it would be something that would increase the government's popularity ratings to more than 28 per cent.
This government seems to be committed to committing suicide. It has not thought out any of its proposals. It comes in one day with one proposal and the next day it says something else which is counter to what they were intending to do at the beginning.

December 5, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
The way in which this bill has been introduced in this House is another point. The government had the whole summer to set up a timetable for this particular measure, but somehow or other it could not come to grips with it and make a decision early enough. The government then made the decision without thinking of the consequences or a timetable.
The Prime Minister then gets up in the House and says that he would welcome all amendments and suggestions and that he wanted this bill to be a co-operative effort. We took him at his word and have prepared a whole series of amendments, many of which are very sound and which the Conservatives, particularly the small "c" Conservatives, would accept. A sunset clause would make this legislation a little easier to predict from year to year in terms of what it will cost.
We have now been told, "Sorry, boys, no time". In fact we learned today that closure will be introduced.


Mr. Crosbie:: Time allocation.


Douglas Jung: Pardon me, time allocation. But what is the difference? We still do not end up with any real opportunity to introduce amendments which would strengthen this bill and allow us in our roles as members of Parliament to contribute something to this particular proposal. I am sure that most members of this House and, indeed, most members of the government in their hearts would find our proposals very acceptable and eminently reasonable. But we are not being allowed that opportunity because the timetable was not thought out in the preparation of this particular bill. 1 am afraid that that is not only true for this bill but for many other measures which have come before this House.
The government does not seem to have a grip on the problems confronting this country. It flies off by the seat of its pants making one proposal one day and another proposal the next. It has no coherent idea of how it will get hold of the problems which it has been left by the previous government. There is no doubt that the Liberals left this House a whole host of problems and, indeed, Tory times are often bad times because they follow Liberal times. The former government is now sitting like a bunch of Cheshire cats in the trees smiling down at the new government. It handed the new government a real mess, but I am afraid that all it is doing is mixing it around and making it even worse. The government is following the bad examples and bad policies of the Liberal government to the insane end. This can be seen in their high interest rate policy, crazy money policies and give-away programs. The former government gave away half of the treasury to their friends in all sorts of little proposals such as the MURBs, give-aways to the oil companies and the tax measures which nobody had any control over and which resulted in the deficit in which we now find ourselves. I understand that the Minister of Finance intends to tell us how much these policies in the past have cost the Canadian people. Instead of stopping it with this bill, however, the government is merely continuing down the same path of financial responsibility.
The only reason the government has decided to go ahead with this proposal is that it has already had to change some of

its other political promises. It had to insist that it kept one promise, come hell or high water and whether or not it makes sense. That is why this proposal is before us today. I am sure that it contradicts the government's basic philosophy of trying to get some proper fiscal management into government. The only reason for this proposal is that it is political. The government had to show that it was able to stand tough on something, so now it is posturing.
I am sure that Canadians would be much happier if the government came across honestly and said to them, "We made a mistake on this; it does not make any sense to us now, so we are going to scrap the idea". I am sure that the government would receive some jeering and ribbing, but the Canadian people would at least give the government credit for having the guts to stand up and say, "Look, we were wrong; we are going to bring in something that is a little better".
Had the government spent this money on a housing program instead of the tax credit scheme, then the Canadian people would have understood and applauded. Instead, it is damned determined to go ahead.


An hon. Member:: Talk to your constituents.


Douglas Jung: The hon. member suggests that I should talk to my constituents. I talk to them every week because I faithfully go back and knock on doors. I have been knocking on doors in the new housing districts of my own riding and also the riding of Prince Albert. The one thing the people seem to talk about is the fear of losing their homes because of higher interest rates. When I ask them if the mortgage tax scheme will help, they say, "Of course it will not save me because the amount of money I will have to pay out in interest rates is much higher than I will ever get back from this particular program". When I asked them if the NDP proposal of reducing the interest rate to 8 per cent or 9 per cent makes any sense, they say, "Boy, I wish the government would at least adopt that type of program; then the money markets for housing would be stabilized".


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: How would you do it?


Douglas Jung: The hon. gentleman asks how I would do it. The government is already doing it in various areas such as the Farm Credit Corporation guarantees on interest rates. Why does the government not do it for housing? Why does it not use the money which is being spent on this scheme to subsidize and stabilize the interest rates for housing so that when a person buys a house they will know how much they will pay for it next year and in the years to come? That makes sense because it means stabilizing our society and helping to stabilize the economy and the housing market. That is what the Canadian people are asking for. Instead, what we have in front of us today is a gimmick which the people of Canada do not understand, do not want and do not appreciate.
For these reasons, and if time and opportunity permit on Monday in the restricted time period, we will attempt to introduce some amendments. I hope that the government will consider our proposals, which we will make in good faith. I
December 5, 1979

think they will strengthen this tax bill in front of us and I urge the government not to reject them out of hand. I think that the proposals of a sunset clause and certain ceilings make good sense. I know that these proposals will make sense to the Minister of Finance. I am sure that he wishes there were more ceilings and sunset clauses in some of the measures with which he must deal from day to day. So we will be helping him in trying to convince this Elouse to accept at least some of our proposals for this particular bill.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise again and speak to Bill C-20 which amends the Income Tax Act in order to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax. At every stage in the examination of a bill, an hon. member may intervene to make his remarks and, if need be, with the help of those remarks the government or the minister responsible can improve the bill in question. On November 21 last, Mr. Chairman, I rose in the House to wonder out loud about the housing situation in Canada.
1 was pointing out the situation in Canada to my colleagues, and I mentioned how proud I was to be part of the Liberal team that has designed and implemented rather exceptional housing policies, if one considers that following a Gallup poll in October, 1968, in which Canadians were asked whether they were more or less satisfied with their housing conditions, 60 per cent said they were satisfied. In 1978, ten years later, 85 per cent of Canadians said they were satisfied with their housing.
In 1968, 34 per cent said they were unsatisfied, whereas in 1978, 13 per cent said in October, 1978, that they were unsatisfied. All this to say, Mr. Speaker, that the building of 235,000 housing units on average during the past ten years under the Liberal government through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has considerably improved housing conditions in Canada. That is why in my remarks I wanted to review housing conditions.
I also expressed my concern as a Liberal about the status of our various housing policies with respect to non-profitable organizations: the municipal infrastructure, the neighbourhood improvement program, the senior citizens residence construction program, the assisted home ownership program and the role of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Of course, I would have been happy to see today in the House a minister responsible for urban affairs who could enlighten me a bit about the future of those programs. But as this is a fiscal policy, it is not a policy designed to improve housing conditions in Canada. It is a fiscal policy, a tax cut, a measure in respect of mortgage rates or property taxes. I wanted in my first intervention to review the housing situation. I should like to
Mortgage Tax Credit
say today that from a fiscal point of view I cannot object to that tax cut for Canadians.
Every shade of opinion may be expressed about this legislation whether one lives in one area or another of Canada or whether one views it as a social policy, a socioeconomic policy or a fiscal policy. I represent an urban riding located in the second largest Quebec City resulting from the merger of 14 municipalities. I have experienced the problems of these residents and it is in light of meetings I had with the people of Laval that I realized to what extent our existing policies concerning housing assistance for the elderly had been effective. But having studied that policy, which is not a housing policy, I also realized that Ido not fully agree with the preceding speaker in the sense that in my view it will not necessarily stimulate housing development.
However, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it will stabilize conditions for Canadians who already own a home and who see their mortgage interest or their municipal taxes increase annually. One has to live in a city which has mushroomed over the last ten years to realize how difficult it is for home owners to meet that yearly increase in their municipal property taxes. That is why 1 will support this bill which will alleviate the tax burden for home owners. This will obviously mean an annual saving.
As 1 said at the beginning of my comments, when we consider a bill we can improve it and expect to do so through our suggestions to the government, and after discussing this matter with my colleague from Terrebonne, who has also lived in a municipality which has expanded, I intend to support the amendment he suggested to the minister this afternoon to protect the owners of single-family dwellings which are not mortgaged.
In Canada, 27 per cent of all home owners do not hold a mortgage. This means that 2.2 million Canadians who own single-family dwellings and do not have a mortgage will not be able to claim the amount of $1,250 provided under this bill to reduce the cost of mortgages. We therefore ask the Minister of Finance to consider doubling the amount provided for the municipal tax credit to help these 27 per cent of Canadians whose houses are no longer mortgaged. Over the first year, instead of having the $62.50 municipal tax credit, home owners who do not have a mortgage will have nothing. If they had a mortgage, they would receive $125. In my opinion, if this amendment is accepted, not only would an additional 2.2 million families be able to benefit from this legislation, but we would also be doing something for senior citizens, since my colleagues are also anxious to have as many Canadians as possible benefit from this bill.
Since only 6 per cent of senior citizens have a mortgage on their home and a great many of them have only a small house,

December 5, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
and in fact 63 per cent of them have a small home or a small bungalow, it is plain to see that these people often have only the income from their pension. I repeat that 63 per cent live in their own home and these are single-family dwellings, and only 6 per cent of them have mortgages. They would be added to the Canadians who will benefit from this legislation. As a matter of fact, if we take only the present legislation, only 32 per cent of taxpayers could have either the property tax credit or the tax credit in respect of mortgage interest, whereas if we add those who do not have a mortgage and who could deduct a double amount for their municipal taxes, we would add another 29 per cent. Mr. Chairman, this consideration is important, in our opinion, and we hope that the minister will be able to consider the possibility of providing the benefits of this legislation for those Canadians.
Mr. Chairman, in concluding, I shall say that some newsmen misinterpreted my position when they mentioned that on November 21, in my speech, I did not seem to share the views of this bill. At that time, I based my assessment of the housing situation in Canada on quantity and not on quality. Well, now I am trying to bring some improvements to this bill, which 1 think will better meet the aspirations of the Canadian people. This is why I support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Terrebonne this afternoon so that Canadians are better protected.


Mr. Bockstael:: Mr. Chairman, it would have been inconsistent on my part to vote in favour of Bill C-20 precisely when 1 wanted to point out its deficiencies. 1 have a lot of respect for traditions, and it should be recognized that, according to parliamentary tradition, the official opposition is normally against any tax increase proposed by the government. Consequently, the opposition should not object to a tax reduction if it is a real reduction applying equally and equitably. Unfortunately, Bill C-20 does not meet those requirements in my opinion.

Bill C-20 is a far cry from the proposal that the Conservatives promised during the election campaign. It represents a token effort to meet the promises they made concerning their original tax deduction program. This tax cut favours one segment of our society; it sets a dangerous precedent and can be described as a handout to a few at the expense of others. All Canadians know that they cannot expect something for nothing. A mortgage interest tax cut benefits only those households that carry a mortgage, but their neighbours who do not qualify for such a benefit will have to help pay for it in some way or another.
The mortgaged property owners themselves and all Canadians will soon be finding out that they will have to pay a lot more to heat their homes, to operate their equipment and to drive their vehicles. It is impossible to obtain information from the government as to how the moneys will be raised before the presentation of the budget.

This scheme sets a very dangerous precedent that will ultimately become ingrained in our tax system while we recognize that it is an inequitable and inefficient use of funds. It is a proposal which is at cross-purpose with the government's stated goal of reducing expenditures. I find it difficult to accept that the Minister of Finance, who went on record at one time as opposed to such a measure, could do a personal about-face and become a prime supporter of such a crass, politically motivated proposition.
Another aspect of this bill concerns the municipal tax credit. As a municipal councillor I quickly discovered that municipal tax credits were nothing more than a vote gaining move by an upper echelon of government. Let me describe the Manitoba scene as follows. A young couple purchased a new home. The mortgage company listed their tax bill as $1,250. On applying to the city for a tax certificate, the assessment department told them that their taxes amounted to $1,000. That was all the city, in establishing its tax rolls, claimed from them for their property, but the province had directed the city to add an additional $250 on to their tax bill so they could in turn show it as a tax deduction on their income tax form. People were wont to run around and say, "Thank God we have a good government who gives us a $250 tax refund on our municipal taxes because those lousy councillors are overtaxing us." Actually they did not realize that eventually they could only claim that portion of the $250 that was applicable to them when they filed income tax returns.
1 realize that the proposal before us today is for a genuine tax credit, but what 1 am trying to point out is this. In earlier systems and earlier relations with senior government and municipal governments, the senior government simply sent one cheque from their treasury to the city treasurer to accomplish the same ends. But that in itself was only known between both treasurers and the city council, and it did not draw the government any individual votes. Whether citizens are poor, middle class or very wealthy, they are all ready to accept what appears to be a free handout. So to make themselves look good, this PC government chose the more elaborate route of an offset to all the bitter pills they are planning to make Canadians swallow eventually. As far as I am concerned, this is a form of misleading advertising that I cannot condone.
The hon. House leader for the government used his most eloquent and persuasive manner, just as if he were trying to win over a reluctant jury, when he urged us to pass this bill quickly without any amendments. He even issued a veiled threat by inferring that if we did not rush it through in its less desirable form, we would be held accountable by the public as the ones who did not want them to have a tax break in April, 1980. Remember that we on this side of the House did not make such a promise, much like the Minister of Finance when he said that our government did not promise renters any relief from their shelter costs. If the government cannot deliver the first phase of the mortgage tax deductibility plan in time for the 1979 taxation year, it could very well be deferred. All they have to do is to keep down their proposed tax increases in other areas.

December 5, 1979

I must confess, as a man involved in the construction business for 35 years, that I was very much amused by the suggestion by government members that such a move would prevent people from buying homes, that this program was in fact a real incentive to move people out of apartments into their own homes and that this bill would stimulate construction and the home building industry. Who are they trying to confuse? I defy them to show me one couple who would be prepared to go out and buy a house right now because this government is promising them a $312.50 tax credit if they would hurry and do so, at a time when new mortgage interest rates are at an all time high. Conservative policies are systematically bringing the house building industry to a standstill while creating massive profits for the bankers and the financiers in this country.
The same $2.87 billion that this ill-conceived proposal is estimated to cost by the fourth year, applied to a practical home owner assistance program, would boost our whole economy a great deal more than the measures this Conservative government has proposed thus far. Please do not try to give the people a snow job by trying to make them believe that this can also be construed to be a housing policy, an incentive to build or acquire a new home, while high interest rates are currently forcing the housing industry and all its satellite industries to make drastic cutbacks in manpower and material requirements, resulting in more unemployment and a lower gross national product. I urge the government to reconsider.
This latest move this afternoon of imposing closure on us, saying they have to do it because there is no other solution, is another mark of the arrogance of this government which has continued to accuse the previous government of arrogance. I would ask hon. members opposite to consider for a moment what the attitude of this same Minister of Finance and the leader of the government would be in opposition today if the Liberal government ever dared to suggest that they had to pass this bill by a certain time or else they would be responsible and they would be blackmailed with the public. How would they react to this proposal of closure?


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The proposal that is being brought in by the government, Bill C-20, as 1 understand it, will not require one additional bureaucrat to administer, but in fact will just involve one line on the income tax form supported by certain receipts. Is it correct that we will not have to hire one additional staff member to administer it?


John Carnell Crosbie: Perhaps I might answer that, Mr. Chairman. The answer is yes, this is a PC policy. We will not need to hire any additional people. We will not have to hire thousands of additional government employees or civil servants to administer this plan which is going to benefit home owners in this country to such a great extent. Rather than do as the Liberals did before us and hire extra tens of thousands, this proposal will not require one extra person, but it will be administered by the Department of National Revenue, as is now the case. It
Mortgage Tax Credit
will involve a simple tax credit and will not require any enlargement of the bureaucracy.
While I have the floor, can I continue on for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, or do you want to give the floor to someone else?


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: This time I prefer to give the floor to someone else; I will call upon the minister later.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is very good of you.


Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words with regard to Bill C-20 to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax.
My constituency is an urban riding where this kind of legislation creates a lot of interest and enthusiasm. The home owners and renters are all concerned about this kind of legislation. I hope the government is not serious when it suggests, in effect, that there are obstructionist tactics being used by members of the opposition, because that certainly is not the intent. Rather, as far as I am personally concerned, this is a matter of my responsibility as a member of Parliament speaking for my constituents with regard to matters and important issues that are before the government in terms of legislation.
I would also say that, as far as the delay is concerned, the minister first announced this plan on September 17, 1979. The bill did not receive first reading in the House until October 29, 1979, some six weeks later.


John Carnell Crosbie: Because of your budget.


William Kenneth Robinson: If there was any delay, maybe the minister intended it because he was not happy with this legislation.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about the budget that you brought down and your legislation which you delayed for weeks?


William Kenneth Robinson: There is, of course, the question of deductibility versus the tax credit, and 1 must say that initially I think the government did show some good sense in that it scrapped the original vote-getter, the mortgage interest deductibility program, in favour of the tax credit scheme.
In 1978 the deductibility promise proposed that a home owner be allowed to deduct from taxable income all mortgage interest up to $5,000 and property taxes up to $1,000. However, under this legislation, mortgage interest paid and the amount of federal income tax paid are principal determinants of benefit. Without doubt, the tax credit plan distributes benefits more equitably among the eligible portion of the population, for it shrinks the tax benefit for high-income earners and fattens it for those in the middle-income group. However, despite the government's attempt to make the best of a bad pledge, in my view the bill certainly has a number of major flaws.

December 5, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
First of all, let us take a look at what we might call a balance sheet and imagine that the balance sheet has two columns, one column entitled "who benefits" and the other column entitled "who does not benefit". On the "who benefits" side you have 3.8 million families in Canada who pay federal tax and have mortgages, of which 2.3 million are eligible for both the mortgage interest and property tax benefit. There are another 1.5 million of the 3.8 million I mentioned who will receive only the property tax benefit.
On the other side of the ledger you have the "who does not benefit" column, and that includes the 5.5 million families who are disqualified for various reasons-the elderly, those who have already paid off their mortgages, the poor who pay no taxes or maybe very little tax and who cannot afford a down payment in any event, the single parent families, many of whom cannot cope and certainly could not afford to buy homes and pay off big mortgages, the mobile workers who find it unrealistic to purchase homes, and, of course, the renters as well. Obviously the balance is tilted in favour of a very specific group of taxpayers.
1 do not suggest that home owners are not entitled to some assistance, and they have received some assistance in the past and will continue to do so in the future. It just seems that we are giving a little bit more assistance to this select group than maybe we should be at this time.
Of course, there is the whole of the expense of the program and who pays for it. When we look at the cost we find that by 1982, when the plan is fully matured, it will cost $2.87 billion. I ask the Minister of Finance how this is to be paid. The only explanation I have been able to find so far is a statement by the Minister of Finance which appears at page 1463 of Hansard of November 19, 1979 as follows:
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.
Consider that as a non-explanation. We cannot forget the families who do pay the taxes but who do not benefit because of the reasons I mentioned earlier, particularly the renters, the elderly, the mobile workers and so on. The list is quite extensive.
If the Minister of Finance is not prepared to explain who pays, perhaps I could provide a little insight. It would appear that there is no doubt but that the burden will be reshuffled among the middle class. One must consider that, aside from the taxes paid by Canadian home owners, the government has one significant alternative source of revenue, and that is the people who are living in rental accommodation. Some of my colleagues have already, to some extent, pointed out this major discriminatory aspect.
I would like to quote from an article by Mr. Peter Myers in the November issue of the Executive in which he states:
Canada's economists do not object to the mortgage plan because of any disagreement with the objectives stated by the government. None of them questions the need for more jobs . . . However, the economists have challenged the government to show how a massive shift in income from renters to homeowners would achieve any desirable social objective. They see no logic in additional inducements to home ownership when Canadians already have

achieved an unusually high ratio of ownership to rental and when the tax system already provides home owners with an enormous financial advantage through the exemption for capital gains on private residences.
Perhaps I should give the Minister of Finance the benefit of the doubt by waiting to see what he tells us in the budget he will be presenting next Tuesday night. Maybe at that time he will let us know where the $2.3 billion will be coming from by 1982.
In the meantime my major concern has to do with federal programs which are presently in place, such as old age security, family allowances and so on. There have been considerable cutbacks, as we all know, affecting Canada Works grants. In my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore no grants have been received whatsoever. Members may say this is because unemployment is low, much lower than in most other ridings. Nevertheless, there are certain people who are affected by the cutbacks in Canada Works grants. In particular, I can think of one organization called Storefront Humber which was obliged to give up the work it was doing for handicapped people, senior citizens and other groups because of lack of funding.
I am also greatly concerned about the rumours which have been going around concerning pension reviews, universality versus selectivity, and so on. My constituents are uneasy about this kind of thing and they would like assurances from the government that programs such as pensions for senior citizens which are already in place will remain in place.
Another question I want to ask is this: What are the government's priorities with regard to tax cuts? In particular, I ask the government, since they are in a mood of austerity, whether it is proposed simply to add the $2.8 billion to the federal deficit which is already astronomical-


Mr. Brisco:: You said it!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Kenneth Robinson: In a so-called "bite the bullet" speech in Toronto the Minister of Finance asked the following question-I am quoting from the Financial Times of November 12, 1979:
Are we so unique that we think our natural advantages in resources and geography somehow protect us from fundamental economic realities? I don't think so. There is no magic in this, there is nothing new in it. Success will involve some hard work, some cutting back, some putting off of real increases in our standard of living, some restraint.
Well, the minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. With the passage of this bill there will, no doubt, be an increase in the demand for housing and, in turn, the demand for mortgage credit will increase with unavoidable inflationary consequences.
In July of 1979 in the magazine Executive an article appears by Peter Myers. He writes:
While the Tory economists profess considerable confidence that their concept of a stimulative deficit can bring net benefits, many of their professional colleagues outside the government have been voicing serious doubts. If the
December 5, 1979

concept does not pay off or even if there is a significant delay before government revenues recover, then a larger federal deficit would be unavoidable. The consequences would be more inflation and further depreciation of the Canadian dollar.
We in opposition are concerned about the fiscal responsibility of the Government of Canada, and 1 am sure hon. gentlemen across the way share this concern. To place a program of this kind before Parliament in present circumstances seems to me rather ridiculous. On the one hand, the government talks about restraint and belt tightening, and on the other it is proposing to spend $2.87 billion with no explanation of where the money is coming from.
What about the American experience? As we know, an all-party committee went down to Washington to look into the system there and find out whether it could be used here, whether it would be worthwhile. The information I had from the members when they came back was that we should avoid this kind of program at all costs. Well, we are to have it anyway. The comments of Mr. Richard Pomp, an associate professor of law at the University of Connecticut School of Law, are important in this connection. He said:
Although international comparisons are not always meaningful Canadians should find it curious that despite these deductions the home ownership rate in the United States is virtually the same as in Canada.
1 believe the Prime Minister has acknowledged that the mortgage plan, once established will be difficult to reverse. This aspect seems to be in conflict with the idea of sunset legislation proposed by the Minister of State (Treasury Board). I note that in an article which appeared in The Ottawa Journal on November 28, the following appears:
Minister of State Perrin Beatty, who is preparing the legislation, said yesterday Parliament could terminate or drastically change programs after they had been reviewed.
What about Canada's housing situation? Once again I want to quote from Professor Richard Pomp. He says there would really be no increase in home ownership whatsoever as a result of the introduction of this kind of legislation.
A study carried out recently by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development reached the conclusion that Canadians were the best housed people in the industrial world. A Gallup poll conducted just before the election of May 22 indicated that Canadians were well housed; over 80 per cent of the people who responded to the questionnaire said they were satisfied with their present housing situation.
Mr. Chairman, I have touched on a number of areas which concern me with regard to this bill. I was prepared to look at it favourably during the election period; I felt that this mortgage deductibility concept might be acceptable within certain limits. However, at the present time, the economic situation being what it is, 1 believe it is untimely and would benefit only a few at the expense of many. Without doubt it is a seductive sales pitch to voters, but throwing money at a problem has never been a satisfactory answer. I hope the government will consider very carefully the amendments which are to be submitted. 1 will only say in conclusion that Canada cannot afford this expensive program at this time.
Mortgage Tax Credit


John Horton McDermid: Would the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore accept a question? If the government is so irresponsible in presenting this bill, would the hon. member tell me why the housing critic for his party, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, has suggested it be extended to include renters and other groups?


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry will be quite prepared, 1 am sure, to answer that question when he gets back to the House. I do not pretend to speak for my hon. friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Miss Nicholson:: I want to address clause 1 briefly, Mr. Chairman. There are many social as well as economic reasons why as a matter of public policy a government might wish to encourage home ownership; it contributes to the stability of neighbourhoods and helps citizens have a stake in their country. But this bill does nothing to help young families buy a home. It does nothing for renters and therefore does nothing to assist people at the time they are trying to save money to buy a home. It does not address the question of the affordability of homes, in particular the very high interest rates which buyers are now facing as result of present government policy. Except for a limited credit in respect of property tax, it does nothing for those who have already paid for their homes-for example, senior citizens who are struggling to maintain themselves in their own homes on fixed incomes.
I voted against the bill on second reading because it is a poorly designed piece of legislation which does not stimulate home ownership or construction.
During this committee stage we will be coming forward with a number of motions to try to improve the bill and rid it of some of its most obvious inefficiencies and inequities. We are limited in what we can do, however, by the rigidly intransigent attitude of the government, which is so sure it will be able to use its majority to pass the bill in its present form that it has already printed and distributed tax credit forms based on the bill as it now stands, even though the bill has not been passed by Parliament.
The Prime Minister complained in Vancouver recently that Liberals were obstructing this bill. The Prime Minister made his complaint three days after the second reading debate was begun. At that time six members of the official opposition had spoken on the bill. This government is showing an arrogance and a lack of respect for Parliament which are unmatched in our history.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Aideen Nicholson: To print forms before a bill has even had second reading on the assumption it will not be amended, to complain because the bill is not rubber stamped and to complain after only six speeches-six thoughtful speeches, I might add, with a lot of constructive suggestions for change if the government had been disposed to listen to them-is surely very

December 5, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
strange behaviour for a party which claims to have respect for Parliament.
The mortgage interest and tax credit plan which we have before us is, admittedly, less objectionable than the original tax deduction proposal put forward by the Conservative party during the election campaign. However, as the bill now stands it does not assist people on limited incomes to buy homes, nor will it stimulate residential construction. This tax credit reduces the ongoing costs of home ownership to a very slight extent, but the major obstacle to home ownership is still high mortgage interest rates. High interest rates are also reducing construction industry activity across the board. If the government really wants to do something to make it easier for people to purchase homes and to assist the construction industry, the first choice would be to do something about reducing mortgage interest rates.
Bill C-20 represents an expenditure of $2.87 billion after four years and in every year after that. The bill represents an expenditure this year, 1979, of $575 million. Where is that money to come from? The bill will reduce federal taxes for perhaps 30 per cent of Canadians, but who is going to pay for those lost revenues? The Minister of Finance has been threatening us with a tough medicine budget. Is he going to get the money to pay for this program through a general tax increase? There is only one taxpayer, who pays from one pocket or another.
The statements on the proposed excise tax on gasoline are vague in the extreme. Could this be a disguised way of getting Canadians to pay for the mortgage tax credit? Will programs and services be reduced to pay for the mortgage tax credit? If family allowances are reduced, the tax relief from mortgage payments may be cancelled out. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that family allowances and existing tax deductions for children will continue during 1980 only. What happens after that? Will those programs be cancelled to pay for the mortgage tax credit scheme, which will cost $2.87 billion in its fourth year of operation?
We should not be asked to deal with this bill before the budget, before we know how it will be paid for and what Canadians will be asked to give up in exchange for it.
The minister is now introducing closure at the committee stage, which prevents us from asking further questions. Nevertheless, we will be introducing some amendments in the hope of improving somewhat this poorly designed bill.
[ Translation]


Mr. Savard:: Mr. Chairman, if I rise to speak on Bill C-20, it is because things most strange and mystifying are occurring. As a rule, the purpose of this program is to grant taxpaying home owners a tax credit of 25 per cent on the first $5,000 of interest paid up to $1,250 per year, which would enable taxpayers to claim at the end of the first year $312.50 in mortgage interest and $62.50 in property taxes. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am greatly concerned when I consider and analyse the snare which the government is preparing for the

Canadian people. Mr. Chairman, has the glaring unfairness that will be done in my constituency been considered? It is true that this government has not been well received by our people. One aim of the program is to promote economic activity as a whole by increasing the net income of home owners after taxes. This mechanism will not be effective because the credit will be universally granted to all owners according to the amount of their mortgage. In most areas in recent years, people have been more deterred from buying houses by the ever-increasing mortgage interest rates than by the increase in the price of homes.
This bill does not even guarantee that all home owners will benefit from the mortgage interest tax credit. I am referring to people of my riding, the elderly who have worked hard and who have paid off their homes. I can understand that turnabout. One day they tell home owners that they will be able to deduct their mortgage interest, which would leave them with only their property tax to pay, but the next day, as is the case with every policy established by the new government, there is a complete turnabout and now we have the government telling home owners that they will only give them a tax credit against their mortgage interest and property tax. Mr. Chairman, I am very confused. Further, the true benefits of the program will probably be neutralized by higher interest rates. The increase in interest rates for mortgage loans which brought the rates from 11 per cent in July, 1979, to almost 14 per cent recently gives a good idea of the incidence of these raises on home ownership. In 1978, the average value of houses purchased through loans under the National Housing Act was $44,874. At that time, a household with a reasonably secure $20,156 income could afford such an investment provided the monthly payments at a mortgage rate of 11 per cent did not exceed 25 per cent of its gross income. Now that the mortgage rate has gone up to 14 per cent, a $23,283 income is required to make the same purchase.
It seems that the Progressive Conservatives want to facilitate residential home ownership. If so, they should design their program so as to do away with the main cause of erosion of the purchasing power of future home owners, that is high mortgage interest rates. In the 1970s, housing costs have increased much faster for home owners than for tenants. And what about tenants? This program will cause them to despair of ever owning their own home just because they could not afford it.
Mr. Chairman, this government should earnestly look into a shelter allowance scheme for tenants, for elderly people, for young couples who want to purchase a home. This government will be responsible if young people are discouraged from ever getting established. Just think that the mortgage interest rate is 15 per cent, Mr. Chairman.
Elderly people and home owners with low income who therefore do not pay any federal taxes and thus are not eligible for that credit may find themselves in dire straits.
December 5, 1979

Mr. Chairman, this government's priority is to meet the needs of small wage earners and of those who cannot manage on their own. To whom will this money go? Will it help average income people pay their mortgage or senior citizens whose living standards are below the poverty line? This tax credit is a mere wasteful patronage scheme which will only deprive small businessmen. It is wasteful mainly because it is a questionable fiscal program purporting to promote ownership. One need not be very bright to realize that this is not a proposal designed to improve housing but merely a tax cut. This program will give rise to three types of injustice.
First of all, renters who account for about 40 per cent of Canadian households are excluded. Then, the benefits are inequitably shared by the various groups of wage earners. And finally, the program entails regional inequalities. Mr. Chairman, home owners are treated better than renters. The tax credit scheme will encourage even more home ownership, but will in no way benefit Canadian renters who represent some 40 per cent of the population. Of course they could take advantage of it if they decided to buy a house, but even with the tax credit a large proportion of Canadian families cannot afford it.
There is also the difference in treatment according to the income groups. About 60 per cent of households could in principle claim a tax credit for property taxes and a tax credit for mortgage interest. But actually the figure will not be that large since some of them do not have enough income to pay federal tax or do not pay enough federal tax to be entitled to a full return.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to mention the regional distribution. The credit for mortgage interest clearly favours some regions over others. On the whole, the maritimes and Quebec will benefit least, whereas Ontario and the western provinces will gain most.
Mr. Chairman, the tax credit program is expensive. It will change the distribution of resources within the economy and will increase inflation and unemployment. Once fully implemented, the program will cost about $2.3 billion a year. However, it can be estimated that in fact the cost of the program will be a little higher inasmuch as it encourages families to buy houses, to contract mortgage obligations and to make to their home improvements worth more than $5,000.
Without budgetary cuts in other sectors, the mortgage tax credit program will increase the federal deficit and thus create more inflation. It may also result in more inflationary pressures as the price of houses will rise and financial institutions will feel free to raise mortgage interest rates that in some cases could boost inflation. Any substantial increase in the inflation rate which was estimated at 9.6 per cent in September would be bound to create an inflation spiral as bad as the one experienced in 1975.
Mortgage Tax Credit
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to expose the weaknesses of this program as a rational housing policy. Other arguments could be raised to deal with it from the fiscal point of view. From that angle, it is obviously plagued with serious blunders. Anyone who sees in this bill anything other than a refusal of fiscal responsibility, a foolish gift that the Progressive Conservative government must make because it promised to do so during the electoral campaign, refuses to see what it is in reality: a bill that shows a lack of vision and the fact that the government is clinging to an unfair, extravagant and economically foolish proposal.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I was shocked to hear the NDP member for Saskatoon say that the people of Quebec live in conditions that are as unsanitary as those in which the people of northeast Brazil live. I want to point out to him that the poor of Quebec have clean and decent houses, and 1 quote what he said, if you will allow me:
In the area-
-that is to say, he compares Quebec with the people who live in northeast Brazil. According to me, Mr. Chairman, before saying things like that he should check his data. His words may have exceeded his thoughts but, as a Quebecker, I would invite him to retract what he said and restate the facts, as he should, because this is what he said and I quote:
I make this point now not because there is this type of bug-
-of which he spoke-
-in Canada but because one of my colleagues who now works in the inner section of Montreal-
So this is hearsay, he did not see it personally. I would invite him personally to visit my riding, to visit the people in the east of Montreal; then he will see that the people we have in Quebec, in Montreal, are clean people, people who can take care of themselves; to my mind, they can very well do without this kind of remark, the type a friend of his told him, and I quote:
-told me that, on returning to Canada after working with me for six or seven years in northeast Brazil, he was surprised there was such a similarity between the housing for the poor in Montreal and the housing for the poor in northeast Brazil.
It is really unfair to say such things about the people of the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. It is terrible, we cannot accept that. So I invite him to withdraw his words and explain further what he meant when he said that. In concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: He talked about "bugs", and he thinks we are full of "bugs" but we aren't.


Pierre Raymond Savard: Yes, what my colleague is saying is true. He talked about "bugs", and he thinks we are full of "bugs", but we aren't. I am going to tell him that we are clean.

December 5, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I should not like to write a blank cheque without being certain that the housing subsidy program will be included in the bill. Consequently, I voted against passage of this bill because, in my opinion, it does not meet the needs of the elderly and the renters. In other words, we should not take the money out of the pockets of the poor to give it to the rich.


Mr. Rae:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately the hon. member for Saskatoon East is not in the House. I believe he is touring Quebec and eastern Canada, the maritime provinces, with my colleague from Winnipeg-Birds Hill to discuss health problems and conditions. However, I should like to assure my colleague, my good friend from Verdun, that if the hon. member for Saskatoon East were here 1 am sure he would want to clarify his remarks because I know for sure, knowing the hon. member, that he did not intend, and our party did not intend either, to insult the people of Montreal or of any other part of Canada. I feel sure my colleague from Verdun would agree with me, and if the hon. member's words did not convey his thoughts I am sure he would want to clarify his remarks. He meant that there are in Canada deep-rooted and real poverty problems. Instead of handing out a Christmas gift to home owners who obviously do not have the same needs as others, the government would do better to give something to those who really need it.
So I am quite sure that it is something which in his mind my colleague from Verdun shares with our party, and in the name of the member for Saskatoon East I would like to say that he had not the least intention of insulting the people of Montreal. He could just have said the same thing about the people of Toronto. I might have had the same reaction had he talked about my riding in such a manner, but in any case I want to assure the hon. member that my colleague did not mean to insult anybody.


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few short comments on Bill C-20, in particular clause 1, in response to some of the discussions I have heard about this very valuable and attractive measure, and to some of the negative comments I have heard in recent days.
Continually we get the message from across the way that this program will cost the government something. It reflects a mentality which effectively says that anything we give up, in the way of leaving tax money in people's pockets, is a cost to government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Governments incur costs by spending, not by relinquishing their access to the taxpayer's purse. In fact, these measures will produce savings to government by reducing levels of taxation and by reducing the need for bureaucratic systems to process that tax revenue. We believe that those dollars ought to be rightfully left in the pockets of people who need them.

That brings me to my second point. I listened to the hon. member for St. Boniface this afternoon make the same error that has been made by other members opposite. That is the error of misleading the people of this country into thinking that this tax credit program, Bill C-20, represents a watering down of our earlier mortgage interest deductibility proposal. Nothing could be further from the truth. This tax credit measure represents a strengthening of the previous proposal. In fact, it will return more money into the pockets of people who earn it than the previous program. It has been said that instead of a $5,000 tax deduction, we are giving people only a $375 tax credit. That is a misleading comparison, because the previous proposal was a program of deductions from taxable income on which tax was calculated. So for Canadians home owners at a tax level in excess of 25 per cent, the previous program would have been more attractive than the present one. But those Canadian home owners who are in tax brackets of less than 25 per cent would have been disadvantaged by the previous proposal.
This proposal is of greater advantage to lower income Canadians who own their own homes than the previous one. Because it has a more positive benefit for Canadians in tax brackets of lower than 25 per cent, the negative impact on higher income Canadians in fact leaves more money in the pockets of low income Canadian home owners, which this program is designed to serve. I want that to be clearly entered on the record, because for far too long I have heard that fact being misrepresented by members on the opposite side.
Another point relates to the constant references made to interest rates in relation to this program. We would not be in the disastrous situation with which we are faced in this country today with high interest rates-because we have to maintain some relationship with the high interest rates in the United States and the western world-if it were not for the fact that our country pursued a policy of deficit financing. This has led to the disastrous state of our economy, a state from which there are no simple escapes, no simple solutions. But I should point out that what we are doing is right in the ball park of what the New Democratic Party has been asking for. The NDP and the Liberals have asked us to somehow subsidize interest rates, to somehow hold down interest rates. That is exactly what this program does.
If one calculates on the basis of current interest rates the benefit of the $375 tax credit, it translates to an interest reduction of roughly 1 per cent for the year 1979. At the end of the full implementation of these measures, the effective interest rate benefit will be between 3 per cent and 4 per cent. If, as we all expect, interest rates will begin to decline in the springtime and drop to levels of 10 per cent and 11 per cent once again, then this program, when it has reached its full implementation, will reduce the effective interest rate by 3 per cent or 4 per cent. Thus the interest rate could be reduced to something like 7 per cent on a residential mortgage.
I do not care how the NDP or the Liberals want to cut it: essentially we are doing something of benefit to Canadians which in a way is equivalent to an interest rate deduction. I,
December 5, 1979

for the life of me, cannot understand how these hon. members can sit there complacently and argue against this very effective and very positive program for which all Canadians will thank this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tardif:: Mr. Chairman, I am extremely grateful to you for allowing me to participate in this debate in Committee of the Whole on clause 1 of Bill C-20. This bill is the result of an election promise. Before the elections, the Tories were prepared to promise anything to get the support of the voters without any consideration for the consequences of such promises. In view of the result of the elections, those same Tories now feel they have to fulfil a promise. They feel all the more strongly about it because having been in power for a mere six months, they have already had to change their minds on the issue of moving the embassy. That is why, Mr. Chairman, they want to have Bill C-20 passed at all costs.
The minister even told us yesterday in this House that the printing of the forms had already been ordered on the assumption that this bill would be passed. Although my colleagues in the official opposition on this side of the House have made a great number of arguments and points against this bill, 1 would like, Mr. Chairman, to add my voice to those of my colleagues to show why I am personally against it and why, in my opinion, this bill should be abandoned or at least substantially amended to make it more equitable and fair. Before doing so, I must say that in the area of housing, my riding is similar to many others in the sense that several of my constituents want to become home owners, but not at any cost, however. Others, and there are also many of them both among young and older people, will never be able to afford such a luxury. There are even more of them now after the unprecedented rise in interest rate. And finally, my riding has a high percentage of home owners who carry no mortgages.
Renters, older people, home owners without mortgages, Mr. Chairman, are as far as 1 am concerned all full-fledged Canadians, all taxpayers. They will get no benefits out of the measures introduced under the umbrella of a housing policy. Quite the contrary, they will contribute for a large part to the financing of that program. So it is a plea I am making for tfiose thousands of people who also have a right to improve their lot. Furthermore, their situation requires major and immediate attention.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the first reason why I think Bill C-20 should be substantially amended is that it greatly discriminates against thousands of Canadians who are nevertheless also concerned with finding a decent home at a reasonable cost they can afford. Not only does this bill not improve their condition, but it makes it substantially worse because it forces them to pay the cost without considering that in the very short term they will have to pay substantial
Mortgage Tax Credit
increases as a result of high interest rates and the increase in the cost of home heating oil or perhaps tax increases to pay for the cost of this program that is estimated at about $3 billion when fully matured.
1 respectfully submit that a housing policy should definitely apply to all Canadians and not only to a small group. If it must be more generous for some people, it should favour the less privileged, the poorest among us. If we suppose that the bill is aimed at promoting home ownership, I will say, Mr. Chairman, that I am in complete agreement with such a purpose, which is basically and objectively most valid and even most laudable. In this regard, I would like to relate the conclusions of a brief survey that I made among the contractors and lenders of my constituency. No one will be surprised when I say that I have learned that very few loans are presently granted and that accordingly construction has, to all intents and purposes, come to a dead standstill. Why is this? Very simply because of interest rates. In my opinion, this notorious Bill C-20 therefore does not meet its objective, and even worse, the present economic situation is discouraging thousands of Canadians and hundreds of my constituents who wanted to invest in property.
Mr. Chairman, the Progressive Conservative members will probably reply that the interest rates will come back to normal very soon. Even though 1 am quite sceptical about this possibility in view of their high-handed attitude in the face of what I consider to be a dramatic situation, 1 believe that the forthcoming oil price increases will slow down as never before the construction of single family dwellings and multiple unit housing in Canada. To summarize, the mover of Bill C-20 wants to give the impression that he is promoting home-buying because this is electorally profitable. In my opinion, reality is very different and even quite the opposite especially if we examine this legislation in the context of the present situation in Canada, and even more so if we refer to the latest Gallup poll, which was most revealing in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, who will benefit from Bill C-20? Only present home owners whose houses are mortgaged. They will naturally be pleased to benefit from a mortgage tax credit. However, this pleasure will change into bitterness when they see the tremendous increase in heating oil costs and when their monthly payments are increased on renewal of their mortgage. Everything points to a loss of a few hundred dollars.
The Minister of Finance has said:
This is not an income distribution scheme, not at all; it is a scheme which concerns property. Its objective is to help Canadians become home owners.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the bill in its present form will help Canadians become home owners. At most, it will prevent a few Canadians from losing their property. I am quite convinced that the same Canadians would have been more satisfied with a program that could protect them against

December 5, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
interest rate increases and ensure stability in heating oil costs. The residential construction market in Canada and especially in Quebec has slowed down considerably in the last month and this will have greatly unfavourable consequences if the Progressive Conservatives do nothing to correct this situation. For that purpose I believe they must amend the bill and try to find real solutions through genuine and not phony assistance. If they maintain the attitude they have adopted since May 22, they will be responsible for, not to say guilty of, destroying any hope which young families and young couples might entertain to buy their own house some day.
If we believe the Progressive Conservative government, Mr. Chairman, in coming months and even in coming years Canadians will have to live with government restraint policies. Therefore, they question now the universality concept of some programs. They repeat every day that they will consolidate as much capital as possible in productive expenses, that every expense will be carefully considered for investment in the most promising sectors to stimulate and restore the economy, or so the government members say. Although I am not an economist, I do not understand how it is possible to reconcile such a policy with Bill C-20. Indeed, they propose to spend billions of dollars in a sector where there will not be any economic spin-off, no new employment in a foreseeable future. On the contrary such a measure may place our economy in a complete state of stagnation. If at least the program were fair, but it is dramatically unfair.
No matter what the approach is, Mr. Chairman, this bill is completely useless in my opinion, and moreover it is extremely expensive. Its impact would be disastrous. I will point out, with all due respect, that the capacity of Canadians to pay is not unlimited and that in a very short time, with such actions, we will quickly reach those limits. The bill is only an attempt to follow up on an awkward and irresponsible election promise, and it should not have been introduced in this House, once again taking into account the present state of the economy.
Mr. Chairman, we must devote all our energies to make sure that over the next few months the government will spend the taxpayers' money in an effort to raise or at least maintain their standard of living, instead of increasing the deficit without any justification.
But, all things considered, I do not want to be negative but essentially realistic and positive. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the government should withdraw its decision, review its position and seek out means-we would certainly be ready to co-operate-to make home ownership easier for low-income Canadians, by reviewing the high mortgage interest and establishing programs to slow down the rate of increase of energy costs.
Bill C-20 is discriminatory, unjust and useless, and the government should also forget its election promise and work on a really fair legislation such as, for instance, a national assist-

ance program to renters who are mostly single people, young couples, old people, single parent families, of which there are quite a large number in my riding, Mr. Chairman. Even though its cost is astronomical, the program put forward by the Tories exclude all these Canadians, and it is for that reason, at the risk of repeating myself, that I must oppose this bill. This promise which initially gave much hope to many Canadians has now become a very sensitive and especially very controversial question.
The great majority, myself included, see in this program a very badly conceived idea, falling far short of the intended objectives and finally introduced in circumstances that void all effects it could have. Moreover, all agree that its limited and temporary advantages will result directly in excessive costs, for much longer than the program will last.
I think the Canadian Building magazine describes perfectly well and particularly clearly the consequences of the bill. Here is what it says:
It is a clumsy, discriminatory and counter-productive appropriation of capital funds. It will distort the tax structure, the rental market and the money markets and will result in higher home production costs, interest rates, property taxes, inflation, personal debts and federal deficits.
Those were the remarks I wanted to make to the House in the debate on clause 1 of Bill C-20.
* (1740)


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make two points in this debate. The first is in response to many of the comments made by members of the Conservative party to the effect that Saskatchewan has a similar tax plan to the one they have put forward. I should like to make a couple of brief comments to point out that what the Conservative party is saying is not true at all. There are a couple of very significant differences between this government's plan and the one in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan plan is a lot more progressive and is weighted more toward people on lower incomes. In fact, the tax credit becomes larger for people on smaller incomes. In other words, the tax credit is less when people earn higher incomes. That is a very important difference between the government's plan and the Saskatchewan plan.
The other important difference is that the Saskatchewan plan is tied to a rental program. They realize that people who rent homes are just as entitled to some kind of tax assistance from the federal government as people who own their homes. I thought it important to make those two points in response to spokesmen for the Conservative party, who have claimed that the Saskatchewan NDP introduced a plan which is the same as the one they propose. Those are two very important and fundamental differences that separate the plan of Premier Blakeney from the plan of the Minister of Finance.
I also believe that the plan before the House is, in essence, a Christmas gift to the wealthier half of our society, or perhaps the wealthier one-third or one-fifth of our society. It is certainly a Christmas gift for people in my own income bracket and
December 5, 1979

this year it will mean a S375 tax saving. People like us do not need it, Mr. Chairman.


An hon. Member:: Until the mortgage comes due!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, I know, until the mortgage comes due. Then I face the increased cost. In this taxation year, however, it is a gift of $375. Little Joe is playing Santa Claus for me and he has wrapped it up in nice paper and put it under my Christmas tree. I appreciate that and I am sure people in the same income bracket will appreciate it as well.
The purpose of this House, Mr. Chairman, is surely to see to it that people in greater need than ourselves receive some of the riches and wealth that they deserve. I want to make the point that instead of giving the money to me and to other members of this House who have mortgages, the government should do what the Saskatchewan government is doing, and that is make sure that the credit becomes smaller as income increases and also that the program will aid those people who rent their homes.
The second point I want to make is that I think there is a growing disrespect for Parliament by the Conservative party that sits across the way. I know that the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, who was the former member for Prince Albert, would have made the point if he were here. He complained many times in the past about the Liberal government printing a taxation form before the relevant bill was passed, but again the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue have had the taxation forms printed before the bill is passed. I ask, Mr. Chairman, what kind of disrespect is this for Parliament, for this institution that is supposed to be supreme? They are pre-judging the institution. How do they know that we will pass this measure carte blanche, without amendment, or that we are not going to change the thoughts of chairman John who has just come into the chamber? Is it not arrogant of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue to have the tax forms printed before the bill goes through the House?
This is a reflection of the Conservative party's disrespect for Parliament, Mr. Chairman. On Friday, a motion for closure will be brought before the House. Surely after such a short debate on this bill we should not be faced with closure.


Mr. Clarke:: After a filibuster.


John Carnell Crosbie: A "taxabuster". You are trying to bust our taxes.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: It is time allocation and you know it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Time allocation? What a difference there is when a member moves 20 feet from this side of the House to that side of the House, Mr. Chairman!


An hon. Member:: You will never make it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The very same people used to call it closure when they sat on this side of the House. It seems to me they are overzealous, Mr. Chairman. A week ago this party and the
Mortgage Tax Credit
Liberal party offered to have a vote on second reading but the Conservatives-particularly the hon. member from Owen Sound, I think-filibustered for 35 minutes. There was no vote because they filibustered their own bill.


An hon. Member:: Sit down and we will vote.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: This bill could have gone through the House on second reading six or seven days sooner than it did had the Conservatives not filibustered it. Now they are talking about closure and that is an utter disgrace which, I think, reflects their disrespect for Parliament.
We have never seen so many senators in a cabinet as there are now. Senator de Cotret is a member of the inner cabinet, as are many other important ministers, but the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, who are very important figures, are not in the inner cabinet. The senator who was a defeated candidate was rewarded with a seat in the other place and chairs a very important committee in cabinet-


David Kilgour: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville is not speaking in a completely irrelevant manner. I do not think that what he has said in the last few minutes has anything whatsoever to do with the matter before the House. I would ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Fred Alward McCain: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that clause 1 is now under discussion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking about the Conservative party's disrespect for Parliament, as exhibited by the fact that they had tax forms printed before the bill was through the House. This is not the first time we have seen this happen in the short period they have been in power. Yesterday the Chairman ruled that debate on clause 1 is very wide. It seems to me that one of the most relevant things to be discussed is the fact that the Conservatives had the tax forms printed in advance. It is something that the Canadian people should know about. It is symbolic of the fact that they did not call this Parliament back for four or five months after the election. We could have been doing work like this; we could have had a chance to debate this bill and move appropriate amendments to it. The fact that important ministers are sitting over there in the Senate where we cannot question them does not show much respect for Parliament. I know many capable Conservatives sitting over there, like the hon. member from Vancouver who has just interjected, who are just as capable, if not more so, as Mr. de Cotret or a couple of others in the Senate, but the Prime Minister has disregarded democracy and disregarded the House of Commons.
If I could quote Mr. Diefenbaker when the selection of the cabinet was made, I am sure there are backbenchers who

December 5, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
would agree that they should not have been passed over. As I said, I think the party across the way is disrespectful of Parliament. It should be noted at this stage that it should not be introducing closure and it should have not printed the taxation forms. That is real gall and arrogance on the part of the Minister of Finance-the Ayatollah of Newfoundland. He thinks he can get his own way with everything. We cannot let this bill pass without protesting the fact that they disregard and are disrespectful of this institution, and many of the Conservative party members who have been here in the past 1 am sure are very unhappy with the new Conservative party that sits across the way.


Mr. Lessard:: Mr. Chairman, only a few minutes remain before six o'clock, and I would like to take this opportunity to comment briefly on the legislation now before us. I listened earlier to our hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, who was coming back to the House, and I had the feeling that had he had a choice between the proposals to initiate in the House, and especially during the preparation of his budget which is very much on his mind now, surely this measure would not have been his top priority. Having known the Minister of Finance for some years, I am convinced he had his mind on something quite different than this election promise. As he said himself over the last few weeks, his margin of manoeuvre is altogether narrow. Members opposite blame the previous government for the somewhat tight financial situation he was referring to, but by proposing this election promise of the Progressive Conservative Party the Minister of Finance is committing government revenues, because this will reduce government revenues by more than $2 billion over the next few years. The fourth year of operation at least entails a loss of revenue of over $2 billion.
1 am convinced that listening to the debate and getting acquainted with the proposal, Canadians were originally interested, but I see things differently. And there is a specific point with which I would like to deal. I wonder whether the Progressive Conservative government, when they took that political commitment to capture votes of course, thought more of it than of really helping the housing industry.
Furthermore, I am not sure whether the government has consulted with the provinces before proceeding with its plan. What I mean is this: in the proposal brought forward by the Minister of Finance and the government, we have two elements: the first one aimed at reducing the cost of interest. This is fine since it comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government as we are responsible to a very large extent for the interest rates in the country.
But as concerns the second element which proposes to reduce by way of a tax credit the property taxes paid at the municipal level, I have some reservations because that political party has consistently accused us, when we formed the government, of interfering with provincial responsibilities. None of my colleagues has discussed this aspect of the government's proposal. 1 wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance
has actually reflected on this. They claim to be the advocates of provincial autonomy and they say that they do not want the government to interfere with the provincial jurisdiction but is this not what they are going to do in indirectly subsidizing property taxes? I think that the minister should have set himself another objective as you can easily suppose that the benefit of some $62.50, for instance, that will result from the implementation of this legislation when it is passed, if it does go through, might be very quickly diverted by the municipal authorities. We all know that municipal authorities are always short of money. We all know that they must continuously appeal to provincial governments to get some assistance. It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that in the coming years, if this legislation is implemented, provincial and municipal governments will try to recover that money and this taxation field that we are virtually giving up. As home owners will be subsidized indirectly by us, some of them at least, the municipalities will be tempted to occupy that field. As all home owners will not benefit from this program you will tell me that municipalities may have to resist this temptation because if they raise the property taxes, these will apply to all citizens, whether or not they benefit from this tax credit, I would like us to reflect on this, and I would like to say two things in this regard: either we do not subsidize this part of the interest. Thus, we would only be subsidizing the property taxes and this would benefit all home owners who have to pay them. This would be a little less discriminatory. Or else, we do not concern ourselves at all with this part, and we only pay an indirect subsidy by way of a tax exemption for lower interest, since that is where we stand as a Canadian Parliament which is directly involved.
I would like us to reflect on this and I would like the Minister of Finance, when he is given the opportunity to speak, probably during this debate, to tell us whether he has consulted with the provinces on this aspect of the proposal and whether he has heard the opinion of the provincial finance ministers or municipal affairs ministers on this aspect of the proposal. It would be interesting to know their point of view, Mr. Chairman, because the municipalities are most certainly a creation of the provinces. As we have said, the provinces provided the municipalities with the authority to collect property taxes and they certainly have the responsibility and the right to do so.


Fred Alward McCain: Order, please. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill at the next sitting of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: It
being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 6, 1979