1979-11-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
INVESTIGATION INTO TWIN OTTER ACCIDENTS-ATTITUDE OF de HAVILLAND-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that the commission of inquiry into air safety, in its investigation of 29 Twin Otter accidents in the last three years, is being impeded by the refusal to co-operate in providing information or documents by de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, and in view of the fact that de Havilland is a federal Crown corporation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is responsible to Parliament for the said corporation, instruct the officials of de Havilland to co-operate to the fullest extent with this very important commission.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the present situation in Quebec, where the provincial government is seeking independence; considering that Quebeckers must be shown that English Canada sincerely wishes to keep Quebec within confederation and thus show
consideration and respect for its cultural characteristics; considering that French and English are the official languages of this country, and since many spectators hooted, the few words of the national anthem sung in French at the hockey game between Vancouver and Montreal in Vancouver last Sunday night, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson):
That the House condemn the negative attitude of those people which is prejudicial to Canadian unity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the government refused to make public a federal government-commissioned study that lists the brand names of margarines that contain a high percentage of transfatty acids that are potentially dangerous for people with heart problems.
With the co-operation of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, we now have access to a partial list, and in order to allay the fears of the public I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House instruct the government to make public the entire list of the brand names of margarines found to have a high incidence of transfatty acids from the study called "Fatty Acid Composition of Margarines" conducted by Alpha Laboratories in Toronto and commissioned by the Canadian Dairy Commission.


Mr, Speaker:: Such a 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.

November 20, 1979



DECORATIONS AND AWARDS


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As the Goncourt prize is the most prestigious award bestowed upon a Francophone writer for her complete literary works, and as, for the first time since its inception, this prize has been awarded to a Francophone writer born outside the boundaries of France, thus acknowledging on a worldwide basis the outstanding talent of this great Acadian writer, Antonine Maillet, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That this House pay tribute to Mrs. Maillet for the honour bestowed upon her yesterday which in turn is shared by her province, Acadia and Canada.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, 1 request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
1 should like to appeal to the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) and to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) with regard to an abnormal situation in my riding, more specifically in the towns of Rouyn and Noranda.
Over seven years ago-that is, in 1971-to meet the urgent need created by cramped quarters and unacceptable working conditions for the postal employees, the Manpower Centre staff and the employees of the Department of National Revenue who are now working in old obsolete buildings, the Public Works Department purchased a lot. Can the ministers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put his motion?


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, could the ministers responsible for those departments advise the Minister of Public Works of their needs at this time so that he might take them into account in his budget for this year with a view to erecting a federal building?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a very important matter.
In view of the fact that the Canada-U.S. agreement grants American poultry producers 6.3 per cent of the Canadian chicken market until December 31, 1979, and that this agreement will make it possible for American producers to deliver to this country up to 52 million pounds in 1981, which will be detrimental indeed to Canadian producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the Minister of Agriculture be instructed to inform the House of the reasons behind this Canada-U.S. agreement which appears to favour American producers at the expense of their Canadian counterparts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



GLACE BAY, N.S.-DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR CLEANING COAL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In view of the concern in the nation and in this House expressed recently about the effects of acid rain, and in view of the large potential of energy in the Nova Scotia coalfields, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources co-operate financially with the government of Nova Scotia in establishing a demonstration project of a fluidized bed combustion chamber in Glace Bay for the purpose of cleaning coal with a relatively high sulphur content.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.
November 20, 1979



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Dr. Rafael Caldera, former President of Venezuela and presently President of the Interparliamentary Council of the Interparliamentary Union, has brought to my attention the fact that Mr. Javier Ruperez, a member of the Lower Spanish House and Foreign Affairs Secretary of the Union of the Democratic Centre, has been kidnapped by terrorists. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme):
That this House views with sadness and concern the kidnapping of Mr. Javier Ruperez, a member of the Lower Spanish House and Foreign Affairs Secretary of the Union of the Democratic Centre, a staunch defender of human rights, and expresses its earnest hope for his immediate release.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the results of yesterday's byelections, despite the Prime Minister's personal involvement in them, and considering the fact that he may feel personally responsible for his defeated candidates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail):
That the Prime Minister assure this House that he will not Fill up the other place with these or any other defeated Tory candidates.



DECORATIONS AND AWARDS


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a current and urgent matter, although it is not put in the same words as the motion of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier).
Given the fact that for the first time in its history the famous Goncourt prize for literary excellence has been award-
Oral Questions
ed to an author who is not only a Canadian but also an Acadian, and that the laureate, Mrs. Antonine Maillet, author of Pelagie-la-Charette, contributes through her writings to the dissemination of Acadian culture throughout the world, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Mercier (Mrs. Her-vieux-Payette) and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier):
That the Secretary of State for Canada, the foremost patron of assistance programs for official language minorities, formally commit himself to congratulating Mrs. Maillet on behalf of all hon. members and to doubling his efforts to encourage all Canadians, particularly those who are part of a linguistic minority, to achieve the same level of excellence as Mrs. Maillet.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It is quite clear from the results of yesterday's byelections that not only do we have some potential new senators, but that considerable public concern was expressed over the government's record. We noticed, also, from this morning's Globe and Mail that considerable public concern was expressed in the government caucus about the government's record, particularly with respect to interest rates, the reversal of the policy on interest rates and the effect on small business.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is this: these are very difficult times for small business, and in view of the fact that the minister for small business-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I must ask the hon. member to put his question.


Arthur Phillips: In view of the fact that the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry has a long list of responsibilities, including metric conversion, Crown corporations-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must realize that he is now on the third preamble. I think he had better put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Phillips: My question is a simple one, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister tell us what happened to the Conservative promise to have a full-time small business secretariat fighting for the interests of small business in this country in these difficult times?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 20, 1979
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the amount of time and the amount of practical experience that the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry is bringing to the development of effective small business policies in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are acting on that commitment, as on others, and measures relating specifically to the encouragement of small business will be introduced later this session.


Arthur Phillips: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 wanted to refer the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: Another speech.


Arthur Phillips: -to the then opposition's small business critic last November when he was in opposition, who demanded that the minister of state for small business protect small businessmen from what he called "exuberant bank rates". They have now gone from "exuberant" to "exorbitant". Can the Prime Minister tell us specifically what measures, if any, will be brought in to protect the small businessman against the effects of rapidly rising interest rates?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member that information now. As he becomes more acquainted with this House, he will know that some of those measures will be brought forward in the course of the budget.


SMALL BUSINESS-AMENDMENTS TO LEGISLATION TO REDUCE BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: In light of the fact that the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry is not in the House today, in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not in this House, and in view of the fact that I am not convinced that his seatmate, the Minister of State for International Trade, who 1 am told is supposed to be responsible for industry, trade and commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: What poor taste.


Maurice James Harquail: Therefore, I put my question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell the House, with respect to his former critic's position, his government's position with respect to the question of the reduction of the bankruptcy rate in Canada affecting small businesses. Could he also tell the House when he intends to introduce amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act to alleviate this serious situation?


An hon. Member:: It is not a serious situation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we remain concerned about the incidence of bankruptcy amongst small businesses in the country. We are, naturally, directing our economic policies now toward the establishment of a set of
IMr. Phillips.]
economic circumstances in Canada which will allow Canadian large business-and, particularly, small-to flourish in this country.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, my question is, again, to the Prime Minister. On many occasions, the former opposition small business critic said that a PC government would expand the small business loans program to include working capital as well as investment capital. Can the Prime Minister tell the House, today, what the government's policy is now, what it is going to be, and when we can expect his government to introduce the policy to this House?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a precise date. I presume the hon. member is asking a serious question. But we are looking seriously at a range of measures which the government can introduce to help Canadian small business.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the report today by Statistics Canada that manufacturing profits for the third quarter of this year are up 54.1 per cent over the same period last year, in view of the fact that pensioners and others on low and fixed incomes are having a continuing struggle with the cost of living, and in view of the clear message yesterday to this Parliament and to this government that the Canadian people want something done about the high cost of living, will the Prime Minister not reconsider the answer he gave to me last Friday when he said that his government was not prepared to do specific things, such as bringing in a bread subsidy or a milk subsidy, to bring immediate relief to Canadians who are having such a desperate struggle with the rising cost of living?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me take the opportunity to congratulate the House leader of the New Democratic Party on the victory of his party yesterday in the byelection in Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me say to him that we are not planning to reconsider the position that I stated in the House in relation to the specific measures regarding which he questioned me the other day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact, and especially in light of the repeated references to increasing costs in fresh fruits and vegetables, that profits were up also in manufactured and processed goods, so that right across the board pensioners and others are having such a difficult time, will the Prime Minister not consider the fact that it is not good enough
November 20, 1979

just to ask old age pensioners who endured the depression of the thirties simply to endure until things turn better? Is there not something specific that this government can do now to get immediate assistance to those who need it?
Oral Questions
the small business sector, and shares in the small business sector, and in this way alleviate-by providing equity capital-the tremendous burden being borne by these companies which have debt?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is our judgment that the most effective action we can take now, in the interests not only of older Canadians but others, is to get strength back into the Canadian economy, including strength in the manufacturing sector, so that there will be the capacity to have the kinds of benefits that come from economic strength available to all Canadians.
1 share the concern of the hon. member for the plight of older Canadians, particularly people on fixed incomes. I have already indicated to him in this House that if there are changes in relation to oil pricing, one of the matters that we will be bringing forward as either part of the package or part of the budget will be a measure to be of particular help to Canadians, including elderly Canadians, most seriously affected by the impact of those increases.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Prime Minister the night he reported on the first ministers' conference whether the sentence to which he just referred was an indication that there would be a supplement or an increase to old age pensioners, he said that I had misinterpreted it, that I would have to wait.
May I ask him if what he is now saying means that the government is considering some kind of a supplement, or some kind of an allowance to older Canadians so that they will not just have to endure to the end but that they will get help now to cope with the worsening cost of living that Canadians are experiencing under this government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the hon. member to await the details of any proposal, and that will be coming forward shortly. I should clarify for him, however, that we are not proposing an across the board increase in old age pensions or, indeed, in the supplement. We are looking at means related specifically to increases in the cost of energy, means by which we can help offset the impact of that cost upon Canadians, including elderly Canadians, who will be most seriously affected.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there are already a number of provisions in the law for assistance to small businesses, as the hon. member knows. When the budget is brought down we will see what else we can do to assist small business, which suffers from high interest rates the same as farmers, fishermen and everybody else in the country.
This is a temporary condition, we trust, of higher interest rates. The best solution, of course, is to operate an economy and to get conditions so that interest rates come down generally. That is what we are hoping will happen. In the meantime, he will have to wait for my budget as to any other measures.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Speaker, I take it from that answer that the idea of a tax credit for such investment, which was promised in the past, has been abandoned. My supplementary relates to the budget secrecy rule behind which the minister tends to hide. 1 wonder if he would give consideration to the report of the Canadian Tax Foundation to the minister of finance back in, I believe, 1977 to try to modify this rule so that we can carry on a more meaningful dialogue in this House during the pre-budget period.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, after the last 16 years it is certainly nice to hear that hon. members opposite want to loosen up on budget secrecy and secrecy in general. They were the paragons of secrecy. I am glad to see they have been converted. The hon. member should take nothing for granted, whether it is about tax credits or anything else. Take nothing for granted.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
* *
*

Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, in view of the fact that small businesses in this country are being ravaged by these historically high interest rates, can the minister tell us whether he intends to follow through with the promises made by a number of spokesmen in his party some time ago, to the effect that tax credits would be given to Canadians investing in


Mr. Pierre Deniger (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and deals with his policy regarding car rental counters in airports.
Could the minister indicate to the House and the Canadian people why in his policy he saw fit to change the definition of the word "domestic" which covered companies such as Tilden, Holiday, Host, and to replace it with the word "Canadian" so as to include companies such as Avis, Budget, Hertz, Thrifty and Dollar?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: In answer to the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, we did take into

November 20, 1979
Oral Questions
consideration the definition of a Canadian enterprise under the car rental program. We opted to use a Canadian definition which is consistent with legislation that is on the statute books, such as the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Income Tax Act, the Bank Act and, indeed, the air carrier regulations wherein the enterprise being defined as Canadian is based upon ownership rather than a logo or trademark. I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that we bar all franchise operators who possess a franchise that is foreign in nature.


Pierre Deniger: The minister should realize the difference between individual and legal entities as well as the one between a definition applying to a general policy and another applying to a particular policy. Then could he tell the House and the Canadian people if he has received representations from Tilden and Holiday in this respect and if he intends to change his policy, which in our judgment is discriminatory for Canadian companies, and the program which is due to expire any day now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from Tilden and Holiday. 1 received many representations from members on both sides of the House who take a different point of view. It might be interesting to note- and I am sure the hon. member knows this-the fact that Holiday operates a substantial amount of its business outside Canadian borders, and Tilden is connected with a couple of foreign firms which gives them an equal opportunity.
As the hon. member knows, this is a very difficult question. I have looked at it. I have received representations from both sides of the House. 1 think we have arrived at a definition which is consistent and which does, in fact, provide preferential treatment to Canadian operators.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. He will not need to hide to behind the upcoming budget, because a couple of months ago the government announced a program whereby several ministers will combine for the benefit of small business-his own department, DREE, as well as Supply and Services and Small Businesses. That program disposes, perhaps, of several billion dollars for the benefit of small businessmen. Could the hon. gentleman tell the House exactly how that interprogram, as it is called departmentally, is proceeding?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I think it is proceeding reasonably well. I must

tell the hon. member that unfortunately DREE does not control several billions of dollars; it is associated with other departments which collectively have approximately $8 billion on the economic development side. We are hoping we can achieve something which has been difficult for his party to achieve up to this point, that is, increased co-operation between DREE and other line departments.
We are hoping to be in a position to make some announcements in the future which will indicate that we do, indeed, have a priority in the field of economic development and will be able to introduce new initiatives.


Roderick Blaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister is responsible for these DREE programs and similar programs of CMHC. With the upcoming referendum in Quebec, there is difficulty in that federal grants are somewhat hidden; they are not seen in the province as deriving from the federal government. What specific steps is the hon. gentleman taking, in the light of the coming referendum, to assure us that moneys spent in this fashion in the province of Quebec will be seen by the people of Quebec to be derived from the taxes of all Canadians?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: 1 can appreciate the hon. member's concern. His point is a valid one and it has been expressed not only by some of his hon. friends but by other members of this House as well. Apart from a reasonable public relations and advertising campaign, I can think of no measures which can be taken except to enlist the aid of all hon. members to tell their constituents fairly and honestly that a substantial contribution is being made by the federal government. But to spend a great deal of money in advertising, or to be unreasonably aggressive in claiming credit for some of these shared programs, might have an effect the reverse of what was intended.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
On November 9, since the minister was not in the House, 1 asked a question of the Prime Minister regarding the agreement between Canada and the United States in relation to the importation of poultry from the United States. The Prime Minister answered then that he would consider the matter and discuss it with the responsible ministers. Could the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether he has received, following that agreement, representations from the Quebec minister of agriculture and food expressing the discontent of poultry producers in the province of Quebec and also the intention of the provincial government to withdraw from the national agreement on the marketing of poultry meat in Canada.
November 20, 1979


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to assure the hon. member, in response to his question, that 1 am, indeed, in communication with my provincial counterpart on a frequent basis. I have read stories that my provincial counterpart has been making some statements with respect to that subject, but to my knowledge I have had no direct communication from him indicating that he is suggesting that broiler producers within Quebec withdraw from the board. If that is his thinking, I would hope that he would reconsider his position.


POULTRY IMPORTS-REQUEST THAT PERMITS BE GRANTED TO VOLBEC
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, considering that one must always beware of press reports on ministerial statements, and since last November 9 Ontario and Quebec poultry producers came to Parliament Hill to ask the government to review the Canada-U.S. agreement, could the minister assure the House and also, of course, producers that all future permits issued for imports of poultry will be issued to the Canadian marketing agency, in order to protect the production quotas of poultry producers?


John Wise: In response to the hon. member's supplementary question, I want to make it clear that my department does not issue supplementary permits. But I am certain that should the question of a requirement for a supplementary permit arise, the national board would have the opportunity to supply the product first. In the event it was not possible to supply that product to the Canadian market from Canadian sources, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would then have to consider the advisability of issuing supplementary permits.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. At the end of last week, the minister tossed off from the top of his legs a suggestion regarding a public interest disputes' commission which, by its very existence and powers, would circumvent Parliament since reportedly this commission could order a 20-day deferment of a legal strike. Indeed, it is a deliberate attempt on the part of the government to distract attention from the serious economic problems facing Canada. Can the minister tell us why he thinks it is necessary at this time to interfere with the collective bargaining process by taking such Draconian measures as this?
Oral Questions


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: I want to thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity of answering that question again. He knows that what we are attempting to do, and what we hope to do this session, is to introduce legislation which will remove the incidence of work stoppages in essential aspects of services. As I said, we would attempt to introduce it in this session of Parliament.
There was no unwarranted or undue intervention into the collective bargaining process. We would hope that when the legislation is introduced in order that the hon. member might have an opportunity of looking into the definitive aspects of it, he will realize that there is a need, no matter how small, for such legislation to be introduced and give it his complete support.


John R. Rodriguez: Obviously, a deliberate attempt to bamboozle Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that this proposal makes the Department of Labour both a mediator and a cop, and in view of the fact that the minister recently boasted of declining wage settlements, stating that 95 per cent of labour negotiations and disputes in this country are settled peaceably, why is he changing the policy of the Department of Labour from being a supporter of Canadian labour to being a policeman for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am so used to the hon. member and his rhetoric that I just look at him with complete amazement. The whole gist of this measure, as devised by officials in the Department of Labour, will be a means to reduce the incidence of strikes in essential aspects of service. It is time we bit the bullet, whether the hon. member likes it or not. I feel there is a need and that there is public support in this regard. If the hon. member does not want to go along with whatever legislation we intend to introduce, and that we will introduce, that is his problem and his risk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister is in possession of information indicating that there are substantial difficulties with the engine for the FI 6 as well as with the industrial offset package, and that the FI8A is falling short of its expected performance standards on speed, cost and range. In view of this, would the minister again give further consideration to enlarging the competition to include the F18L?

November 20, 1979
Oral Questions


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for raising the same question on this occasion that he did a week or so ago. The fact of the matter is that we have an extremely good industrial offset package from both of these companies. The problems General Dynamics is having with the F100 motor for the FI 6 are well known, and they will either have to develop a new motor, I expect, or do something about the current one. It would appear to me unlikely that a large company such as that, which has sold something in the neighbourhood of 1,600 planes, would be content to go along with an inefficient engine.
As far as the FI8A is concerned, the faults which were pointed out in the article to which the hon. member referred are relatively minor and I feel certain they will be corrected.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL UNITY
Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has no doubt been informed of a serious event that took place in Vancouver this weekend, namely that several spectators at a hockey game between Vancouver and Montreal booed the part of the national anthem that was sung in French. Is the Prime Minister ready to condemn such acts and to support the bilingual character of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret acts such as the one described by the hon. member, and I think that one of the things which we, as members of a federal and bilingual Parliament, can do is to use both languages in Vancouver as well as in Chicoutimi.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENTS RESPECTING TOLLS
Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. During the May 22 election campaign, many of the candidates of the peninsula were going around the area saying that the Seaway toils were going to be lowered. Since that time, the Minister of State (Transport) has said no, that the Seaway tolls are going to come in as of April
1.	Then there was another flip-flop just recently.
Have there been any discussions with the shipbuilders of Canada and, second, are there any new developments with regard to the Seaway tolls which the minister could share with this House and with the people of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Conservative party in the last election was that the matter of further increases in Seaway tolls would be deferred until such time as there was a full and adequate examination of the increases. We are now in the process of establishing an advisory board which will, among other things, have the opportunity to look into the prospect of future increases in the tolls and to determine whether such increases are, in fact, necessary.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the advisory board the minister intends to set up, could he please inform this House as to the possible make-up or probable make-up of the men and women who are going to sit on this advisory council? Also, when is it going to be established, so that the rules under which they will be working can be understood by them and all of us who are involved with the Seaway and with the tolls which emanate from it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to do that. The terms of reference are presently in the process of being drafted. The positions will certainly be made known to the House and to the Canadian people. I can assure the hon. member that I will personally see that he gets a copy of the terms of reference, and I hope he has some suggestions to make.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Basically, I would like to receive some clarification concerning the role of the CBC in the referendum debate in Quebec.
In view of, among other things, the terms of reference of the corporation as defined in the Broadcasting Act, which are to strengthen the Canadian mosaic, can the minister say how he reacted to the position adopted last week by the president of CBC who said that the corporation would not take part in the debate, that it would content itself with reporting accurately and impartially both the federalist and the separatist points of view. And while we are on the subject, I would like to know how the minister feels about the present policy of the corporation, which consists of refusing consistently to broadcast the publicity messages of the pro-Canada movement? Finally, if the minister has any courage, maybe he could tell us whether he intends to direct the corporation to play a more positive role in the referendum debate.


Hon. David MacDonald (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the CBC functions as an independent agency responsible to
November 20, 1979

Parliament under a very clear mandate passed by statute some years ago.
With respect to the sensitive and obviously difficult situation of acting responsibly and fairly in the period of the referendum, I believe the recent statement last week by the president of the CBC, in Montreal, referred to by the hon. member was indeed a responsible position on his part in an attempt to fulfil the mandate of the CBC to inform Canadians on major issues, of which this obviously is one.
[ Translation]


QUEBEC REFERENDUM-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY CONCERNING POSITION OF CBC
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, even if the minister intends to sit on the fence, just as the president of the CBC is doing, in order to get an answer I should like to ask the Prime Minister of Canada this question. His information services may have finally told him, among other things, that the CBC intends to stop broadcasting the program La politique federate during the referendum campaign, but his advisers are not telling him that the Quebec premier is presently broadening the powers of Radio-Quebec. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the position just stated by his minister, namely, to sit back and watch the collapse of the country without doing or saying anything, actually reflects the government's policy.


An hon. Member:: "Sit on the fence".


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not intend to let Canada disappear or be dismembered. We do not intend, either, to reflect on the good reputation of an instrument of national unity, namely, the CBC. Under the circumstances, the difficult role of the CBC is the one indicated by its president, Mr. Johnson. This role has been stated in the past by his predecessor presidents of that Crown corporation. As the minister said, it is a role which we think is wise in the circumstances.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, before I put my question to the Prime Minister, 1 wonder if I might be permitted time to state, on behalf of my colleagues, that we share with the Prime Minister his regret at the behaviour of Vancouver fans in terms of our national anthem, and to say that as far as I am concerned, a great many of my friends and British Columbians in the Vancouver area support Les Canadiens often over that other eastern team run by that great Canadian patriot, Harold Ballard.
Oral Questions
According to reports, the B.C. government intends to purchase a car ferry in Europe to serve on the B.C. coast. Since both employment prospects and balance of payments problems will be endangered, or at least perhaps damaged by such a contract if it were let abroad, I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell us whether the Minister of State (Transport) was expressing government policy the other day when he said, and I quote from Hansard:
-I feel very strongly that any ferry to be paid for by Canadian dollars and to be supported by Canadian citizens should be built in Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Transport), speaking in this House, expresses government policy.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


SUBSIDIES PAID TO CLARKE STEAMSHIPS FOR OPERATIONS TO NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I was wondering whether the minister could tell me if his department is considering increasing any of the subsidies paid to Clarke Steamships Ltd. for its shipping operations to Newfoundland.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in committee this morning, that matter is currently under study.


FINANCE
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the first minister. In light of the byelection results last night, which indicated a substantial rejection of his government's performance over the past six months and which drives home the point-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: -that this is a minority government which must rest on the confidence of this House, is the first minister prepared to have his government accept amendments to the mortgage tax credit plan to provide assistance for the severely damaged rental industry and for those who must renegotiate their mortgages, or will he accept the position put forward by his Minister of Finance in his table-thumping, sword-rattling mugwumpery deliberately designed to provoke an election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Is he prepared to have them brought in?

November 20, 1979
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize that there are two or three disabilities in the same question: anticipating legislation, and ending with an argument. He may want to put a supplementary.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question with the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Is the government prepared to accept amendments to the legislation to provide assistance in the housing field, or will it simply provoke an election as the Minister of Finance indicated last night?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if I might reply to the first candidate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -this government, naturally, will consider reasonable amendments, just as this government, naturally, will resist any efforts at obstruction which would deny Canadians the advantage of this tax credit proposal next year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
I believe the matter we are discussing is serious enough for hon. members to listen to my question. I ask the Prime Minister whether, while reconsidering amendments to Bill C-20, he is prepared to give assistance to tenants, particularly to elderly and single-parent families, when amending this bill.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I just stated, we are prepared to consider serious amendments to our bill. However, we hope there will be a determination on the part of opposition parties to grant speedy passage of this bill so that Canadians can benefit from our tax credit program next year.


INQUIRY CONCERNING GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TRANSFER TO PROVINCES OF HOME INSULATION PROJECTS
Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister.
At the recent federal-provincial conference held last week he mentioned that he was prepared to consider transferring to the provinces the various home insulation programs. Could the Prime Minister clearly state the policy of his government on this?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the policy, as I asserted during the conference of first ministers, is that this is something we are prepared to consider as part of a general agreement with the provinces, aimed at making progress toward energy self-sufficiency.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, can the Prime Minister tell us where the government will stand in case of conflict once Canada has turned all these jurisdictions over to the provinces, given the fact that powers do not fall from heaven and that the federal government will not have any power left? What will be the position of the federal government to reconcile provinces when difficulties or disagreements arise?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member speaks on behalf of his party when he suggests that we cannot consider changing the administration of the home insulation program to help facilitate its implementation. The idea is to have the most efficient and effective program possible and we think that we could certainly be more efficient without this transfer being a loss of jurisdiction and power.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism. I should like to ask the minister if he is aware that since the last election the Government of Canada has cut very substantially-it is estimated, by about 90 per cent-its advertising in Canada's ethnic newspapers. Will he look into it, and will he take steps to support government support for this extremely vital voice in Canada's multicultural communities?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of what the hon. member is talking about. We are looking at the advertising which is to go into the 220 ethnic
November 20, 1979

newspapers and some 30 ethnocultural groups: we are looking at the whole aspect of the matter.
We do not feel that advertising should be part and parcel of keeping these papers in existence. I think these people should look to private industry for further advertising; 1 do not think they should depend upon the government for the whole aspect of advertising just for those particular papers, not like the previous government which only did it 30 days prior to the forthcoming election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether this policy of eliminating ethnic advertising was done following the last election to punish the readers of those newspapers for their substantial support of this party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: That is hardly a serious question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Northumberland.


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that the only objection the opposition has to the government's very excellent mortgage tax deductibility program is that they did not think of it first?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


BELL CANADA
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. Unlike the western Liberal friends to my right-who are understandably a little upset today-1 will try to come to my question very quickly.
Is the minister aware that Bell Canada has proposed an experimental usage sensitive pricing program? In plain English, there will be no flat fee for telephone calls and one will pay by call. Is the minister aware of that? Is he in favour of that system? Is he prepared to order a public hearing on this matter before Bell Canada starts on the experimental system, controls the experiment and in fact brings the matter in as a fait accompli?
Oral Questions


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there can be no fait accompli without extensive public hearings being held by the appropriate regulatory authority. Quite obviously, the proposal by Bell with which they would like to proceed on a pilot basis raises a number of critical questions, not the least of which is the notion of user-pay that certainly has never been espoused by this particular government when it comes to flat rate service.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that with "Ma Bell" experiments have the habit of turning into practice, such as with the data pack systems and the phone centres. Could the minister tell the House whether he is prepared, in a future system, to allow the option between the user-pay and the flat rate system which we now have, and whether he is prepared, if Bell does an end-run around the CRTC in order to receive some more profits, to roll back those profits as the CRTC did with British Columbia Telephone?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a lawyer and he knows the law better than I do. He knows that there is no possibility whatsoever of Bell doing a so-called end-run. There would have to be very full public hearings and an examination by the appropriate regulatory authority before that sort of thing could happen.


SOCIAL SCIENCES COUNCIL
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to pose a question to the Secretary of State. Will the minister tell the House whether he is aware that the staff of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council have received a letter which indicates that they will not receive their pay cheques tomorrow; and can he explain if this is just restricted to that council, or is it fully across the board in the Secretary of State's department?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is an independent agency. But I will be quite happy to check into the matter. I have not heard about it, but I will certainly find out the details and report to him.
*	* V


PUBLIC SERVICE
John Leslie Evans: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place my supplementary question with the President of the Treasury Board. Will he tell the House if the
1494

November 20, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
reported cash shortage of the government is, in fact, the reason public servants are receiving letters saying they will not get their pay cheques tomorrow?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member now realizes the significance of the delay that we had in the passage of the appropriations bill that was only last week before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That bill is now before the other place. We trust it will be passed later today and that royal assent will be forthcoming, as this will facilitate various cash outlays to which the hon. member is referring.


LEVEL OF LIGHTING IN CHAMBER-STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before dealing with one or two matters of privilege of which I had notice last week, the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) raised a question regarding an apparent increased intensity of the lighting in the House. In fact, he was correct; we were operating in the first days of this Parliament with a lighting intensity that was about 10 per cent higher than what we had utilized in the last Parliament. We have been experimenting with other light levels, and in fact at the moment we are back to the lighting level of the last Parliament, which I hope members will find more satisfactory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from an answer I received from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on October 31, as it appears at page 805 of Hansard. The question I put regarded a study that was done by the Canadian Dairy Commission on unnatural acids in margarine that are potentially dangerous to people with heart conditions. He responded at that time, as it appears at page 805 of Hansard, by saying:
Personally, I would have no objection whatsoever-
He was referring to the release of the brand names, but he did indicate that he had to check on the legal technicalities. He has not released that list of brand names in spite of the fact that legal interpretations I have from a lawyer for the Canadian Press-and 1 understand the Canadian Dairy Commission feels the same way-would indicate that legally there is no problem in making public the list of brand names of marga-
(Mr. Evans.]
rines which are potentially dangerous to people with heart conditions.
In the House today I also presented a motion asking the government to make that list of brand names public so that people concerned would not have to be afraid that they may be doing something they should not be doing when consuming margarine. When unanimous consent was asked for that motion it was denied.
One newspaper, namely the Kitchener- Waterloo Record, on Saturday was able to obtain a partial list of the brand names concerned and 1 have that partial list before me. In spite of the fact that this partial list is now public, the Minister of Agriculture is still denying freedom of information in respect of the complete list, though he suggested he personally thought the House should be provided with it.
1 feel that my privileges as a member have been violated because I do not have access to that information which the government has and which the minister has said, as reported at page 805 of Hansard, he sees no objection whatsoever to the House having. The lawyers I have checked with told me there are no legal technicalities regarding why we should not have that information. The government has that information and some of it has been leaked to the press, although only a portion of it. The government has still more information, and because of the sloppy way they have handled the issue they are causing needless concern to the Canadian public regarding the types of margarine they are consuming in this country.
If you see that I have a legitimate question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask you to allow me to move a motion which would require the Minister of Agriculture and the Government of Canada to make public the complete list of margarines in this country that are potentially hazardous to people with heart conditions. I would do that because this is a federally commissioned study that we paid for, the government has the information and they are denying it to the Canadian public.


Mr. Speaker:: I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) wants to participate and 1 will certainly give him that opportunity. I would not want that to be taken as an indication that a search for any kind of document at any time by members of the House has been transformed from the present procedure to matters of privilege.


John Wise: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In response to the hon. member's question of privilege-and I really question whether he does have a question of privilege-I want to make it very clear that what I indicated to him in response to his question was that personally I had no reservations but wanted to check the legal technicalities simply because of the fact that the test was based only on one sample of the 95 brands, and that obviously brings into focus a number of questions.
Subsequent to that I checked with the Canadian Dairy Commission and their legal opinion was that there was no problem in releasing the results of the study. I checked with the legal branch of the Department of Agriculture and, indeed, they took the opposite view, that in view of the fact that only
November 20, 1979

one sample per brand was taken that really brings into question the reliability of the study. In the intervening time I really have been on the horns of a dilemma.
In view of the fact that a partial list has been published, although I have not seen that partial list I am still persuaded to proceed. My own personal feeling is that since this was paid for out of public funds, public disclosure should be made, in keeping with the freedom of information and the open government of my Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and my colleagues on this side. I have made the decision that we should go forward and make the study public, attaching the brand names to the 95 brands. But we should also, in making a press statement, point out that this study was simply based on only one sample per brand and, therefore, this brings into question the reliability of that study.
Subsequent to that my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie), has asked officials in his department to set up a special group within the Department of National Health and Welfare to look specifically at the matter of fatty acids in relation to the health of Canadians.


MR. LAMBERT (BELLECHASSE)-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF POULTRY IMPORTATION PERMITS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, and in accordance with your recommendations, I will be very brief. I would not want to upset the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) because I know he has rather heavy responsibilities.
In question period today, I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he would care to tell the House whether he would be prepared to recommend that the national chicken marketing agreement should be amended so as to make the agricultural products marketing agency the first receiver for all chicken imports. Perhaps the minister misunderstood my question because he answered that no new poultry import permits had been granted since October 22, the date of the Canada-U.S. agreement. There will be a substantial increase in exports as of January 1, 1980, and to reassure Ontario and particularly Quebec poultry producers, I believe it is my privilege and the privilege of the House to get an answer from the minister assuring us that any additional permits for the importation of poultry would be granted through the Canadian marketing agency so as to protect Canadian producer quotas and maintain stabilization of the farming industry. The minister should have told the House that it was a result of insufficient production and the incapacity of Canadian producers that Canada has to resort to poultry imports.
And in concluding my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be allowed one more comment so we know exactly where we stand. We had enough difficulty in having Bill C-76 passed to allow poultry producers across Canada to set up marketing agencies at the provincial level in order to
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
establish a national agency. It has given excellent results so far and 1 would like to draw the attention of the minister to the danger that might exist in granting import permits without prior consultation with the chicken marketing agency.


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, I have severe reservations as to whether or not we are in a procedural area, but the minister seems to wish to participate again.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the hon. member's raising the point of privilege but, again, like the matter raised by his colleague in the NDP, I question whether it is a point of privilege. It is true that I did misunderstand the first part of his question, which was to the effect, was I considering providing the first receivership for the importation of U.S. chicken into Canada by the national chicken marketing agency. The answer is no. I have answered the other questions raised by the hon. member.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacEACHEN-INCORRECT DESIGNATION IN OFFICIAL REPORT
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On reading yesterday's Hansard I noticed at page 1481, during the adjournment debate, that the question put by the member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) on the subject of external affairs was answered by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), who was standing in for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Roche). I find that the member for Kitchener is not a parliamentary secretary. It may be that this is a printing error, but if it is not I would draw to the attention of the government that having persons who are not parliamentary secretaries answering for ministers is a very undesirable practice to which we would object strenuously.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his intervention. I give him the undertaking that I will look into the matter and report to him directly. I agree with the view that he has expressed with respect to the parliamentary practice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I merely suggest that when the government House leader is looking into the matter, he might ascertain whether the mistake was Hansard's. I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General (Mr. Reid) who answered last night. All Tories do not look alike, but-

November 20, 1979
1496_______________________________________
Introduction of Bills BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the House leaders with respect to the designation of an allotted day. Last week I designated tomorrow, November 21, as an allotted day. There have been discussions about changing that day. I would like to have the designated day undesignated and to designate Friday, November 23, 1979, as an allotted day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).

Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, the document entitled "La Reforme Linguistique dans les Institutions Federales".


NATIONAL ANTHEM ACT
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-492, respecting the national anthem of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to designate "O Canada" as the national anthem of Canada and to change one word in the English version of the national anthem as it is sung today and as it was printed in a government bill which was introduced in the last Parliament.


Walter David Baker: Sing it.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The word "native" will be replaced by the word "cherished", so as to make our national anthem equally applicable to the millions of Canadians who were not born in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-26, relating to the inspection of electric and gas meters and supplies.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Walter Baker (for the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans) moved the first reading of Bill S-3 (from the Senate), to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the government will reply to the following questions today: Nos. 24, 43, 155, 164, 199, 391, 394, 461 and 553.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (i) present or future policies, programs or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (ii) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Privy Council office?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?


Mr. John Bosley (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Economic Council of Canada?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?
November 20, 1979


John William Bosley: 1. (a) Dr. Sylvia Ostry, Chairman; (b) None.
2. (a) $55,600-$72,400; (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Between June 13, 1978 and February 12, 1979, how many employees of the Montreal Star newspaper, who were employed on June 13, 1978, received unemployment insurance benefits?
2.	What amount did they receive in total and what was the average period during which payments were made?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Unemployment insurance statistics are not kept in such a way as to permit the provision of the requested information.


Mr. Herbert: Is there a government department or agency known as Emergency Planning Canada and, if so, what is its budget (a) for Canada (b) by province?


John William Bosley: There is a government organization known as Emergency Planning Canada, which is tasked by the emergency planning secretariat in the Privy Council office for the co-ordination of emergency planning among federal departments and agencies; and between them and the provincial governments.
Emergency Planning Canada's budget is carried in the estimates of the Department of National Defence and, for the current fiscal year, includes approximately $1.4 million for salaries and $4,921,000 for operating expenses. Out of the
(b)(i)	(b)(ii)	
"Lake Aniara"- Norway	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	15.0	knots 13.0	knots"Betts"- Malaysia	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	14.4 knots 13.0 knots"Steelcliffe Hall"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	12.4 knots 11.3 knots"Lisana"- Liberia	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	12.6 knots 11.3 knots"Kathleen"- Liberia	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	13.3	knots 11.3	knots"Sun Maria"- Greece	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	11.6 knots 10.4 knots"Algoway"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	11.6 knots 10.4 knots"Olympic Power"- Liberia	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	9.9 knots 8.6 knots"Ungava Transport"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	11.6 knots 10.4 knots"Fort York"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	10.0 knots 8.6 knots
Order Paper Questions
latter, $3,827,000 was identified for the provision of assistance to provinces and territories in their emergency planning. However, since $2 million of this was budgetted for a change in program which did not take place, that amount has been frozen, leaving $1,827,000 available to provinces as under:
Newfoundland	$ 58,405	Manitoba	$ 90,146Prince Edward Island	28,252	Saskatchewan	83,956Nova Scotia	76,815	Alberta	151,721New Brunswick	66,817	British Columbia	190,920Quebec	444,998	Yukon	21,428Ontario	590,685	Northwest Territories	22,857


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


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: In so far as the Department of Justice is concerned: On March 31, 1979 there were: (a) 1034 permanent employees and (b) 51 term employees on the Department of Justice payroll.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 391
Mr. Cossitt:: During the current navigational season in the St. Lawrence Seaway area, how many vessels were (a) warned for exceeding set speed limits (b) charged for exceeding set speed limits and, in each case (i) what is the name and nationality (ii) what was the speed being travelled and the actual limit applicable (iii) what penalty was issued (iv) in what location did the incident occur and who enforced the regulation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: (a) 116 (b) 29 (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) See list below.
(b)(iii)	(b)(iv)
Fine-$400	Brockville-Prescott Area
Fine-$300	Brockville-Prescott Area
Fine-$200	Mariatown Area
Decision Pending	Mariatown Area
Decision Pending	Mariatown Area
Fine-$200	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Fine-$200	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Fine-$300	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Decision Pending	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Fine-$300	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area

November 20, 1979
Order Paper Questions
(MO	(b)(ii)	
"Stolt Sydness"- Liberia	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	13.0 knots 10.4 knots"Erica"- Panama	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	11.8 knots 10.4 knots"Durhambrook"- England	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	12.4	knots 10.4	knots"Federal Saguenay"- Liberia	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	9.7 knots 8.6 knots"Canadoc"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	10.8 knots 10.4 knots"Jos Simard"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	12.2 knots 10.4 knots"Tozui Maru"- Japan	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	12.0 knots 10.4 knots"Brage Pacific"- Norway	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	12.4	knots 10.4	knots"Maplecliffe Hall"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	11.5 knots 10.4 knots"Ziemia Lubelska"- Poland	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	11.8 knots 10.4 knots"Lake Nipigon"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	11.5 knots 10.4 knots"Alida Smits"- Netherlands	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	10.2 knots 8.6 knots"Georgian Bay"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	11.5 knots 10.4 knots"Vassilis"- Greece	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	12.1 knots 10.4 knots"Lake Nipigon"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	12.0 knots 10.4 knots"St. Lawrence"- Canada	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	9.3 knots 8.6 knots"C. Mehmet"- Turkey	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	10.2 knots 8.6 knots"Nicolaos Pateras"- Greece	Speed Travelled Speed Limit	9.8 knots 8.6 knots"American Neptune"- United States	-Speed Travelled Speed Limit	13.9 knots 9.5 knots


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to maternity benefits permitted under the Unemployment Insurance Act, are such benefits permitted for those who adopt small babies considering the fact that adoption regulations require them to spend a certain number of weeks at the beginning at home with their child and, if not, will the government consider giving the same rights to a mother of an adopted child as to a natural mother of a child under the act?


Ronald George Atkey: Section 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Act does not permit the payment of maternity benefits to adoptive parents. The issue of adoptive parents' eligibility for benefit is currently under review.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,722 of the Second Session of the Thirtieth Parliament which stated in part "The wine intended for use at

(b)(iii)	(b)(iv)
Fine-$500	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Fine-$300	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Fine-$400	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Decision Pending	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Decision Pending	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Fine-$400	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Decision Pending	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Decision Pending	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Decision Pending	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Fine-$300	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Decision Pending	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Decision Pending	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Decision Pending	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Decision Pending	Stonehouse Point-Hamilton Island Area
Fine-$ 150	Beauharnois Canal Area
Fine-$200	Beauharnois Canal Area
Decision Pending	Beauharnois Canal Area
Decision Pending	Beauharnois Canal Area
Fine-$400	Thousand Islands Area
Regulations are enforced by St. Lawrence Seaway Authority personnel
10-12-18 York Street is on National Capital Commission property in safe storage", what is the exact municipal address where the wine is presently located along with its location within that address?
2. Was an attempt made to recover this expenditure of public funds and (a) if so (i) on what date (ii) what amount was recovered (b) if not (i) for what reason (ii) what measures does the National Capital Commission intend to take to correct the situation?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	The wine is stored in the basement of the building located at 18 York Street in Ottawa.
2.	Yes.
(a) (i) An offer for part of the shipment was received in June, 1979, and the National Capital Com-
November 20, 1979

mission is actively soliciting orders for the sale of the balance of the wine.
(ii) $25,300.70;
(b) (i) and (ii) See above.


Miss Begin: 1.	According to (a) sex (b) marital status (c) province of residence, how many persons required a child tax credit for the fiscal year 1978 and for how many children?
2.	For the same year, what amount was paid, by child, according to income and marital status of the applicant?
3.	For the same year, how many persons entitled to the child tax credit had no income tax to pay?
4.	For the Fiscal year 1979, will Canadians be provided with a simplified form to claim the child tax credit?


Walter David Baker: Statistics are not maintained in the exact form requested. The statistics provided are for the number of claims allowed for the child tax credit by the breakdown specified. It should be noted that the statistics given for all parts of the question are based on an incomplete processing program and represent about 95 per cent of the taxfilers expected to file this year.
Order Paper Questions
l. (a)	Number of	Number of
	Claimants Children Allowed	
Men	53,466	97,758Women	2,389,724	4,932,262(b)	Number of	Number ofClaimants Children Allowed	Single	504,629	891,576Married	1,938,561	4,138,444(c)	Number of	Number ofClaimants	Children ClaimedNewfoundland	80,694	191,833Prince Edward Island	15,210	34,054Nova Scotia	104,405	225,635New Brunswick	89,373	196,889Quebec	689,997	1,426,357Ontario	824,527	1,732,400Manitoba	115,198	260,379Saskatchewan	101,938	234,171Alberta	180,953	403,450British Columbia	231,081	483,629Other (Yukon, Northwest	9,814	24,950
Territories and outside Canada)
Here the number of children allowed is somewhat overstated as the figures given are for the number of children claimed, whether they were eligible or not. For the whole of Canada the figure is overstated by 183,727 children.
2.	The attached tables indicate the amount paid by child according to net family income and marital status of the applicant.
3.	1,847,119.
4.	Yes.
Married Claimants Number of Children
Range of Net	One	Two	Three	Four	Five or More	Total	Family Income	Number	Amount ($000)	Number	Amount ($000)	Number	Amount ($000)	Number	Amount ($000)	Number	Amount ($000)	Number	Amount ($000)Under 501	15,639	3,126	11,957	4,783	5,266	3,159	2,718	2,714	4,146	5,357	39,726	18,599501- 1,000	1,598	320	4,323	1,729	1,467	880	550	440	200	280	8,138	3,6491,001- 1,500	1,727	345	1,536	614	1,428	857	1,047	838	228	254	5,966	2,9081,501- 2,000	2,519	504	2,090	836	997	598	632	506	1,248	1,360	7,486	3,8042,001- 2,500	2,312	462	1,798	719	939	563	690	552	1,051	1,295	6,790	3,5922,501- 3,000	2,894	579	2,026	810	1,104	662	282	226	493	528	6,799	2,8053,001- 3,500	3,182	636	3,646	1,458	1,694	1,016	698	558	822	1,105	10,042	4,7753,501- 4,000	3,800	760	2,832	1,133	1,373	824	581	465	621	783	9,207	3,9644,001- 4,500	3,839	768	3,207	1,283	884	530	1,577	1,262	362	459	9,869	4,3014,501- 5,000	4,988	998	4,181	1,672	2,048	1,229	877	702	518	580	12,612	5,1805,001- 5,500	5,086	1,017	5,476	2,190	2,262	1,357	1,037	830	932	1,130	14,793	6,5255,501- 6,000	6,360	1,272	4,893	1,957	1,927	1,156	802	642	441	575	14,423	5,6026,001- 6,500	8,986	1,797	6,373	2,546	2,776	1,666	1,301	1,041	351	400	19,787	7,4506,501- 7,000	7,519	1,504	9,492	3,797	3,256	1,954	1,182	946	862	1,150	22,311	9,3497,001- 7,500	7,415	1,483	9,281	3,712	4,201	2,521	1,013	810	1,528	1,724	23,438	10,2517,501- 8,000	7,805	1,561	6,617	2,647	4,773	2,864	2,750	2,200	1,371	1,516	23,316	10,7878,001- 8,500	10,048	2,010	9,954	3,982	4,224	2,534	1,777	1,422	732	798	26,735	10,7468,501- 9,000	11,181	2,235	11,136	4,454	3,968	2,381	1,165	932	991	1,109	28,441	11,1119,001- 9,500	10,854	2,171	14,000	5,600	6,323	3,794	2,217	1,774	647	731	34,041	14,0699,501-10,000	10,838	2,168	11,545	4,618	5,003	3,002	2,640	2,112	800	905	30,826	12,80410,001-11,000	27,523	5,502	25,560	10,224	11,576	6,946	4,719	3,775	2,712	2,900	72,090	29,34711,001-12,000	29,890	5,978	32,215	12,886	13,609	8,165	4,334	3,467	3,298	3,582	83,346	34,07812,001-13,000	36,448	7,289	35,370	14,148	13,969	8,381	6,194	4,955	2,371	2,775	94,352	37,54813,001-14,000	34,598	6,919	36,042	14,417	16,002	9,601	5,734	4,587	4,066	4,404	96,442	39,92814,001-15,000	41,599	8,320	47,296	18,918	20,639	12,383	4,956	3,965	2,466	2,770	116,956	46,35615,001-16,000	40,859	8,172	49,863	19,944	19,935	11,956	5,573	4,458	2,962	3,388	119,192	47,91816,001-17,000	46,499	9,299	47,006	18,801	24,653	14,791	6,282	5,025	2,020	2,145	126,460	50,06017,001-18,000	47,045	9,407	56,679	22,665	23,266	13,950	5,471	4,370	1,902	2,027	134,363	52,41918,001-20,000	79,244	11,728	105,891	36,955	38,836	21,237	13,824	10,335	5,027	5,239	242,822	85,49520,001-22,000	65,095	3,382	99,194	24,762	37,788	17,011	10,602	6,876	3,742	3,437	216,421	55,46822,001-24,000	0	0	83,517	12,721	35,691	12,630	9,186	5,051	3,239	2,690	131,633	33,09324,001-26,000	100	0	58,459	3,127	29,819	7,556	8,158	3,673	2,053	1,390	98,589	15,74526,001-28,000	0	0	40	0	18,333	2,787	5,260	1,845	2,031	1,251	25,664	5,88328,001-30,000	0	0	0	0	13,504	766	3,375	879	1,389	753	18,268	2,39830,001-32,000	0	0	0	0	0	0	3,239	499	926	484	4,165	98332,001-34,000	0	0	0	0	0	0	1,408	58	709	227	2,117	28534,001 & Over	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	935	201	935	201
November 20, 1979
Order Paper Questions
Single Claimants Number of Children
Range of Net	One	Two	Three	Four	Five or More	Total	Family Income	Number	Amount ($000)	Number	Amount ($000)	Number	Amount ($000)	Number	Amount ($000)	Number	Amount ($000)	Number	Amount ($000)Under 501	65,740	13,148	20,732	8,293	6,690	4,014	3,020	2,416	1,856	2,142	98,038	30,013501- 1,000	9,530	1,906	23,095	9,238	8,736	5,242	354	283	240	260	41,955	16,9291,001- 1,500	7,457	1,491	6,381	2,552	4,340	2,604	4,669	3,735	290	290	23,137	10,6731,501- 2,000	6,848	1,370	4,134	1,654	1,980	1,188	2,370	1,896	2,349	2,565	17,681	8,6722,001- 2,500	7,985	1,597	3,733	1,493	1,881	1,129	742	594	726	946	15,067	5,7582,501- 3,000	6,631	1,326	2,392	957	1,178	707	444	355	792	1,004	11,437	4,3493,001- 3,500	5,276	1,055	4,873	1,949	1,496	898	530	424	490	550	12,665	4,8763,501- 4,000	6,860	1,372	3,756	1,502	1,479	887	938	750	418	470	13,451	4,9824,001- 4,500	5,571	1,114	2,202	881	1,560	936	520	416	270	273	10,123	3,6204,501- 5,000	6,957	1,391	2,063	825	1,643	986	233	186	313	341	11,209	3,7295,001- 5,500	5,387	1,077	3,648	1,459	794	476	124	99	704	752	10,657	3,8645,501- 6,000	4,951	990	1,926	770	1,017	610	234	187	64	66	8,192	2,6246,001- 6,500	5,472	1,094	2,362	945	1,337	802	421	337	460	460	10,052	3,6386,501- 7,000	6,123	1,225	4,283	1,713	1,547	928	606	485	37	40	12,596	4,3917,001- 7,500	7,468	1,494	3,463	1,385	1,438	863	161	129	0	0	12,530	3,8707,501- 8,000	6,773	1,355	4,380	1,752	1,337	802	207	166	114	121	12,811	4,1968,001- 8,500	7,135	1,427	2,640	1,056	1,615	969	272	218	53	53	11,715	3,7238,501- 9,000	6,907	1,381	3,750	1,500	1,284	770	318	254	39	41	12,298	3,9479,001- 9,500	7,292	1,458	2,825	1,130	765	459	434	347	200	208	11,516	3,6039,501-10,000	6,108	1,222	2,585	1,034	789	473	297	238	96	132	9,875	3,09910,001-11,000	11,657	2,331	7,381	2,952	2,141	1,285	651	521	170	186	22,000	7,27511,001-12,000	10,641	2,128	6,527	2,611	2,731	1,639	746	597	230	265	20,875	7,23912,001-13,000	8,531	1,706	7,212	2,885	2,236	1,341	319	255	146	173	18,444	6,36113,001-14,000	5,924	1,185	5,135	2,054	2,120	1,272	369	295	34	35	13,582	4,84114,001-15,000	5,754	1,151	3,493	1,397	1,213	728	473	378	169	172	11,102	3,82615,001 - 16,000	5,182	1,036	3,643	1,457	1,539	923	248	198	119	122	10,731	3,73816,001-17,000	4,688	938	3,330	1,332	804	482	423	338	105	105	9,350	3,19517,001-18,000	3,857	771	3,636	1,454	968	581	86	69	25	25	8,572	2,90018,001-20,000	5,602	864	3,520	1,235	1,464	812	361	271	39	38	10,986	3,21920,001-22,000	3,911	208	2,189	541	276	127	139	92	35	41	6,550	1,00922,001-24,000	0	0	2,248	340	550	189	58	32	40	36	2,896	59724,001-26,000	0	0	1,196	71	399	90	209	98	1	1	1,805	26026,001-28,000	0	0	0	0	249	36	35	11	0	0	284	4828,001-30,000	0	0	0	0	313	16	70	15	0	0	383	3130,001-32,000	0	0	0	0	0	0	14	3	6	2	20	532,001-34,000	0	0	0	0	0	0	42	4	0	0	42	434,001 & Over	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2	0


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 19, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie)

that Bill C-20, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, last night we were treated to the humour of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) and the humourlessness of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I do not want to take up endless hours of the time of the chamber today but I do hope to focus the attention of the House on some constructive criticisms of this bill. I want to make it clear to the House, being the lead-off speaker for our caucus, that it is not our intention on this bill or any other bill to obstruct, hold up in any way or prevent the government from carrying on with its legislation.
However, there are two things which need to be said. The first is that important differences of principle need to be expressed and discussed both at second reading and in the committee. The second is that the government has the obligation to act in a manner expected of a minority government. If
November 20, 1979

there are constructive proposals coming forward from this caucus on second reading-which there will be and I will be outlining them at the end of my speech-we expect the government to look at them carefully, to consider them and to act as it must, particularly in view of what took place yesterday in Newfoundland and in Saskatchewan. It is a government that needs the support, consensus and agreement of more than its own members.
1 suggest to the Minister of Finance that, while I find his remarks as entertaining as the next person and while I certainly do not mind his bluffs and challenges that we step outside and have a fight like some bar room bully in the back streets of one of our major cities, it would be far better if he were to take seriously the comments, criticisms and remarks which have come forward from this caucus. 1 remind the minister that we have had over a year and a half to consider this legislation and that there has been a considerable amount of discussion about it.
1 am happy that the minister came to his senses with respect to the differences between a deduction and a credit. I recognize that he has taken a small step-a "banana step", as we used to say-toward a reasonable position on the problem. We do not think he has gone far enough. There are still some very severe problems with this legislation and it cannot be passed in its present form.
I am going to outline very carefully, Mr. Speaker, why we want this legislation improved. The first thing we must do is address ourselves to the problem. What is the problem being faced today by many Canadians? I suggest to the government that there are two major problems with respect to housing and poverty in Canada. The first major problem is that there is an affordability crisis in Canadian housing. That is to say, there are far too many households spending far too much of their money on housing. The ironic thing is that the majority of the people who are paying too much money for their houses are not home owners, not mortgage holders, but in fact are renters. Over one million households in Canada are spending more than 30 per cent of their income on housing costs. The vast majority of those people are not home owners, they are tenants. That is the first aspect of the problem the government has to deal with. It is an affordability problem, a crisis related to how much money you have and how much of that money you are spending on housing.
The second problem is the deterioration of the physical standards of housing in many parts of the country but particularly in the inner cities of major urban centres. The inner cities face serious problems in the condition and standards of housing, as do many parts of rural Canada.
So we have two problems. The problem of affordability is tied to how much money you make and is not tied to whether
Mortgage Tax Credit
or not you own a house or pay a mortgage. Then there is the deterioration of the physical standards of housing.
I think we are entitled to ask ourselves what the Liberals did when they were in power. We heard the speech of the hon. member of Winnipeg-Fort Garry who spoke as if he was not one of the brains behind Liberal social policy for the past five years. He spoke as if he were not responsible for AHOP, CHIP, ARP, MURB and all the other features of Liberal genius which we have experienced for five years.


An hon. Member:: He was behind us but he was not one of the brains.


Bob Rae: We are entitled to ask ourselves whether Liberal policy was directed to those particular problems. We are also entitled to ask whether this measure put forward by the Minister of Finance deals with those two problems. If it does not deal with them, then I think we are entitled to ask how we can get a better piece of legislation that will deal with them. I do not think that is being obstructionist, ideological, foolish, or is any of the myriad of adjectives the minister has thrown our way this session.
1 might say, Mr. Speaker, that I am always intrigued by the amount of attention the Minister of Finance devotes to this party's caucus. It is getting bigger with every byelection that is held in this country. That may be a sign that we are starting to get to him a little bit.
Let us look at what the Liberals did. Their housing policy can be summarized in one word: retreat. They retreated from CMHC and abandoned it to the provinces. They retreated from their RRAP program by depriving it of funding. We all know that program of assistance for residential property was critical. It would have allowed low income people in the inner cities to improve the physical standards of their housing.


Mr. Darling:: Right on.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) agrees with me. He knows how important the RRAP program was in his area. I know how important it was and still is in mine.
I also know, Mr. Speaker, how dishonest the Liberal position was. In their last piece of legislation they promised to make the program universal. It was no longer to be tied to NIP. We had NIP, RRAP, CHIP, AHOP, ARP and MURB. That was Liberal social policy. They made it universal but there was no money behind it. That was typical of the Liberal party in their dying days. They were attempting to satisfy those people who knew that they deserved assistance in upgrading their homes. One the other hand, the Liberals were saying there was no money for the programs they were putting forward. That was the hypocrisy of the Liberal government.
1502

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
General funding for public housing and co-operative housing was cut back in the final years of the Liberal government. At the present time in the city of Toronto, for instance, no public housing is being constructed, apart from senior citizens' housing. We recognize that senior citizens' housing is very important. On this side of the House we are glad to see that some is still being constructed, but not at the expense of the general level of public housing and not at the expense of the vitality of the co-operative housing sector.
I think Liberal social policy can be described as "nothing for everybody". The policy of the Conservative party is "something for a very special few". It is a Hobson's choice between these two parties, Mr. Speaker-there is either nothing for everybody or something for some people, depending on whether you happen to have a mortgage or own property.
If we can leave for the moment the bankruptcy of Liberal social policy, I think we are entitled to ask the minister what the mortgage tax credit plan does to solve the problem of affordability, which is a concern of renters and home owners, and what does it do for people in inner cities and rural areas who need federal government assistance to fix houses that are deteriorating.
I want to tell the minister about a trip that I took to Washington in company with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), Mrs. Pigott, who has moved on to bigger and better things, and two members of the Liberal party. We went there to examine the American taxation scheme with respect to housing. We attended a meeting that 1 will not readily forget with a group of American economists who were advisers to the Congress.
They asked the members of the Conservative party about their proposal so that there could be a free discussion on its merits. First of all, our Conservative colleagues said it was a tax proposal and that it was tax reform designed to give people a tax break. They were asked why they did not bring in a tax credit or tax deduction that would apply to everybody and be universal, and not restrict it only to people who own property. They were asked why they would engage in a policy of hidden expenditures which, we are coming to realize in a more sophisticated understanding of our tax system, is very expensive. It cannot be readily controlled by the government, it creates an additional deficit and it is far more difficult for the government to control when it wants to reduce its deficit. It is a form of hidden spending which is regressive. If it is a tax proposal, why engage in a tax proposal that will give something to people who have property and give nothing to people who do not have property?
Generally speaking, this proposal is going to redistribute income away from poor people and toward people who have more. Well, they hemmed and they hawed and said that it is not only a tax proposal but really an economic proposal. It is really designed to stimulate the economy. One of the economists said that if you want to stimulate the economy, there are much more efficient ways of doing so. There are forms of
[Mr. Rae.)
direct government spending. This is not really a stimulative measure, it is a stimulus that lasts forever. It is not something that you can take away.
The minister knows-he understands something about economic theory, even if he does not always follow it-that there are times when it is important to provide for some stimulus and there are times when it is important to take away. This bill does exactly the reverse. Regardless of what the economic condition of Canada is in 1982, this government will be spending probably more than $2.4 billion on housing subsidies than it is spending today, regardless of whether there will be a downturn, an upturn, a slump or an inflationary cycle at that time. Regardless of what the economic situation is, the minister has committed himself. This completely ties his hand with respect to government economic policy.
Then they said that it was not really economic policy, it was a social policy designed to encourage people to buy their own homes. They replied that if you want to encourage people to buy their own homes for the first time and if you want to focus your attention on new home buyers, why not subsidize interest rates for those first-time home buyers and let them stimulate the new housing market? By doing this you will save a lot of money and accomplish your objective. They finally said that it is really none of those things, it is political. It is politically a very attractive proposal.
To me that was the final revelation of what this proposal is all about. It has nothing to do with taxation because it is an affront to every canon of taxation and tax policy since Adam Smith, and the Minister of Finance knows it. It redistributes income away from lower income people. It is a hidden expenditure. It does nothing for the economy. It is not an effective, efficient, useful or intelligent stimulus for the economy because you cannot take it away once you have given it. As a social policy it stinks because it does not deal with those people who are in most need. Our rate of home ownership is exactly the same as the American rate of home ownership, just hovering over 60 per cent; and we have not had this proposal, they have.
It was a revelation because it told us what the real intentions of the government were. It told us what the objectives were. The objectives were to win an election with an election promise and an election gimmick. Having gone to the people with a gimmick, the government now feel they have to deliver the goods regardless of the cost, the effect, the fairness, the common sense of it, or whether it fits in with the intention of the government to cut down on the deficit. Regardless of any of those things, we have a government that is determined to go ahead.
The Minister of Finance came into this House yesterday and said that if we did not like it we could step outside and have an election.


An hon. Member:: Bully.


Bob Rae: I like to think better of the Minister of Finance than that.
November 20, 1979


An hon. Member:: Big bully.


Bob Rae: He talks like a bully, but he acts like Clark Kent. We know what the minister's real intentions are. If the minister wants to have an election on the mortgage tax credit-


An hon. Member:: Yes, okay.


Bob Rae: -if that is what the minister wants to do in the middle of winter and that is his determination, then so be it.
I suggest to the minister that there are more intelligent ways of conducting the affairs of this House. There are more intelligent ways that will be more in tune with what the Canadian people really want.


Lloyd Axworthy: There is a premise there.


Bob Rae: Let me suggest to the minister that there are a number of amendments which he could consider to deal with the problem. They would allow him to provide the kind of break that he wants to provide and which would also meet some of the criticisms of the opposition, and certainly some of the criticism that has come from this party.
The first is that the credit should not be tied to property. The credit should not be tied to the ownership of property. The credit should be tied to the fact that tenants and homeowners alike are strapped by rising property taxes, rising interest rates and rising rents. If there is room for manoeuvre, I would suggest to the minister that that room is a cost of living tax credit, or, if you like, a shelter tax credit, rather than a tax credit that is tied to mortgage payments and the payment of property tax.
Second, it is said that the credit can be made refundable. I would point out to the minister that hundreds of thousands of citizens, particularly senior citizens, will not get the benefit of this credit because they do not pay any tax. If the minister is determined to carry on with the tax credit the way he seems to be, there is no reason why that tax credit cannot be made refundable even if a person pays no tax. Then a person would get that flat rate regardless of whether he pays tax or not. That would be a message, a message that my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been trying so hard these past days to get out of this government. The message is that yes, this government is prepared to do something for the senior citizens of Canada, that this government is prepared to do something for those people who have no income.
I know the minister very proudly paraded before the House yesterday his statement that, "Well, you want to be quite clear; this does not give anything to people who do not pay tax." I think that is a shame. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who do not qualify for this tax credit for the simple and only reason that they do not have any income to declare by April 30, 1980.
I do not think it is beyond the power and imagination of this government, and certainly not beyond the compassion of the hon. member for St. John's West, to think of the people in his
Mortgage Tax Credit
own riding, my riding and ridings throughout this country where there are senior citizens who need a tax break just as much as anybody else. These people can certainly use the cash and deserve it just as much as anybody else. There is no reason why that cannot be accepted by the Conservative government, and the minister knows it.
Another point the Minister of Finance could consider is: why should the tax credit not become greater as one's income becomes lower? Why does the tax credit have to be a bulk sum which is totally unrelated to income? There is no reason, apart from the fact that the Conservative party appears to be determined to distribute money away from those people who are renters towards those people who are not renters, the home owners.
1 am prepared to say today I know that home owners are strapped. I know the home owners in my riding are strapped. There are not too many middle-class trendies in my riding, 1 can tell the minister that right now. There are not too many middle class crazies either. We are determined to see that the government do not benefit home owners at the expense of those people who do not have the political power and clout. Tenants have less influence locally, provincially and nationally over the affairs of this government than the home owners in HUDAC who are a very powerful lobby.
I do not think it is beyond the imagination and capacity of this government to design a tax relief program that goes to people who rent as well as to people who own homes, if that is what the government wants to do. I think the government could do it if it wanted to, if it was not determined for its own private, ideological reasons to see that a particular lobby got a particular boost at a particular time.
I am trying to be as reasonable as I can in making these suggestions to the government. I have given a number of speeches on this subject in the House. We debated it last year when the Liberals were dying. We certainly discussed it during the election and I discussed it during the byelection in Broadview in 1978. Each time I am always struck by the fact that of course there is a problem. What is the problem? The problem is that housing is too expensive and interest rates are too high. Housing is deteriorating in our inner cities and too many people do not make enough money. That means they are paying too much of their money in rent. Those are the four problems. It is not beyond the genius of this government to devise a policy that does not discriminate between tenants and home owners.
I am sorry but I do not accept the view that this mortgage interest tax credit, as the minister says, will cure the common cold, will provide cheap water and give every young person in Canada a chance to buy a house. It is a fraud. It reminds me of the nineteenth century medicine man who came to the frontier and tried to see sell some kind of elixir. We have crazy rates elixir here, snake oil. It is not going to work. It will not cure the common cold.

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
We cannot avoid the fact that if we carry out the policy the government wants to carry out, it will be inflationary and will increase the cost of housing. You are giving people money, but interest rates are already taking it away. We saw that yesterday. 1 saw in this morning's The Globe and Mail that the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Froese) was saying the same thing. I understand there are others on the Conservative side who feel the same way, and that does not surprise me. They get up in the morning and look in the mirror and know what side their right and their left hand is on. They know what the score is in terms of interest rates. They know the effect. It is only when they come into this House and have to follow a policy line that they find themselves in the position of forgetting which side is up.
The Minister of Finance knows which side is up. He knows what is happening to the housing market. He knows how difficult it is for young people to be able to afford to buy a house. The minister knows that the interest rates we are currently suffering from make it impossible to buy a home. He knows that the effect of a nearly 30 per cent rise in the cost of money since May, 1979, has made it practically impossible for people to buy new homes. He also knows this tax credit does not even go part way toward solving that problem.
I say to the Minister of Finance today that we are prepared to put forward serious and constructive proposals. We are prepared to discuss with him until the cows come home the virtue of bringing in a tax credit program that will stimulate the economy when it needs to be stimulated-and we think it does need to be stimulated. It should be a program that will provide the government with some flexibility, one that will give relief to tenants and home owners alike. However, we are not prepared to support a policy which gives to one group at the expense of another.
Earlier 1 talked of my trip to Washington and the reality that became evident at that time. The reality was that the Conservative party thought they had found manna from heaven. When this idea caught on they thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. However, they are now the government. The Minister of Finance knows that. He has to recognize that not every economist and not every person who has looked at this scheme and has opposed it-and they have opposed it and opposed it-is a bureaucrat, a socialist or an idiot, as he described us yesterday.
The minister knows he cannot dismiss the criticisms of this scheme as some sort of naive attempt at creating political castles in the sky. He knows he cannot get away with that any more. He also knows that some of the criticisms that have been coming forward have been responsible, that some come from people deeply concerned about the fairness of this scheme. They are deeply concerned about the efficiency of it simply from the point of view of effective government spending. The minister knows it comes from people who are concerned about the real effects.
Will it bring down the cost of housing? No, it will not. It will inflate the cost of housing. That is as simple an economic equation as one that tells you if demand goes up, when supply

is constant, when there has been a consistent drag on supply, you know there will be an increase in price. I appeal to the economic common sense of any member of this House to tell me how that cannot be true and how this proposal cannot be inflationary.
It is important for us to realize that the government is somewhat confused. For example, one need only look to the speeches of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay), the minister of housing, as the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry called him. If he had been in the last Parliament, he would know that we do not have a minister of housing. Why not? Because the Liberals got rid of him, with Tory support.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's not true.


Bob Rae: It is true. The ministry of state for housing and urban affairs was abolished by the Liberal party. That is why we had a minister for public works under the old government who was responsible for housing, and why we now have a Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who is responsible for CMHC. It is that neglect of the housing sector from the federal point of view which has created this policy, which is a lousy housing policy, lousy social policy, lousy economic policy and lousy tax policy. However, it can be improved. We are ready to stay here and try to improve it.
I have with me a speech delivered by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He talked of the need for rehabilitation. It was a very sensible speech about the need to preserve and enhance the standard of construction and standard of housing for many people in our inner cities and rural areas. He talked of the importance of rehabilitation. He said, and I quote:
Rehabilitation serves two important social and economic goals: it helps to conserve and recycle scarce resources, and, because it is more labour-intensive than new construction, helps to create more new jobs. To a large extent our efforts will be directed at encouraging the revitalization of inner-city neighbourhoods-building and rebuilding new communities within the existing urban framework.
Where new housing is concerned, I'm sure that the tax credit scheme announced recently by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, John Crosbie, will help substantially in supporting housing demand.
One cannot have it both ways. One cannot talk about spending $2 billion on subsidizing a relatively well-off group of Canadians-not wealthy, but well-off-albeit three million strong. One cannot spend that much money on that group and have very much left over for all that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion would like to see done.
He says the new housing scheme is going to be directed to new housing. That is rubbish. It directs itself to all housing. It is the most inefficient way of encouraging new housing. If you want to encourage new housing demand, the NDP scheme announced in 1974 and brought to this House since that time, not as a response to the present proposal but as a reiteration of long-standing party policy, simply makes the most sense.
If you want to subsidize interest rates, Mr. Speaker, subsidize interest rates. Do it. If you want to do it, say you are
November 20, 1979

going to do it and tell everybody how much it is costing. Go to the Canadian people and tell them the cost of this program. Do not hide it in tax expenditures the way this proposal is being hidden.
Why should the government pay for all of the subsidy? Why not get the banks, whose profits have been exceedingly high and who have been benefiting from the deferred income debentures which we have been talking about in this House over the past three weeks-they have been benefiting systematically from that-to come into a housing development fund that would be used to subsidize interest rates directly? This is quite apart from the folly of the government's interest rate policy. It is quite apart from the crazy rates we have been suffering from for the past months and years under Liberal and Tory governments. This is a scheme that says that if you want to get interest rates down, do it and tell the people you are doing it. Don't pretend you are selling something, some snake oil that is not really there. Tell them. Be responsible. Live up to the rhetoric which the Minister of Finance has been giving us since he took office.
The difficulty about this government is that it has broken the promises it should have kept and kept the promises it should have broken. If the government was serious about stimulating the economy, it could have brought in a tax cut that applied to all Canadians. There is no reason the two groups singled out by the government in its tax policy since it was elected should have been chosen for special treatment. Who makes up these two groups? First, the doctors, lawyers and accountants who got the benefit of the small business tax credit. The second group consists of the 2.1 million householders who will benefit from this scheme.


Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us Bill C-20 entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax. Obviously, some aspects of this bill were to be found for many years in the program of the Social Credit Party of Canada but, Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back immediately to the reasons which have prompted the present government, the Progressive Conservative government, to bring this bill before the House. I shall refer to the words spoken yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), as reported on page 1462 of yesterday's Hansard, and I quote the minister:
This plan is to be phased in over four years, as was promised in September of 1978 by the Prime Minister. It was a commitment which aroused a lot of interest during the election campaign. I was one of the principal reasons, 1 believe, that people supported this party-
I think the Minister of Finance and his government are mistaken in their assessment of the situation, because if the Progressive Conservatives were elected on the basis of that promise, how is it then that they were placed third in Quebec in the last general election and managed to have only two
Mortgage Tax Credit
members elected of 75! It is certainly not this measure announced by the government during the campaign which prompted Quebec voters to support the government. And if it is an election promise, then 1 think my colleagues on the government side should be a little more careful when making such assessments. How is it that the government lost both byelections yesterday? It is a much more serious matter, Mr. Speaker, even though the government claims this measure is aimed first of all at relieving home owners. It must be specified that it will relieve some home owners and not all of them, because not all Canadians who own a mortgaged home will be able to benefit from this legislation.
Moreover, the government has stated that it meant also to encourage private ownership. To what extent? Are there any statistical data about this? Were there studies carried out to indicate to hon. members and the Canadian people just how many people this new legislation would encourage to become home owners? My colleagues and I are in doubt about this, Mr. Speaker. I suggest therefore that this second objective should have been looked into more seriously by the government.
And then, it is to give impetus to housing construction. Well, during the last election campaign which ended on May 22 the present government had made all sorts of promises and undertaken not to follow in the steps of the previous government which had always agreed with the decisions of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank to increase the discount rates-and God knows that the new government has followed these steps, along the same narrow and winding streets of the previous government, not only to adopt but to approve, so to speak and without any qualification, the decisions taken outside our own country in areas which concern us, our country and our fellow Canadians.
To what extent will such legislation stimulate housing construction? I invite the government members and the Minister of Finance to reply to this question. What will be the economic impact of such legislation on the good administration of public affairs and national affairs? Usually, when an incentive program is offered to the population, certain economic consequences are expected, perhaps indirectly, but they still allow the government to increase fiscal and government revenues.
When programs are established to stimulate employment and manpower, a number of Canadians can join the labour market and contribute to increasing public funds through their taxes. However, when restricted economic policies are introduced so that individuals, instead of contributing to public funds, can benefit from social legislation aimed at helping people who would otherwise live in unacceptable circumstances, what are the consequences of this on the budget and the Canadian economy?
Mr. Speaker, 1 listened to and reread the comments made by the three previous speakers: the Minister of Finance, the spokesman for the official opposition and the representative of

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
the New Democratic Party. Not one of them took the trouble to get to the bottomof this issue. The government legislates to reduce arbitrarily the consequences of its action so that legislation is passed whicfr benefits small groups without any guarantee that there will be revenues in return for the state, which means that someone else must pay.
Does this legislation hide anything, since there will be no economic impact to increase public funds? Can we deduce from the start, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have to face increased taxes and direct or indirect income taxes in the next budget tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance? That is the question, that is the problem. They merely act upon the consequences, as the previous government did for 15 years before leaving such a heavy heritage to this government. The present Minister of Finance is in a position to know. In view of the situation he is now experiencing and in view of the previous government's negligence, what is he himself prepared to do so that, as far as the Canadian economy is concerned, we could move toward progress, not toward foreign dependency where others take decisions for us? No, Mr. Speaker, they do not have any solution to put forward.
Yet that measure will cost $575 million to the public treasury in 1979. That measure will cost $1,245 billion in the 1980 budget; that measure will cost $2,015 billion in the 1981 budget. How does the government intend to balance its budget which is already showing a $11.5 billion deficit, and this for three consecutive years, so that the generation of tomorrow will not be left with a heritage of mortgages, debts and taxes which would make practically unthinkable a decent standard of living for them? What do they intend to do to redress the Canadian economy?
Mr. Speaker, the governor of the Bank of Canada himself appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and stated candidly: Gentlemen, I have practically no room to manoeuvre, the budget deficits of the government are so high, the balance of accounts deficit is so high we have practically no room to manoeuvre. Without any room to manoeuvre, we have a choice between two solutions: either we raise the discount rate, which is going to lead to higher interest rates, or we accept the devaluation of our currency, which is going to place us in a terrible position of dependence on foreigners. This will hurt the Canadian economy and fuel inflation, something which nobody dares assess or predict.
If we have a measure that has no incentive to promote new ownership because the law, even if it is good for a certain category of people, is not part of a more general context, a much broader context, a comprehensive economic policy, a realistic financial and monetary policy taking into account the immense capacity of Canadians, taking into account the enormous resources we have, taking into account both our tremen-

dous energy and scientific potential. If those laws are not part of a more general context, then we are just further increasing public management, government deficits and Canada's dependence on international finance and foreign financial powers.
When you reach the point, Mr. Speaker, where the man who is supposed to be responsible for Canada's monetary policy says to Canadian parliamentarians of all political parties represented in this House of Commons: Listen, I have no other choice but to follow the decisions made abroad. Because those who governed this country-and I am adding this myself because the governor could hardly say so, but you have to add it if you want to have a general overview, if you want to make an objective and realistic assessment of the situation-one just imagines the governor of the Bank of Canada felt like saying: had the government taken its responsibilities, had the country been managed according to sound corporate principles, with balanced budgets, with the kind of programs and policies needed to put Canada on the road to prosperity and development in order that we take up the challenge of the future, we could say this is not legislation for a large number of people but legislation to improve the situation of Canadians and to promote the economy as a whole.
This unfortunately we cannot say because the available information tells us this legislation will benefit only a certain number of home owners while putting pressures on the government deficit and thereby increasing Canada's dependence on foreigners, so that tomorrow, in two or three or five years from now, I wonder what will be left for members to do in this House. We will be rubber stamps, they will tell us. I would like to answer the opposition; unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer. I cannot answer because we will have to consult with foreign powers, with outside financiers, with the United States, because we do not control our own decisions, we are not masters of our own future. Power has gone into foreign hands. This is the sad part of it. This legislation, which the government themselves boast they got thousand of votes and got elected for, is but a deception act.
By the way, although there are benefits for some home owners, they are preparing sooner or later, tomorrow or next year, to impose new taxes in order to bring back into balance the Canadian economy. Apparently they are at a loss, they have no real solution, nothing of real significance. They show no imagination, they are incapable of showing Canadians from all provinces that there is a future for Canadians, that we have an active government, a resolute government, a government with imagination, a government that is capable of taking up a challenge. They come up with non-measures, under the pretence of having some kind of concern, but this only puts us in a position where we increase our dependence on other countries.
Mr. Speaker, many people will not be eligible for a tax credit under this bill. At the outset of my remarks, I said it was going to "relieve some home owners, not all of them".
November 20, 1979

Moreover, there are all those who pay no income tax. How can someone with a mortgaged home who does not pay any income tax be granted a tax credit? Yet, according to statistics, some 200,000 people have mortgaged homes and pay no income tax. And those who pay no tax are those, need I say, who have comfortable incomes.
Some home owners have already paid off their mortgage because they have worked hard to avoid getting into debt, unlike their governments, and have paid cash so as not to mortgage their future. Those Canadians will not benefit from this measure, and there are millions of them. And what about tenants? Interest rates are included in the rents. What about tenants? These people have to pay their rent. The owner of multiple units pays interest and includes capital costs, interest costs, maintenance costs, etc., in his rents.
Then what will this bill bring indirectly to this group of citizens later on? The budget will then have to be balanced, a hidden tax will have to be collected somewhere. More than half of those five million home owners, Mr. Speaker, will not benefit from it. One has only to refer to the figures given to us by the minister in the House yesterday. Who will benefit most from it? The big owners, those with the largest mortgages, those with the most mortgaged property-it is therefore an incentive to debt-those with the most recent mortgages, those who pay the highest interest rates. The higher the interest rate, the higher the tax credit, within the limits set by the government, of course. Therefore, I say that in the latter case, for those who pay the highest interest rates, it might become a hidden subsidy to financial institutions.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the distribution by province is concerned-because we do have constitutional problems-let us not play the ostrich and bury our heads in the sand. There are regional economic disparities that are extremely important and serious, and which threaten the political structures of our country. Let us look at the number of home owners by province. We see for instance that in Quebec, only 47 per cent of the people own their home, while in Ontario and in the prairies, the percentage of home owners is about 62 per cent. Have compensatory measures been considered in order to counterbalance such inequity? I did not hear a single word from the government-


Bob Rae: Right on!


Fabien Roy: -hence, indirectly, the federal government contributes by its measures to maintaining the economic disparities which exist in the country. One also finds that in the maritimes the problem is different since this is where the number of mortgages is the lowest. That means of course that the people in the maritimes will benefit much less from this legislation than others, and yet the maritimes also have their problems. Have those things been considered? That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say that even if the measure benefits a number of home owners, it is an ill-designed, ill-conceived and half-
Mortgage Tax Credit
baked piece of legislation. It is not part of a legislative package that should be put forward by a new government intent on putting our economy on the road to progress and prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation would indirectly contribute to higher mortgage interest rates and that is true whether we are prepared to admit it or not. Some people are still paying interest rates of 6 per cent. Of course they are fewer than those who pay 7 per cent, 9 per cent, 8 per cent, 11 per cent. And we know all about mortgage renewal clauses. Moreover, a few days ago a member from the official opposition introduced a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 to suggest a measure which would prevent financial institutions from renewing their mortgage contracts at higher interest rates. Now we have here an indirect stimulus for financial institutions to raise their mortgage interest rates. I also read an advertisement published in Le Devoir dated November 9, 1979, on page 17 and I quote:
Montreal Trust reducing mortgage rates.
-because this is news we are not used to-
At last, some good news in the troubled sector of interest rates: Montreal Trust announced yesterday that it was lowering from 14'/2 per cent-
-no less-
-to 13% per cent the interest rate on conventional five-year mortgages.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if this is not an incentive to prevent financial institutions, which would be tempted to lower their interest rates, to maintain their present rates so as to share between them, one might say, the government measure that is proposed now. So, Mr. Speaker, before concluding,
I suggest some recommendations should be made in order to avoid the two dangers 1 just brought to the attention of the House, namely, the indirect incentive to raise interest rates, or rather an indirect intention to prevent the lowering of interest rates. The law should be amended so as to have an interest rate of 3 per cent or 4 per cent, whatever the interest rate is, but it should be limited to around 3 per cent or 4 per cent for everybody, for anyone benefiting from the act. Thus, whoever pays 9 per cent interest can benefit from the same rate of decrease on his mortgage rate as whoever pays 12 per cent or 13 per cent, and financial institutions will not be encouraged to increase their rates, nor banks to do the same when they already make outrageous profits. I must say I am somewhat surprised to hear the NDP talk about the banks. Our friends the Creditistes have been doing so for 25 years: I think they are starting to get the message across the way.
I do not know whether the message is better understood because we sit across the way from each other nor if that is the reason why our colleagues of the New Democratic Party are finally looking into that question; because we sit across from them perhaps it helps them to understand better. But, in this connection, all legislation on banks, including the Bank of Canada, should be examined. When, Mr. Speaker, will Canada be able to depend on a Canadian monetary policy? The governor of the Bank of Canada has said that, in fact, there is no Canadian monetary policy. That is our problem.

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
The NDPs are becoming Creditistes. That is our problem. There is no Canadian monetary policy. When are we to have one? In a month, six months, five years or ten years?
Can hon. members on the government side tell us whether we are now in a position to face the challenges of the future with interest rates reaching 14 per cent, 15 per cent, 16 per cent, and perhaps tomorrow, if they ever follow the policy of the Labour party in Great Britain, we will have, as they did there, interest rates of 17 per cent and even 18 per cent, and an inflation rate reaching almost 20 per cent as was the case there at a certain time because there was too much state control, too many public servants, too many bureaucrats and too many restrictions? Are we heading now into that kind of situation? It is about time this government, which is expected to run the affairs of our country, learned the lesson which it was given yesterday when, after only six months in office, it found itself rejected by people in two byelections.
It casts serious doubts on the policies, decisions and attitude of the government. Hon. members on the government side should reflect on this as it means that Canadians who had this opportunity to express their views in two completely different provinces very far from one another have rejected this government, maybe for different reasons, and chosen another political party; but they nevertheless rejected this government. However, there is a common denominator. They chose different political groups for different reasons but they rejected the present government. We should reflect seriously on this. The government ought to respond to the challenge, fulfil not only its electoral promises but also its commitment to govern in the interest of our country and make available to everyone the wealth which is within our reach, Mr. Speaker. To conclude, 1 say that all property taxes should be deductible from income tax. There should be a provision to offset the cost of property taxes paid by tenants so that something be done too for that category of citizens who have been unable to buy a home in their country, in their own province for reasons that would take too much time to explain.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, we are just starting the discussions on this important legislation which gives us the opportunity to discuss an issue that goes far beyond the law itself, dealing as it does with the whole government economic policy. I hope the government will change its mind and that government spokesmen will act positively and announce really effective political, budgetary, legislative and economic measures that will not hide tax increases tomorrow or the day after.


Mr. Albert Fish (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the government in support of Bill C-20. This being the first occasion I have had the opportunity to speak in the House, I trust I can preface my remarks with some comments about the riding which I have the honour and privilege to represent in this Parliament. In addition, 1 should

like to touch briefly upon the reasons I chose to seek election to Parliament and why I am here in these critical times. I will do so within the context of Bill C-20, a bill which is fundamental to my belief in the importance of encouraging and assisting Canadian families to own homes and thus have a source of personal pride and a personal stake in our nation.
The federal riding of Guelph was created by redistribution prior to the last general election. Much of the riding constitutes the former riding of Wellington, which hon. members opposite will remember was represented by Dr. Frank Maine in the last House. It is a special privilege for me to represent Guelph, as this riding has been noted for its great contributions to the House of Commons. Many members of the House will remember Mr. Alf Hales, who represented Wellington riding for 17 years. He served with distinction, and among many of his accomplishments during his 17 years in Ottawa was the excellent manner in which he served this House as chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Mr. Hales is also well known for the key role he played in the development of the parliamentary internship program, a program which has continued with great success and has helped students learn first-hand about this great system of parliamentary government. Recently he was appointed commissioner to study salaries and expenses of senators and members of Parliament.
Guelph was also the home of the Hon. George Drew, the Premier of Ontario from 1943 to 1948. Guelph's contribution of leaders in politics is part of a very long history, as indicated by the fact that Sir Alexander Galt, an original Father of Confederation, was a native son of Guelph and a son of John Galt, the founder of the city.
The rich history of Guelph has literally filled volumes which make enjoyable and rewarding reading for all Canadians interested in this nation's history. Guelph was the home of Colonel John McCrae. He was well known in the first world war and most noted today as the author of the famous poem "In Flanders' Fields".
Guelph has also made important contributions to the field of the arts, most notably led by the world famous opera star, Edward Johnson, in whose memory the Edward Johnson Musical Foundation has sponsored the Guelph spring festival annually.
The city of Guelph, founded in 1827 and which achieved city status over 100 years ago, becoming the ninth City in Ontario, is known to all as the Royal City, named after the Royal Family who eventually changed their name to Windsor.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Guelph has enjoyed a history second to none in Canada. More importantly, however, Guelph riding has built upon this rich history to become a prosperous and thriving region today, and the future is bright indeed. A significant part of Guelph's past, present and future strengths is illustrated by the University of Guelph, which began as the Ontario Agricultural College in 1873 and, along with the Ontario Veterinary College, has become world famous for
November 20, 1979

academic excellence. Today the University of Guelph provides an excellent post-secondary education to over 10,000 full-time students, not only from Canada but from throughout the world.
The present riding of Guelph is comprised largely of the four townships of Pilkington, Eramosa, Puslinch and Guelph, in the county of Wellington. The city of Guelph, with a population of 72,000, is the hub of the riding and is surrounded by a number of small and beautiful communities such as Rockwood, Alma, Crieff, and Eden Mills, to mention a few. The rural area is comprised of rich farm land where hardworking farmers have built many prosperous dairy, beef, hog, poultry and cash crop farms which provide an important source of food for the nation and prosperity for the region.
The city of Guelph itself, while maintaining the beauty of its historical past, provides many jobs in business and industry for residents of Guelph and surrounding communities. It is the home of many local Canadian owned companies such as John Rennie Ltd., Hammond Manufacturing and W.C. Wood Company. In addition, some of the world's largest electrical generators are manufactured in Guelph, while at the same time some of the world's smallest and most sophisticated electronic equipment is also manufactured there.
Much of the success that Guelph riding has had in building up such a broad economic base of industry and agriculture is owed to the foresight of the city fathers and various township councils. In years past these councils have fought long and hard to attract business and industry to the city and -


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to relate his remarks more to the subject of the bill. I hope that this will take place.


Albert Fish: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I will deal directly with the bill.
As you will note, Mr. Speaker, by my accent, I am a Canadian by choice, having come to live in this country after the last war. The visions, the beliefs and the dreams I had when I chose to become a Canadian were well founded. Canada was all I hoped for. We enjoy the political, religious and moral freedoms in Canada that much of the world will never know. It is this desire that caused me to become a member of Parliament.
During the election campaign the Progressive Conservative Party pledged to implement a program of tax credits for home owners' mortgage interest and property taxes, a pledge kept by the introduction of this bill before us today, Bill C-20. The debate on this program during the campaign, and now in the House of Commons, has served to show the differences between the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal and New Democratic parties.
With this program, the Progressive Conservative Party, and today through the wisdom of the voters the Progressive Conservative government, have stated in no uncertain terms that we want Canadians to be able to own their own homes. Let me
Mortgage Tax Credit
say to those members opposite that no matter how they tried to disguise their attacks on this program through distortion of fact, it is clear to this House and to the people of Canada that they do not really support the goal of more Canadians being given the opportunity to own a home, and they fail to support the concept of helping the middle class of this country who have borne the brunt of past taxation policies.
The first thing I did when I came to Canada was to buy a small home and invest what little money I had in this country, which brings me to the first point I wish to make about this legislation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has said that he wants people to have a stake in this country, and that one of the best ways to do this is for Canadians to be able to purchase a home of their own. It is of fundamental importance that individual Canadians have a personal stake in their nation and in their society. This legislation allows existing Canadian home owners and future home owners to deduct their mortgage interest and property taxes from their federal income tax. This will help this goal to be realized.
The ability of Canadians to own a home is of such importance that it must be considered in the broad context of the right to private ownership of property. This right of private ownership of property is fundamental to the basic goals that most Canadians and the members of this House believe in.
First of all, it is belief in pride of ownership to be able to say: 1 have worked for, earned and invested in this, my home. This is the source of great pride and satisfaction for well over 60 per cent of Canadian families. Statistics show that 90 per cent of young Canadians, if they had their way, would own their own homes. This is their major goal. This program will help those who already have homes to be able to keep them in the face of increasing cost of ownership, and it will help many to reach their goal of home ownership who otherwise could not afford to make this investment.
This right to own private property extends beyond pride and personal satisfaction. It is a means of ensuring that Canadian citizens have a personal stake in their country. It is of vital importance to ensure social harmony and social stability, which we cherish so greatly, that we maintain, reinforce and expand the number of Canadians who feel that owning a home is a wonderful means of bringing about this goal.
In conjunction with this is the often overlooked and yet vitally important fact that private ownership of property is a critical means of ensuring that individuals retain their freedom from the state. Just as individuals with a stake in society, such as a home, provide the basis of stability and cohesion in that society, so too do they guard this right against excessive incursions by the state. It provides a strong bulwark against those who would rob us of our freedoms and our rights. Those who have something to lose are those with something to defend.
These broad beliefs and basic tenets of rights and freedoms must be encouraged and supported, and protected from those who would deny them. The hon. members of the NDP are fond of espousing the virtues of Sweden, their idea of a socialist Mecca. Perhaps hon. members will be interested to hear the

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
views of the minister of housing in Sweden when he spoke last June at a United Nations land use seminar. He said that private ownership of property should be eliminated from the dictionaries of the world. I submit that, given their expressed desire to nationalize everything else under the sun, the NDP policy toward home ownership is possibly not too far from that expressed by the minister of housing in Sweden at that United Nations seminar.
I have expressed the reasons I believe it is important to encourage Canadians to own a home-to protect individuals from manipulation by the state, and thereby protect personal freedom and liberty, and to have Canadians own a stake in society with a source of personal pride that provides both social stability and personal incentive.
I would like now to turn my attention to a discussion of how I believe this program of mortgage interest and property tax credits will help enable these goals to be met by helping more Canadians to buy and to afford a home. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to provide hon. members opposite with a short lesson on the facts of this policy and the effects it will have, which is something that has been quite alien to their remarks thus far.
Let us examine the opposition criticisms of this program. We in this House know that the only real problem the hon. members opposite have with this program to help Canadians is that their parties did not think of it first. Because of this and for no other reason, they will try to deny Canadians this very important tax relief for home buyers and home owners. Of course, they cannot admit this to the public. They cannot admit that they are willing to deny Canadians this program simply because they failed to think of it themselves. Rather, they have tried to rationalize their untenable and unjustifiable position through the propagation of nonsense and distortion of the facts.
This government will not be deterred from helping Canadians own a home, and the people of Canada will not be hoodwinked by the political opportunism of the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. Rather than take the responsible and honourable route and endorse this legislation, they attack it and try and delay its passage, to the detriment of millions of Canadians. I can only point out to the hon. members that the people of Canada who are waiting anxiously for this program will know who supported this legislation and who tried to prevent it.
What are these ridiculous criticisms that the opposition have expressed against this tax credit? First, they claim it does nothing for renters. It is their typical crying on this sort of thing which pits Canadians against Canadians, as only they do with such relish and ability. In this case they have tried to pit renters against home owners, although the net result has been only to pit both against the opposition parties.
It is never easy to explain to socialists that wealth must be generated before it can be redistributed, that social welfare programs must be paid for somewhere. We in this party see

the same social inequities existing as do the hon. members of the NDP. We, however, realize that the route to addressing these issues rationally and constructively is through encouraging the development of a sound and healthy economy which will provide jobs and incomes. The key, Mr. Speaker, is that we in this party and in this government want to help people to help themselves, and this fundamental ideal extends to our goals to help Canadians own their own homes.
The argument against this program, that it fails to help renters, is unfounded and irresponsible. The truth of the matter bears this out. There are many points to be made that show that to deny this legislation on the alleged basis that it does not help renters is false. First of all, some members of the opposition have suggested the tax credit is discriminatory against renters. This argument is disproved by the fact that renters already enjoy a similar break in that mortgage interest and property taxes are fully deductible for landlords, which provides a significant tax incentive to keep rents down.
Until now renters have indirectly enjoyed the benefits of a program that home owners have been denied. We believe that home owners, too, deserve this benefit which makes housing more attainable and affordable. In denying this program to home owners, the opposition are saying, in effect, that they are willing to discriminate against home owners by denying them the same benefits as renters. We in this party believe that both groups deserve to enjoy the benefits of more affordable accommodation, and this certainly cannot be viewed as discriminatory-
Secondly, the opposition display their ignorance of the housing market when they say that this program will not help renters. I am not too surprised that the opposition cannot see the benefit to renters of having more Canadians move to homes, as their economic policies generally reflect their total ignorance of the market place. I can only assume that this is a case of selective vision, in this instance of not wanting to recognize the obvious. The fact remains, however, that this program will help tenants by drawing off some of the demand pressure for rental accommodation that forces rents up. There are stresses at the present time in the rental market and the people who will be able to purchase homes under this program will help to alleviate that stress.
A recent survey has indicated that 90 per cent of young Canadians want to own a home. This program will help many of those people realize that dream. I have already stated my beliefs in the desirability of encouraging Canadians to own a home, and through this program many Canadians who now rent will be able to purchase a home.
Beyond this direct assistance to future renters, there is an important ancillary benefit for those who continue to rent, either by choice or because of economic circumstances. By drawing many people away from rental accommodation to home owning, there will be a significant reduction in the demand pressure which is pushing up the rental rates. With the virtual halt in the construction of rental accommodation in many parts of Canada as a direct result of rent controls, the vacancy rate in many major cities is critically low. Thus when
November 20, 1979

rent controls are lifted, as they most certainly will be, there will be adjustments upward, as has been indicated in some areas, and there will be a rise in rental rates given the current demand vis-a-vis the supply of rental accommodation. The significant reduction in demand for rental accommodation that we can expect as a direct result of this tax credit program will have a very positive effect on moderating the rise in rental rates. This is simply a fact of the marketplace.
Taken together, these facts show clearly that this program is not discriminatory toward renters, and in fact has benefits for renters, those who are close to and want to purchase homes, those who continue to be renters and want to purchase homes-and those who will continue to be renters in the future. On the whole, this policy is eminently equitable and beneficial to Canadians who require shelter, and this, Mr. Speaker, I believe, includes all Canadians. It is my opinion that this policy will give tenants a better chance to own a home, and I believe that this is socially important. People will be able to spend their working lives building equity in the home, and it will help them in their retirement years.
An hon. member has mentioned the American situation. He said that the United States was trying to get rid of their policy. In April, 1978, The New York Times and CBS conducted a poll on various aspects of the economy. The results were rather overwhelming since nine out of ten people polled favoured retaining a tax reduction for all interest paid on home mortgages. Of the renters, 87 per cent strongly favoured the continuation of the status quo.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) mentioned yesterday, and I think he also stated this in the Speech from the Throne debate, that many people are paying up to 30 per cent of their income on rents, and he felt this was far too high and that something should be done to help renters. We should realize that for anyone purchasing a home today, the gross debt service ratio for home purchasing is 30 per cent of gross income, which covers. principal, interest and taxes. However, when a tenant spends 30 per cent of his income on rent, it includes taxes, heat, hydro, snow removal, repairs, maintenance, and all the other things which a home owner must pay for. The home owner, in addition to the 30 per cent, must pay for the upkeep of utilities in addition to the principal, interest and taxes. Thus the comparisons are simply not valid.
If the hon. member needs further evidence of the need to help home owners with their large obligations, assuming desirability of home ownership for Canadians is not a convincing argument, perhaps some plain statistics will help him out. Over the ten-year period 1968-1978, the average cost of rental accommodation went up 45 per cent, compared to a 95 per cent increase in the consumer price index for that period.
Let us compare this to the costs faced by the home owner. Mortgage interest is up 138 per cent over the same period and owner repairs are up 133 per cent. New homes are up 138 per cent and home owners' insurance is up 355 per cent, while fuel and utilities are up 154 per cent. The simple truth of the matter is that the average working Canadian family has borne the brunt of inflation in the cost of maintaining a roof over
Mortgage Tax Credit
their heads. While the renter has faced over-all increases less than half the average increase in the cost of living, home owners have been faced with increases over-all that are 50 per cent higher than the average cost of living, and three times the impact faced by renters in the same period.
It is a well known fact of the marketplace that rental increases are historically behind the market. The present rent controls, however, are one reason why new rental units are not coming on to the market. The cost of operating an apartment building used to be from 36 per cent to 40 per cent, but today it is 50 per cent to 55 per cent, depending on the type of building. The net income derived from apartment buildings is low. They are uneconomical and therefore will not be built.
Inflationary costs of home ownership have threatened home ownership, Mr. Speaker. For many people the cost of buying and trying to maintain a home has made the prospect only a distant hope when it was basically a goal only a few years ago. This government and this party believe that these Canadians who have worked hard and saved in order to buy their own home should not have their dreams destroyed but, rather, they should be realized.
For many average, middle income Canadians who already have purchased homes, the costs are becoming a burden, forcing many to face the grim prospect of losing their homes. This, Mr. Speaker, is totally unacceptable, and I would urge hon. members opposite to consider these facts when they vote on this legislation. We want to encourage home ownership, not restrict access to it or make it inordinately expensive.
Mr. Speaker, above all, we must not lose sight of who the home owners in Canada are, and who will be the main recipients of the benefits of this tax credit program. Some hon. members opposite have painted a picture of home owners being the wealthy minority of Canadians, but we know full well that the vast majority of Canadian home owners are working class and middle income Canadians. These are the people who pay the vast bulk of the tax load in Canada, and now when their personal stake in society is being threatened the opposition would ignore them.
It is no cliche that it is these Canadians that provide the real backbone of our society. There are tax incentives available to big corporations that fill volumes, social programs that employ hundreds of thousands of dollars and there are subsidies paid for rental housing, yet here we are in the House of Commons trying to pass a tax credit to encourage and assist average, individual Canadians to purchase and own a home, and the opposition is fighting it.
Why, then, does the opposition deny this program for those Canadians who pay the bulk of the tax bill for everything else? Who is going to benefit from this bill? Who is it that the Liberal and new Democratic Party members are denying a modest tax credit? Mr. Speaker, 75 per cent of the homes owned in Canada are owned by families with a total family income of less than $25,000. Over 75 per cent of Canadian families of three or more members, that is, families with

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
children under sixteen, own homes. Given the immense increase in housing costs I alluded to before which are facing home owners, and given the expense involved in raising children, surely hon. members opposite will allow this bill swift passage.
Over 75 per cent of the aggregate mortgage debt in Canada is held by families with children. These are the people who are feeling the burden of high housing and housing related costs. Surely it is time that we in this House realized the great contribution made by working class and middle income Canadians. These people deserve to have a break for once. They should be encouraged to own their own homes. To deny this would be a terrible error of judgment, and so 1 implore all hon. members of this House to pass this legislation quickly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member permit a question?


Albert Fish: Certainly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I wonder if the hon. member is one of those Ontario members who is dissatisfied with the high interest rate policies of this government and if he specifically objected to them?


John Carnell Crosbie: We are all dissatisfied with them.


Albert Fish: Mr. Speaker, I have been in real estate appraising and consulting for 25 years. I realize the effect that high interest rates have on the purchase of homes. I should like to try to correct the impression some people have about high interest rates. The effect of this tax credit bill in the first year, if we are talking about an interest rate of 14% per cent, means the interest rate will be just below 14 per cent. If mortgage rates are still at 14% per cent in the fourth year, the effective interest rate will be 11% per cent.
Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry said that it was costing home owners $1,800 more today to pay off their mortgage. I should like to know what interest rate he was using as a base. I have made the calculation and it could be as low as $89 per month.


John Carnell Crosbie: Next question.


An hon. Member:: Any more questions?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, all I can say both about the speech and the answer to the question is that there was something terribly "fishy" about the whole thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: I should like to speak on Bill C-20 as it deals with an area that has been of great interest to me for a long time. 1 have had a great deal of experience with the mortgage markets and am familiar with the experience the United States government has had in this area. The previous speaker indicated that the United States regarded the package they have as an extremely good one and said that it is very popular there.
(Mr. Fish.]
No one can argue with the fact that taxpayers like tax relief, Mr. Speaker. The question is whether the economy can afford tax relief and whether those who receive it are the people who are primarily in need. Those are the questions that a government has to ask, but this government is certainly not asking them.
My over-all assessment of the plan, which 1 have carefully considered, is that it is inequitable, it is inefficient, it is unnecessary, it is unaffordable and it is irresponsible, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Be fair now, John.


An hon. Member:: Run away, Mr. Minister.


John Leslie Evans: I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) scuttling out of the House as fast as he can because he does not want to hear the truth. Mr. Speaker, this plan is a total violation of this government's professed program of restraint and it flies in the face of the clear priorities for the Government of Canada.
1 object to the Minister of Finance indicating that, when members on this side of the House speak in opposition to this bill, they are attempting to stand in the way of progress or to be obstructionist. That is not the case at all. We are very concerned, as the government professes to be, about the future fiscal stability of the Government of Canada and where we will be five years from now if we continue with programs and policies that mean an expenditure of $2.5 to $3 billion per year. This program cannot be considered a top priority by anyone.
Let me examine the individual points that I raised earlier, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the equity of the program, it has been pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) that less than one-third of households will receive the full benefit of it. There is no doubt about that; the facts are clear.
The plan will benefit the higher income people much more than lower income people, since the full benefits accrue only to individuals who have large mortgages. It takes $5,000 worth of mortgage interest to qualify for full benefits under the plan. If that is the situation, how many low income Canadians have such a mortgage?


An hon. Member:: A typical Conservative ploy.


John Leslie Evans: The plan involves substantial regional inequities which were pointed out quite clearly by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry last night. These are due to the differing patterns of home ownership and mortgage financing which occur across the country. As a result, Canadians in one part of the country who are home owners and who have the same needs as Canadians in another part of the country will receive differing amounts of benefits from this particular plan, resulting in increased home prices. That point has been
November 20, 1979

well documented by everyone who has any intelligence and has analysed this plan.
The clear statement has come forward that, as a result of the introduction of this plan, demand for housing will increase, which will drive up the price of housing because of supply constraints we now face. As a result the plan benefits current owners at the expense of new first-time owners. The benefits will not get down to the people which the government professes it is trying to help. They will not get down to the first-time buyer because part will be taken away by benefits that accrue to existing home owners who sell their homes.
It is quite clear that if there is an increase in the demand for housing, there will be an increase in demand for mortgage credit. An increase in demand for mortgage credit will increase the interest rate, not reduce the interest rate. It is clear to anyone who understands capital market financing that an increase in the demand for mortgage financing will increase the rate on mortgages.
The main benefits of the plan from an equity perspective go to the existing home owners who are, by and large, better off than average Canadians. As a result, I hold that the plan is inequitable as it stands and should not be carried forward by the government on that basis alone.
Second, with regard to efficiency and necessity, Bill C-20 will lead to a substantial misallocation of scarce investment resources which are needed in this country now to get Canada working again, as the government has told us so many times. Housing has to be considered as a non-productive consumption expenditure. It does not produce any new wealth. The government has been telling us how concerned it is with the production of new wealth. Now they are going to put $2.5 billion to $3 billion in a housing program, a non-productive, non-consumption type activity, instead of putting it into productive activity, perhaps to assist small business in finding equity capital in this country.
When the government rightly points out that we have fallen behind other industrialized countries in our productive investment and in our research and development, and then we are asked to divert $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year into an unnecessary program, I cannot believe this falls within the government's notion of priorities.
I said the plan was unnecessary and I will try to explain why. To my mind, Canadians are well housed. They are well housed individuals. A Gallup poll which was run prior to the election campaign showed that Canadians themselves feel that they are well housed. Well over 80 per cent of Canadians who responded to that poll indicated that they were satisfied with the housing situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: There he is again, the hon. member for Bramp-ton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). The hon. member for Win-nipeg-Fort Garry offered last night to debate with him. I am telling the hon. member that I will debate with him too.
Mortgage Tax Credit


An hon. Member:: They do not know what they are talking about.


An hon. Member:: He cannot face it.


John Leslie Evans: The fact is that we are very fortunate in Canada with regard to our housing stock. We are very fortunate in Canada with respect to the quality and quantity of housing that is available to Canadians. This is well pointed out in a study done by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development which looked at the housing situation of citizens in the western industrialized world. The OECD concluded that without a doubt Canadians were the best housed people in the western world. In that situation, when we have the best housing stock, when Canadians are satisfied with their housing stock, is this bill to be looked upon as a top priority item for the Government of Canada in which to place $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year? I think not, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Lack of imagination.


John Leslie Evans: I do not say that some Canadians are not clearly in need of housing assitance. The facts are to the contrary. Some Canadians do require housing assistance but this plan is not going to be the one that brings that assistance to them. The bill does not address the problem of inadequate housing. The bill represents a tax giveaway. It is an election gimmick, that is clear.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Leslie Evans: I want to reiterate that this is not a housing bill. We should make it clear to the Canadian people-and the Canadian people, I think, are clear on this, Mr. Speaker-that it is not a housing bill. It is a callous and irresponsible election promise that was designed to buy a few votes, in the same vein as the embassy move in Jerusalem.


An hon. Member:: An outright sham.


John Carnell Crosbie: Give up.


John Leslie Evans: The government indicates that this will be a gift, a giveaway, a great thing, a Christmas present to Canadians who own houses. That is a sham. It is not a gift. It will cost us clearly and it will cost us dearly. The question is, who will pay for it and how?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) on a point of order.


Mr. Oberle:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


John Leslie Evans: When I have finished I will be glad to entertain questions, Mr. Speaker.
November 20, 1979

Mortgage Tax Credit


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit and listen, you will learn.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the question is: who is going to pay and how? There are essentially three ways that we will all pay for this particular program. First, we will all pay with increased taxes whether they be direct or indirect taxes. There is a widespread fear right now that the so-called energy self-sufficiency tax which the government will be bringing forward will in fact be used to divert current budget expenditures on energy conservation programs and release these funds for the payment of the mortgage interest and property tax credit plan.
Second, we will pay through the reduction of other federal programs. We have already seen an indication of that with the reduction plans that the government has for the family allowance and the child deduction. These will be the areas where we will have reductions in programs. These are the ways in which we will pay for this mortgage interest and property tax credit plan.
Finally, when there is not enough money from the tax revenue for this government to bring forward, it will charge us through the route of inflation. Deficit financing will generate additional inflation. This is all from a government committed to the fight against inflation, committed to the restraint of government spending. It is a sham, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: You got your answer last night.


John Leslie Evans: Let no one be misled, this is not a free gift from the government. The people of Canada will pay the price. But in any of the above ways, those who are less well off will be forced to pay for the benefits being given to those who are relatively better off. Like my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), I am not saying that Canadians home owners are well off; I am saying that Canadian home owners are on the average better off than individuals who are not home owners.
The distribution of the impact of this particular piece of legislation is certain to be regressive; there can be no doubt about that. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, said last night that only 32 per cent of the households in Canada would benefit. I think what he failed to point out and what it is important to point out is that while 32 per cent of the households in Canada will benefit from the program, 100 per cent of the households will pay for it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


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


John Leslie Evans: May I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy)- Federal-Provincial Relations-Request for publication of study on federalism; the hon. member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mrs. Sauve)-National Unity-Quebec referendum- Request for explanation of statement of Minister of Supply and Services; the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose)-The Canadian Economy-Increase in interest rate- Action to avoid small businesses declaring bankruptcy.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
Pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 13, 1979, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-216, an Act respecting Family Week.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible with unanimous consent to allow all the other bills to stand, except No. 216?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: By virtue of the order of the House as read, unanimous consent is not required. I thank the parliamentary secretary.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Eymard G. Corbin: that Bill C-216, respecting family week, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce in the House of Commons, Bill C-216 concerning the establishment of family week throughout Canada. The purpose of the bill is to underline the importance of the family unit as a basis for society. A national family week would provide Canadians with
November 20, 1979

an opportunity to discuss urgent and contemporary themes concerning or affecting the family and its members: father, mother, children, grandparents and others. The second week of May would be appropriate to observe such a week for the simple reason that Mother's Day is usually celebrated on the second Sunday of May.
Before elaborating further on the importance, the need, even the absolute necessity, to my mind, of having an act on the family week in our statute books, I should like to make a few general remarks on that type of observance. Hon. members are aware, of course, of the great number of special days or weeks designated by law, regulation or merely decree, by the various levels of government, federal, provincial or local.
Such themes as the prevention of fires, or security on the farm, are familiar to us. The business world, with a view to increasing its profits, names all sorts of days, weeks or even whole months to promote its goods and services. That practice is specially popular with our neighbours to the south who spend thousands if not millions of dollars on advertising and promotional campaigns, in praise of peanuts, orange juice, or athletics and the whole array of consumer goods.
But what strikes me as unfortunate in that type of marketing is the exploitation of people for profit, particularly women, and more specifically mothers. Examples of special commemorations and celebrations abound; most are not very serious but occasionally there is the odd one which is pertinent and commendable. Hon. members will doubtless remember a growing concern all over the world for ecological values and the preservation of the environment early in the seventies. The House of Commons then passed a private bill setting up the week of the environment which we commemorated this year from the 14th to the 21st of October. We have all read or heard the statements made at the time by the Governor General and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser).
As far as family week is concerned, I must say that few industrialized countries have instituted a family week. At least that is what the research branch of the Parliamentary Library concluded after checking, at my request, with 19 embassies in Canada. Of those 19 countries, only our southern neighbour, the United States, has passed, and only recently, legislation to that effect. In the United States, the President proclaims the week starting on the third Sunday in November national family week, pursuant to a joint resolution of the Congress proclaimed August 15 of the same year. The American family week coincides with the traditional Thanksgiving holiday which has a much deeper meaning than our own Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving in the U.S. is usually an opportunity for family reunions.
We are not trying to copy the Americans by introducing Bill C-216, but rather to stress the great importance of the Canadian family and the pursuit of its welfare, which is of great concern to us all. We are all aware that the United Nations have proclaimed 1979 as the International Year of the Child,
Family Week
to follow International Women's Year in 1975. These themes have made us reflect on the status of both women and children in a family unit and in other social and institutional environments in our society.
While Bill C-216 may seem at first glance to concern only legally constituted families, it is certainly not designed to overlook certain social situations which could obviously not legally be considered as normal even though the tendency is to normalize them or give them at least an appearance of respectability. If the family is by definition a natural social concept, celibacy remains a social reality which should be appreciated and respected on the same level as the family unit. This bill does not diminish or aim at diminishing the respect owed to those who have chosen celibacy as a way of life.
Even though Jean-Jacques Rousseau might have said that "man is not made for celibacy" or Honore de Balzac might have stated that "the family will always be the basis of society", more than any other, our modern society is facing a very different social reality than previous generations. It is in the context of this new social realism that 1 introduce this bill. The family will always be at the heart of this type of debate.
A few provincial jurisdictions in Canada have already proclaimed family weeks or days. However, neither Newfoundland, nor Nova Scotia, nor New Brunswick, nor Prince Edward Island, nor Quebec have set aside special time to celebrate the family unit. It is interesting to note that for the last three or four years, the Ontario provincial secretary for social development has proclaimed May officially as "Family Unity Month" within a framework of specific activities and themes. Manitoba, which was pressured into proclaiming a family week in 1978, has to this date received no request to this effect this year. Saskatchewan and Alberta do not have a family week either, while in British Columbia, 1979 was proclaimed the Year of the Child and the Family by the lieutenant-governor in council.
I would like to come back to Ontario for a minute. In June, this province published in both official languages, I am happy to note, an excellent paper on the role of the family as a basic social institution. In short, this paper states that the family is not about to disappear as a social entity; in fact, contrary to the breakdown of family life predicted by many social prophets and evolutionists, the family is here to stay and develop in spite of insidious attacks against its integrity.
Some indomitable champions of constitutional issues may argue that it is up to the provinces to decide whether or not to launch a special family week. I shall not question their arguments, but my experience and the list I have just enumerated show a lack of interest on the part of most provinces for such a proposal. I am not implying at all that the provinces do not care for the welfare of the Canadian families under their jurisdiction. For instance, in Quebec various successive governments have implemented excellent programs to meet all possible family situations. I suggest that Quebec is very progressive

November 20, 1979
Family Week
in this respect. It would be a great idea if all the provincial, territorial and national governments would meet and discuss their plans to celebrate the week which I am proposing, without getting into an interminable constitutional debate.
It is rightly said that a society which respects its minorities generally fares better as a democracy. Is the family not the first social minority? Is it not also right to say that a society which neglects to strengthen, to preserve and to institute respect for the first society of all, the family, runs the risk of disappearing? Hon. members surely know the classic historical arguments or interpretations that the civilizations of Athens and Rome disappeared because of the absolute abandonment and erosion of traditional family values that preceded the military battles and defeats although some of their institutions and their own genius were passed on to us through the centuries. I think those arguments are still valid. We have to draw those lessons from history and reflect on them often.
Or again let us consider what happens at home to Canadian native families subject to twentieth century pressures, to the influence of the white man. The situation of native people is a disquieting one for our collective national conscience, and I could give many other examples. As legislators, it seems to me we must always remain aware and concerned with upholding basic values that have made this country a nation respected and a society admired by many other people in the world who envy our position, our resources, our values, our democratic system, and what not. However, that does not shelter us from the gangrene that subtly kills other societies.
And when we stop to examine our own laws, the programs of different governments, we see that the family is not a negligible factor. From the material point of view, family allowances, social welfare benefits, health programs, old age pensions, and so on, address precisely the family situation of Canadians. Those laws and programs are based on family and social considerations. There are also, of course, the courts of justice and the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with the family, sections that are very often controversial, of course, like abortion. Not satisfied with the status quo, the serious and organized research undertaken by the Law Reform Commission is now directing us to the contemporary aspects of family life such as separation, divorce, joint ownership, care of children and respect of life. Of course, the Law Reform Commission deals with the situation of society and the family in evolution and under crisis. That also must be addressed, Mr. Speaker. We must find social and legislative solutions which will be acceptable to and morally accepted by the majority of Canadians while still respecting individual liberties. That is not an easy task but no one has the right to ignore or forget these problems in the hope that they will vanish as a result of sheer inaction.
A great many of us would not be sitting here today if it were not for our personal commitment ever to try to improve the living conditions of the families of our respective constituents, be it with regard to the impact of oil prices on the family budget, of new consumer protection legislation to put an end to loansharking or again of discrimination in the implementation of unemployment insurance for instance. In my opinion, anything else has only secondary importance.
Peanuts, just as potatoes, are an important issue in my constituency, and are subjects which deserve to be addressed. Yet does not the omnipresent family institution require more consideration on the part of all Canadians? Each year on July 1 we celebrate Canada Day. Does the family not deserve more than that. And since planet Earth is the mother of all human beings, to use one of environmentalists' favorite phrases, what would be more logical than having family week coincide with Mother's Day?
I have not said everything, Mr. Speaker, and if it were possible to exhaust the subject in 20 minutes or even an hour, we would not need this bill. However, I hope I have said what was needed to convince my colleagues, to prove the validity of this bill, and I should like to thank in advance those who will choose to support my initiative. I wish to thank in particular the Vanier Institute of the Family, which has provided me with most valuable literature, the research services of the Library of Parliament and, of course, the parliamentary counsel, Mr. Joseph Maingot, for their assistance and their most precious advice. I know that several members want to contribute to this debate and I will listen most carefully to their remarks.
Finally, given the commitment of the government to allow passage of a limited number of private members' bills, a commitment given in its proposals for reform of the Canadian Parliament, I would be grateful to the main speaker from the government side if he could tell us whether they intend to let this bill go through all stages during the present session.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, and with this I will conclude and resume my seat, I want to say that if I were to dedicate this bill, I would offer it as a tribute to all the families from Madawaska-Victoria, whom I represent here, and in particular to the wife and children of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria who have made and continue to make every sacrifice to enable their favorite MP to pursue his political action in the Canadian Parliament.


Mrs. Diane Stratas (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the importance of the family to our social fabric cannot be denied. I should therefore like to thank the hon. member for introducing the family as a topic of discussion in this House with his proposal to establish a family week.
It is so easy to lose sight of priorities these days what with rhetoric and linguistic shilly-shallying by experts and consultants. Bread and butter issues are so often ignored and lost in
[Mr. Corbin.)
November 20, 1979

the shuffle. That is what we are discussing today. The family is a bread and butter issue. That is the tone of the presentation of this measure. The family is an issue which calls for discussion and perhaps even for recognition in law as a valuable unit in our society.
Let me point out that it is a long standing and basic policy of the Government of Canada that there be no special proclamation to mark special days or weeks except for fire prevention week in October, a proclamation which dates back to the days of confederation. This is not to say that special proclamation should not be made when the situation merits it. After all, the international community through the auspices of the United Nations has declared a series of international years to mark certain groups deserving of the focus of international attention. There are International Women's Year, the Year of the Child and the Year of the Handicapped, to name a few.
The family is the primary social unit in the organization of Canadian life. Ours is a very complex society in a very complex time, and the basic unit, the family, has been hard-pressed to maintain its traditional role as formative monitor of the existence of the individual. Still, the family has been the primary influence moulding the structure of society since the earliest days of recorded history and, if archaeological evidence is to be admitted, the family has been the primary social unit since people began to live as a community.
But the fact remains that the validity of the family as the basic unit of society has been called into question in recent years by fringe groups, by sociologists, by academics and by disgruntled individuals who have rejected the traditional frameworks without proposing any more worthy substitute. In China almost 400 years before Christ the scholar Mencius wrote: "The root of the kingdom is in the state. The root of the state is in the family". I cannot find fault with this statement. To my mind the family is the root. Family as an entity and as a concept-family an sich und fur sich.
Still, the family must not be seen in isolation. It must be understood in terms of its surrounding social structures. It is a symbiotic relationship. The family influences its milieu and at the same time is influenced by the milieu. There is a general tendency to see the family as an isolated social unit, almost wholly responsible for its own well being. I disagree with this approach. We must take into account the profound impact which economic, political and other factors have on the lives of families.
I am not sure that the best way to deal with these factors is to name a so-called family week. As the basic unit of society all government activity all year round should be directed at the perpetuation and protection of the concept of family, not necessarily family in the traditional sense but family as a concept of life wherein family members are encouraged to live fully as responsible members in community with each other. We must be willing to accept and respect all forms of family life, but above all we must recognize family. The dictionary
Family Week
meaning may change, but the intrinsic and essential meaning must not.
It is my fear that to name a special week as family week is to pass the family off into the realm of legislative tokenism. A token five days of debate in this House devoted to family-related concerns would take place. A token seven days of publicity and propaganda and a whole new breed of greetings cards to stimulate the economy would occur. Is this to be the hallmark of the Thirty-first Parliament?
While much family-related legislation falls under provincial jurisdiction, this is not to say that the federal government has no role to play in this field. The federal Law Reform Commission published a report on family law reform, recognizing the responsibility of the federal court in this area; but the fact remains that to trespass on provincial jurisdiction is not to fulfil the responsibilities of the federal government but, rather, to usurp responsibilities from other, equally responsible jurisdictions. It strikes me that for the federal government to name a family week is something of an exercise in futility and an indulging of euphemistic tendencies which should have no place in this House.
The role of the federal government, as I see it, is to monitor and encourage provincial initiative in family-related concerns. Any declaration on the part of the government in Ottawa should be construed as a further instance of federal paternalism which is something the provinces have had to deal with for many years but are not prepared to accept any longer.
1 am not sure that the interest of the family would be best served by establishing a specific week to that end. Governments the world over recognize the importance of families and are reluctant to allow unnecessary invasions into the privacy of family life. This works both for and against the family unit. As a recognition of the right of the family to its privacy it is an advantage, but incredible inequities exist between the rights of family members in some societies and, because of governmental hesitancy to intrude, the individual has little recourse in law on the international level.
Still, it seems to me that our respect and affection for the family would not be enhanced by having it imposed by government. It seems to me that if our citizens feel the need for still another day on which to pay tribute to the family and its importance to our lives and our society, the initiative should come from them, and let government endorsation follow.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, by way of opening my remarks, it never fails to surprise me and half amuse me at the extent to which the government is prepared to use federal-provincial relations as a cover for avoiding addressing the real issue in any given circumstance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just like the last government.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise in support of the bill and of the spirit with which I perceive it to have been brought forward for debate in the House. I think it is important at this time, as it would be at any other time, to stress the importance of family life and to think a little more about what we mean when we

November 20, 1979
Family Week
say that the family is the basic social unit. The family is the basic social unit because it is within the context of being within a family that we learn what it is to be human beings. We learn what it is to be social beings. We learn that we are, to put it simply, brothers and sisters, that we are part of a reality which is larger than ourselves and that we must understand our individual selves as part of that larger context.
It is within the family context that we learn how to be social, or socialist, because at the family table there is no such thing as free enterprise. At the family table the weak and the strong partake of the meal. At the family table people receive according to their needs regardless of whether they have been bad that day, what kind of mood the father is in or the kind of mood the mother is in. So we see the family unit as analogous to the way in which we should organize our whole lives together, and not just in our homes.


An hon. Member:: Where do you seat the multinationals?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is also in the family that we learn what I would call faithfulness and where we learn that we just cannot write off people because we might disagree with them or they might be acting in a way which does not respect the interests of the group. We learn how to struggle over the long haul, and this fits us for the struggles in which we must engage ourselves as adults. It fits us for the struggle for social justice, for instance. So as much as I might like to write off hon. members opposite as an unredeemable lot of free enterprisers and individualists. I will not do that.
1, like other members of my party, will be here 10 years, 20 years and 30 years from now because we will have learned the basic lesson of humanity, and that is faithfulness to the ongoing struggle to bring human life to the fullness that is intended for it.
Often we have heard about the erosion of family life. It has been lamented often by hon. members opposite who now speak against the bill. Let us look at some of the factors which affect family life. Let us examine them critically for a moment, instead of just bewailing them.
I speak now as a member of my own generation, a generation which is having less children and choosing less frequently to have family life. The reason behind this choice is a deep-seated pessimism about the future, which we do not often see. Even parents who came through the economic hardships of the depression felt that through hard work, patience, diligence, thrift or whatever instrument they contemplated, at least there was a bright future for their children. This gave meaning to family life, even though it might have been desperate at times. One matter which threatens family life at this point is this deep-seated pessimism about the future. This pessimism lives within a generation which was born and which has lived with the atomic bomb. Also this generation lives with the threat of environmental disaster. It cannot trust that there is a future into which their children may go with confidence. In my opinion that is the fundamental malaise which lies at the root

of what one might call the lack of enthusiasm for family life at this point in our history.
Instead of families being created and nurtured by those persons who are most economically and socially able to support family life, we have a situation where more and more children are born into families of non-traditional natures.
I have on my desk an article which quotes the executive director of the Children's Aid Society in Winnipeg. She said that more and more children are being born today of adolescent parents and into single parent families, non-traditional family units. The erosion of traditional family life and the value it represents, has been lamented often by hon. members opposite. But what does the general world view of the government do to non-traditional families? For one thing it makes single parent mothers, who would like to stay at home and look after their children, feel bad because they are not out working at some minimum wage job making barely more and sometimes less than they would receive on mothers' allowance. That world view makes them feel bad because they are not looking after their families. We must get our values straight. Are our values with the family, or are they with the feeling that it is imperative for everyone to get out and work away at some crummy job, in spite of the consequences to the family?
There are families which require income support and action by government so that mothers can remain at home, not at a subsistence level but at a level where a growing number of our children can be raised in a decent and economically supportive environment. Unless this is done, we are sitting on a demographic time bomb. Many children are now being raised in very, very difficult circumstances. I say that with all due respect to the children who, in fact, may overcome these circumstances. Nevertheless, there is a probability of increased social problems because of our inability to get over our hangups about work and to recognize family life as the manner in which these women contribute to society. This will cause deep trouble unless we find our way out of these hang-ups.
This leads me to the whole question which has received the attention of the House in recent days and weeks, as rumour after rumour was ground out of the government regarding its intentions with regard to the family allowance program. I would suggest the chlorine gas at Mississauga is only one of many dangerous leaks which we have seen happening under the supervision of this government over recent weeks. I am referring to the rumour that something will be done about the family allowance program, and that it will be done in such a manner as to create the impression that moneys, which at one time were supposedly wasted through universal programs, will now be targeted more effectively and made available to those who need it most. This is the wrong direction in which to move, because of several points. It would take money from the right pockets of people and put it into their left ones; there would be no absolute gain. The money saved through the abolition or restriction of family allowance would be given over and provided in the form of tax credits, according to one of the rumours.
November 20, 1979

The open agenda of this government is to save money. Therefore I see no reason why the House should have any confidence, even if it were a good move to get rid of the family allowance program, that the government would redirect those moneys in the manner which they suggest they intend, that is, by making them more available to the needy. 1 am not suggesting that it is a good move to get rid of the family allowance program. In all likelihood that money would go to finance the scheme we were debating this afternoon.
The House can concretely express its support of the family, not just by voting for the establishment of family week, but by reiterating its commitment to the family allowance program. The government should affirm the value of family life and not just think of the family allowance program as a method of distributing income. That was not the original intention of the program.
We tread on very dangerous conceptual ground when we criticize the family allowance program for not redistributing income, because that was not the basic intention of universal programs. The basic intention was to provide services to all Canadians, whether it be in education, family life, a decent life for elderly citizens, health care or whatever we chose to provide to everyone, because they are collectively valued. To begin to see the family allowance program as simply a welfare program or a way of income redistribution is a serious mistake. The House should reflect seriously upon the remarks which 1 have made in this context. When we begin to tamper with the family allowance program, we begin to tamper with the affirmation of family life in Canada.


Mr. Eric Ferguson (Saint John):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to congratulate the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) on his presentation. I must say in all sincerity that I was surprised, shocked, disappointed, and saddened by the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). His remarks were nothing but complete political, complete negativism on a subject which is of great concern to every Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric W. Ferguson: I want you to know, sir, that unlike the previous speaker I look to the future with great confidence, and 1 suggest that is being non-political.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill regarding the importance of the family. The first question one must ask is, what is a family? The World Book Dictionary describes a family in the following words: (1) father, mother and their children; (2) the children of the father and mother; (3) a group of people living in the same house; and (4), a group of related people or tribe. I am almost prepared to say something about that last definition but, being unpolitical at this particular time, which I think is appropriate, I will stop there.
However, a family is more than just a collection of people living in the same house. A strong healthy family is one in
Family Week
which all the members love one another, are concerned about each other, and are faithful to each other. They are good to each other when times are tough. That is what I call a family and what I understand to be a family. A family is strong when the members interact with each other, experience similar situations together, and develop a sense of purpose in life together.
1 suppose I could say that I speak with a degree of authority. I come from a family of 14. I am the thirteenth child, and I am proud to say that I have seven children of my own and a wife who does an excellent job with me in looking after them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eric W. Ferguson: By virtue of this 1 believe I can speak on this bill with a degree of understanding and feeling. 1 can talk about my own family and about growing up. I can talk about my own dad, living in the country and how concerned he was. He taught me how to set rabbit snares, to go to Sunday school, and how to behave. He and my mother taught me what values were. My father was a lumberman who worked hard to bring up a family of 14 in the depression days. That was not a very easy job. Being the thirteenth with a mother who is still living today, I know what a family is. I speak with confidence about that, just as I speak with confidence about Canada.
My father was not only a lumberman, he was also a county councillor in that rural area. He served on the county council for a period of 35 years, paying his way for the place he occupied in order to make this place a better place for people like myself.
Many years ago Abraham Lincoln talked about respect for the law, and that is something dear to my heart. He suggested that young people could be taught to respect and understand the law. He said that parents should teach their children; mothers with children at the breast, in Sunday school, in high school and in universities. The time has now come, and it is the mission of you, me and each one of us, every citizen in Canada, to stand up and teach respect for the family, understanding for the family, and time to encourage families to work for the family. If we do not we are going to be in real trouble.
In present day society the traditional family with a mother and a father is changing drastically. We now find more single parent families with a parent who has to work in order to meet the day to day expenses of keeping the family together. The child or children are now cared for by babysitters, by grandparents or, in many cases, by themselves. My background brought to my attention many cases of children who had to look after themselves. We all know what happens too often in those cases. We all know where many of them end up. In the majority of cases they end up before the courts, in our jails and penitentiaries. It is for this reason that we must care more.
The child has a very special need and it is essential for parents like you and I to experience things together with our families and children and to recognize those needs. Many of the fathers and mothers in this nation are not aware of this. This does not have to cost a great deal of money, but it does

November 20, 1979
Family Week
cost a bit of time. The special needs of children brings to mind a quotation I would like to read, as follows:
If a child lives with criticism he learns to condemn.
If a child lives with hostility he learns to fight.
If a child lives with ridicule he learns to be shy.
If a child lives with shame he learns to feel guilty.
If a child lives with tolerance he learns to be patient.
If a child lives with encouragement he learns confidence.
If a child lives with praise he learns to appreciate.
If a child lives with fairness he learns justice.
If a child lives with security he learns to have faith.
If a child lives with approval he learns to like himself.
If a child lives with acceptance and friendship he learns to find love in the world.
Some of us can take a lesson from this. People like you and I, sir, should strive to spend a little more time each day with our children. We should spend time together alone to get to know each other on a one to one basis.
1 suppose there are some people who do not like hunting, but just this past Saturday 1 had a great experience in taking my 19-year-old son out hunting for the first time in his life. We went deep into the wilderness and I explained to him what to look for. My son was successful because I was there to assist him, to guide him, and to encourage him by telling him he could do it. This is what parents are for and this is what we, as parliamentarians, should be encouraging every citizen of Canada to do. Children need support, encouragement and praise. We must learn to congratulate each other, to support and appreciate others. We must show that we care, rather than just give lip service. We have to mean what we say or it means nothing.
A parent must set rules to live by so a child will learn the boundaries acceptable to the family and to society, but those rules should be enforced in a loving manner. A child who has no guidelines or standards, like the people out on the street, the criminals, has to be told not to do certain things. In many cases the first time such a child is told he should not do something is on his first day of school.
It is going to take the efforts of clergymen, policemen, social workers, and all of us working together in families to turn this thing around and make it more acceptable to us all. A child who has no guidelines and no standards to live by is constantly at a loss and has little regard for values since he feels no one cares for him. Mr. Speaker, you know what I am talking about when 1 remind you of the look in the eyes of a young child when you tell him or her that you love them. How many times have you disciplined your children, as I have, sir, with the child looking up and asking if you love him or her? You know the feeling that you see come over that little person when you respond in the affirmative. That is what being a parent is, Mr. Speaker. That is what loving is and that is understanding our children. Many adults could take a lesson from what I am saying.
Beginning in the early 1900s our society became more individualistic and more competitive with the accent placed on

"I" rather than on "we". We became a society on the move, whether it was moving across the city, from one city to another, or from one province to another, with little or no consideration given to the employee, and none to the children or the wife of the employee. That must change.
1 served in an organization where, three or four days before a move from one province or city to another, you were advised that you were being moved, and you packed up and you moved. This is still going on in society. 1 would encourage the government and, particularly business and labour, to sit down together and work out a system whereby there would be concern, not only for the employee, but for the employee's family. If this takes place in an atmosphere of friendliness and understanding, certainly productivity will increase, and certainly it will help prevent marriage breakdowns.
The time for this to take precedence in our society is long over due. We must give support to a family before the marriage breaks down. Millions of dollars are spent trying to bring the groups together. Is it so difficult for trained people who are out in the field, such as policemen, clergymen, social workers, doctors, and other professionals, to try to do something about this situation? Prevention is better than a cure. The cure is just too costly, and it cannot be accomplished. The family should be supported in the traditional sense, but the single parent family has special needs which are becoming greater every day. Many of us are unable to cope with and understand what these needs are. It is necessary to change from the individualistic approach that now affects our society to one that favours a workable group approach, one with love, understanding, determination, and a vision for hard work, as well as a will that things can happen for good.
We must establish a feeling of confidence in doing things of a positive nature. I suppose the greatest shock to my system in coming to this House of Commons was listening to some members and their feelings of negativity. I have never accepted that word. I have never accepted that things cannot be done. There is nothing in me that is negative, and I do not want my family to have a feeling of negativity. Nor do I want anyone in Canada to be associated with this kind of approach, because we will not succeed; we will fail. The family, and the country as you and I have known it, Mr. Speaker, worked for it and understood it, will not continue. Then we will be in real trouble, and we do not want that to happen.
I do not feel that we should set aside one particular period on our calendar to remember such an important part of our society, and I say that with all sincerity. I feel that we should concentrate on the needs of the family all year round, every day, every week and every month, and that the rights of children and parents should be recognized every day. That is my mission, and that is my determination, that is my desire, and while I am here in the House of Commons working for every Canadian, it will be one of my prime goals.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my congratulations to the other hon. members who congratulated my good friend the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) on his initiative in
November 20, 1979

bringing forth this bill. I want to make very clear at the outset that I support the bill and the principles therein. For 18 years I had what I would term the privilege of being a teacher in various provinces in this country, and I had, I hope, some influence on the development of some of the young people in my country.
I saw first hand on many occasions the differences between children who come from a family situation where there is respect for the parents and the children, and even for the grandparents and grandchildren, and the opposite situation where there was no respect in the family for the parents or the children, and very often cases where respect was confused with licence.
We saw in the sixties the breakdown of law and order in this country when the policeman was considered a pig, and anybody in authority was to be abhorred. We reaped the harvest of that breakdown in discipline. Of course, the pendulum has now begun to swing the other way. Now there are those in our society who are demanding for those who violate our laws and our regulations the most severe of punishments. It is important that we recognize in our society, which is based on the family unit, the importance of that integral unit in our society. It is important that we realize that in fact it is the basis of our society, that marriage is still the social stabilizer and the only guarantee children have that they will be brought up in any kind of stable situation.
We hear much about the rights of children versus the authority of parents. Personally I do not see any great conflict between the rights of children and the authority of parents if, of course, both are tempered with a little common sense. It is patently obvious that children who are brought up in a wishy-washy situation without knowing what authority is and what rights are, that rights carry responsibility and that licence leads to irresponsibility, will not be happy children. In all likelihood they will not be contributing members to our society.
It is getting close to the hour so I will not say any more, although there is much 1 would like to say, because I want to sit down so that we may pass this bill and send it to committee.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill, and I want to deal particularly with the moral and economic aspects of family life. A number of members have mentioned the value of the family in our society. Like the last speaker, I have also seen many instances where the inner strength of those nurtured in the love of a family was very evident. I have also noticed the lonely hopelessness and the moral difficulties of those deprived of the love of a family.
Today many of the moral values which make the family great are falling away. I was happy to see some of the latest statistics which show that there is a movement back to proper marriage as we understand it in this country. More and more our young people are realizing the strengths of marriage and the strength of love, both of which go together and are necessary to make a happy family. We have heard mentioned
Mortgage Tax Credit
many times, particularly by those in the Catholic faith, that those who pray together stay together.
I would like now to deal with the economic aspects of the family.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that Bill C-20, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 was saying when we broke at five o'clock that there will be no free gift from this government as a result of Bill C-20. The people of Canada will be paying for this piece of legislation in one of three ways, or possibly all three ways. I mentioned at that time that it would be through an increase in taxes, through a reduction of federal government programs, or through deficit financing which would lead to an increase in the inflation rate which would affect all Canadians.
I mentioned at that point that although only 32 per cent of Canadians would benefit from this particular program, 100 per cent of Canadians would be asked to pay for it. What I should like to ask now is why the minister does not "fess up" and tell Canadians that? Why does he not tell them that in order to give some Canadians a $1,500 gift each year, all Canadians will pay the price in higher taxes, reduced federal programs, or higher inflation?
The minister made a very interesting point last night when he indicated that some taxpayers will get a tax credit even if they do not pay the tax. I find that incredible. I will quote from the minister's speech of last night as reported at page 1468 of Hansard:
Oh yes, the property tax credit. Why is the property tax credit a flat rate? Every home owner in Canada, every person who owns a home, whether he pays a cent in municipal property tax or not-and most of them, unfortunately, have to pay

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
municipal property taxes-is going to get a tax credit of $62.50 starting this year, up to $250. The reason is that in every province they have different schemes for municipal taxation. There was no way to figure out a plan under which you could deduct the actual municipal taxes paid, and be fair.
In other words, if you own a house, whether or not you pay taxes and whether or not you have a mortgage, at the end of the fourth year you are going to get a gift of $250 every year and pay absolutely nothing for the privilege of getting it- except high taxes in other forms, reduced programs in other forms, and a higher rate of inflation.


Benno Friesen: What about the child tax credit?


John Leslie Evans: I notice that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) of the NDP stated this afternoon that the Tory policy has something for some and that the Liberal alternative has nothing for anybody. All 1 can say to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is that this shows how little he knows about economic reality.
1 mentioned earlier that I have problems with several features of the bill. 1 said that it was inequitable and I mentioned my problems in that area. 1 then went on to discuss the fact that it is inefficient as it is drafted, and it is unnecessary in that Canadians are well housed.


An hon. Member:: Like the new government-inefficient.


John Leslie Evans: The next point I should like to make is very important in light of the priority this government has placed on fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility. With the fiscal situation we have today, Mr. Speaker, this bill is unaffordable. Even if the government could resolve all the problems I have mentioned with regard to equity, with regard to efficiency and with regard to necessity, then it would still be the case that Canada simply cannot afford a bill of this magnitude at this time.
This program will cost the federal treasury $2.5 to $3 billion, and probably much more when it is fully in effect. The minister knows we cannot afford it. He knew it before, he knew it during, and he knows it now, after the election.
This bill makes the government commitment to restraint a total and utter sham. The only party that was committed to restraint-and I refer you back to the election campaign-was the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: The hon. gentlemen laugh, Mr. Speaker. If they go back to the record they will see that I am correct. We did not make the promises; they made the promises and the NDP made promises, but the Liberals did not make promises. We told the people the facts. We made no election promises.


An hon. Member:: What?


John Leslie Evans: The government knew we could not afford this particular proposal, but they made the promises anyway, and now they are choking on them. The people of Canada are the

ones who will pay for the proposal. It will only be until the next election, and then it will be the party in government now that will pay for this election promise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: Hon. members laugh, Mr. Speaker, but the writing was put on the wall last night in Newfoundland. It was put on the wall last night in Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: They are not laughing now.


John Leslie Evans: The people of Canada are looking at this government and saying it is a non-government, that it is non-leadership, that it is mismanagement. Already it is six months of mismanagement. There has been no management. That is why it is mismanagement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: This is not going to be tolerated much longer.


An hon. Member:: You will be sorry if there is an election.


John Leslie Evans: At this point I would like to try to evaluate in a careful way exactly what this program represents. At this point in time it represents a 20 per cent to 25 per cent increase in the estimated federal tax expenditures-


An hon. Member:: You are out of your mind.


John Leslie Evans: -and it permanently reduces the fiscal flexibility of this government.
This is a structural change to the tax system. This has been shown in the United States where they have had the program, as your minister admits, for a long time. It is shown in the United States to be irreversible once instituted. If it were a housing program, and I hold that it is not, a structural program would remain inappropriate at this time since the housing and construction problems are basically cyclical in nature. They are cyclical problems. They are not structural long-term problems. And structural changes to the tax system are simply not appropriate to address cyclical problems.
There will be many structural effects from this proposal. As a result of this program most likely there will be a reduction or an elimination of certain provincial housing programs that are now in existence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: There are housing programs in Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. What is to stop these governments from removing their programs as they have done with medicare-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: -and removing their programs and depending on-


An hon. Member:: You are a socialist.
November 20, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: Another structural change is the probable increase in municipal taxes as a result, because it takes the resistance off the increase in municipal taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: So you gentlemen on the other side who are laughing and chortling like chickens, when the people of Canada have to pay the price and lose programs they now have from provincial governments and have higher property taxes, then we will see. Then we will see.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Undoubtedly there will be a further reduction of the benefits of this program to the people of Canada as the provincial and municipal governments skim off their part of the free good which the government is going to hand out to the people of Canada, at least to 32 per cent of them. Beyond the reduction of the so-called benefits of this plan, there are other more fundamental implications. And 1 hope hon. members on the other side can calm down for a while to listen-


An hon. Member:: Listen and learn.


John Leslie Evans: -to what these implications will be.
First of all, I think it is very important that we understand that this is going to result over time in a further shift of fiscal powers from the federal government to the provincial municipal governments. We should note that over the last 20 years there has been a substantial shift in fiscal powers between the federal and provincial municipal governments, and that this shift has undermined the ability of the federal government to manage the economy.
If we go back to 1960 we find that the federal government expenditures represented 15 per cent of the gross national product while the provincial municipal share was 10 per cent. If we look at today, in 1978 we find that the federal share has increased very little. It is at 18 per cent now, but the provincial municipal share has gone to 25 per cent. It is the provincial municipal share now that is driving the economy from the point of view of their share of expenditures in relation to GNP. Therefore, structural programs which shift resources to the provincial municipal sector act reduce the flexibility, which this minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) decries as being a terrible thing. No fiscal flexibility.
Programs like this that have the tendency over time to shift fiscal powers to the provincial municipal sector permanently reduce the fiscal flexibility of this government and severely alter the federal-provincial balance of powers. We lack flexibility. The lack of flexibility is decried, as I have just mentioned, by the Minister of Finance. How then can he introduce this bill in good conscience? I will never know. Further on this point, Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns over the future of the federal budgetary process. The ability to balance the budget in the 1980s is coming into serious question. There can be no doubt about that.
Mortgage Tax Credit


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: And no joking from the other side.


An hon. Member:: They are a bunch of jokers.


John Leslie Evans: I have grounds to believe, and every member in this House has grounds to believe, that the addition of structural changes to the tax system which permanently reduce federal revenues in the face of knowledge that many of our social programs and social expenditures are indexed, justifiably as they should be-they have been indexed automatically-will lead to severe budgetary problems by the mid 1980s. Hon. members opposite know that.
As reported in a recent newspaper article, the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada said this:
The federal government is in poor position to continue to play its major role in economic management, equalization of provincial revenues, and the conduct of major national policies. And, unless changes are made, the government's management of the economy will become increasingly powerless, to the peril of the country as a whole and the welfare of every Canadian.
Here we go with $2.5 billion to $3 billion into a program that is not or cannot be considered in any way, shape or form a priority to the people of Canada.


An hon. Member:: A bunch of losers.


John Leslie Evans: When this program is considered in view of other priorities, the need to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: -perhaps you would like to listen.


An hon. Member:: Listen and learn.


John Leslie Evans: The need to increase the funding base of the Canada Pension Plan, the need to provide improved pensions generally to our retired senior citizens, the need to ensure the needs of our health care which has been decreasing dramatically lately and will require increased expenditures from the federal as well as the provincial governments, I call upon the minister to stand up in this House-if he were here-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: -and tell the people of Canada that this program is the best use that he can find for $2.5 billion to $3 billion of their money. It is their money because they are going to pay for it. If he cannot do that in clear conscience, and I do not think he can because this minister has fought this bill in cabinet-the leaks are out, we know he has fought it-


An hon. Member:: We know that.


John Leslie Evans: -and if he cannot do that, in clear conscience, I think he should stand up and walk out of the House and resign.


An hon. Member:: That is what he did this afternoon.

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit


John Leslie Evans: What about small business? What about the priorities? Let us talk about the priorities. Small business is choking on this government's high interest rate policy. What about the priorities for small business? Could they use part of the $2.5 billion to $3 billion? What about pensioners who are having a difficult time even getting by? What about single parents? What about the unemployed? What about our commitment to reduce inflation? Where is the commitment to reduce inflation?


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John Leslie Evans: Where are the priorities of this government?


An hon. Member:: It has got none.


John Leslie Evans: Is this the time to take scarce federal revenues- they are scarce-we admit they are scarce-


An hon. Member:: Why are they scarce?


John Leslie Evans: You should recognize they are scarce.


An hon. Member:: Because of the new government.


John Leslie Evans: -that are needed for very worthy and legitimate social and economic programs, and throw them away on a callous economic and political gimmick? I say no, it is not the time to do this. Is this the time to add a structural change to the tax system which will cost $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year, when we must move to stimulate energy development and when we must move to stimulate secondary industry, when we are already running a deficit of $11 billion that we hear about every day in this House from the Minister of Finance?
I suggest that in view of the clear and pressing priorities, this bill is irresponsible beyond all reason.


An hon. Member:: Bunglers. New government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: It clearly shows that the economic vision of this government is not only short-sighted, it is totally lacking. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood mentioned earlier today that during the last session of parliament the House sent a non-partisan group from all parties to the United States to examine its program which has similar features to the one being proposed by this government. They talked to people all across the United States who knew about the effects of this program. To a person they suggested and recommended strongly to this government of Canada, "Don't do it. It is a bad policy."


An hon. Member:: Right.


John Leslie Evans: Members of that committee, one is sitting behind you, came back and unanimously recommended against the introduction of this policy. The current Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), in the same spirit and with the same forethought as his promise to move the embassy, disregarded that sound advice in exchange for short-term political gains. We paid the

price for Jerusalem and we will pay the price for this one, if it goes through, as well. I appeal to the government on grounds of equity, efficiency, necessity, and cost, to be responsible, to look at the future and realize that the budgetary problems we face are serious and that our options are few.
I call on the government to consider the priorities of Canada, the real needs of Canadians, to realize that this program is a major error which will dramatically reduce the government's fiscal flexibility and exacerbate the budgetary problems we will face in the future. The people know the facts and they know that this government is not delivering the goods. Well, not having been in session for six months, how could they? Sure we would all like to lower taxes, sure we would all like more for less, but we know the facts; there is just no free lunch, and it is fraudulent to try to tell the people otherwise.
You cannot tell the people how tough times are out of one side of your mouth, and then tell them we are so flush that we can afford to throw $2'A billion to $3 billion per year into an election promise which is not directed at the real problem facing this country. You cannot tell the people they have to cough up billions in higher energy costs and then tell them we have the funds for this type of program. You cannot tell the people that they have to pay record interest rates because of budget and trade deficits, and then tell them we can afford a non-productive use of government funds in this day. No, Mr. Speaker, the people are not fools, and they resent being treated as such. This bill is just such an attempt.
I call upon the government to come to its senses and withdraw this bill in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Speak for big business.


Erik Nielsen: I come from an area that is chock full of big business. It really astounds me to hear the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) speak like he did. I can only attribute it to the fact that he is getting used to the place. He is a member of the party who were the originators of the highest interest rates in our history-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -who were the originators of the highest taxes in our history-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -who were the originators of the highest unemployment rate in our history-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 20, 1979


Erik Nielsen: -who were the originators of the highest spending in our history-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order. Let the speaker be heard.


Erik Nielsen: -who were the originators of the highest deficits in our history-do 1 hear any nays on that from members opposite-who were the originators of the highest national debt in our history, who were the originators of the highest bankruptcy rate in our history.


John Leslie Evans: Not any more.


Erik Nielsen: Let the hon. member still check the figures. In spite of this, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre speaks of fraud on this side of the House. I could not believe my ears when they are led-at least one assumes they are from time to time led-by a man who, in 1974, said there would be no wage and price controls, and within a year we had them. Does that fall within the hon. member's contemplation of fraud?


An hon. Member:: You have been in power for six months and what have you done?


Erik Nielsen: I will get to that. I cannot identify the voice of the hon. member with the black moustache and glasses. 1 cannot identify his riding.


An hon. Member:: High River.


Erik Nielsen: That will be the frosty Sunday that the hon. member is ever from High River or even gets a look in there. This is a simple measure, a really simple measure. It is very easy to understand. It should not require any great effort on the part of members opposite in approving its implementation. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what they are going to do when it comes to the crunch. Are they going to vote for or against it?


Gilbert Parent: Against it.


Erik Nielsen: They are going to vote against providing mortgage interest deductibility and property tax deductibility to Canadians. I really cannot understand.


An hon. Member:: You do not listen very well.


Erik Nielsen: I fully expect there are divided opinions over there. It has been said that this measure is a result of a political promise. That is so. What's wrong with that? That is exactly so. I hope it will not be too difficult for some hon. members to accept the fact that there is a party in the political life of this country which attempts to carry out its promises.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) will bear me out, it is as close to the measure placed before Canadians in the election as
Mortgage Tax Credit
it is possible to come, given the constitutional and fiscal ramifications of government responsibility. We promised tax relief to Canadians based on mortgage and property tax payments, and we are here in this House, doing our very best to carry out that promise. What do we get from members opposite?


An hon. Member:: Praise.


Erik Nielsen: We get opposition. We get opposition for wanting to provide that very relief that was the primary result of them being there. I am astounded that they do not come to that realization.


Mr. Lefebvre:: You are not through being astounded.


Erik Nielsen: I did not hear the interjection. If the hon. member would like to stand up and make it-


Thomas Lefebvre: You are in the government now, forget your old style.


Erik Nielsen: I realize that we are in government. My astonishment is that members opposite do not yet realize that they are in opposition.


Thomas Lefebvre: Start speaking like a minister and not an opposition member.


Erik Nielsen: If the opposition whip will give me an opportunity to be heard, he will realize that I am trying to impress upon them the reasonableness of this proposal.
I want to speak to the merits of the proposal. Who can in all reason doubt that it promises substantial relief, and soon, to that category of taxpayers, mostly in the middle age group, who can most positively and directly benefit from the proposal? It is not without significance, I suggest, for the prosperity of the nation that the measure will return close to $600 million in personal spending power to the economy. This may be shocking to certain members opposite who subscribe to the theory that the government is better able to dispose of individual income than the people who earned it. That was the philosophy of those who now sit opposite. That is not and never has been the theory of this party, and it is not the theory of this government.
When the program reaches its culmination in four years it will return to those Canadians who are qualified, that is, to several millions of Canadians, $1,250 a year. What is wrong with that? Surely even our friends in the New Democratic Party cannot object to that. Or do they object to the Canadians who qualify receiving at the end of that term $1,250 a year? Is that what they are going to vote against? In addition there will be a property tax credit of $250 a year. Are hon. members opposite opposed to that? Do they want to deny that benefit to Canadians? Those are the hard facts they are glossing over in their political partisanship. This is a policy which a great number of Canadians voted for in the election
1526

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
and it is the policy we are now prepared to implement with the approval of this House.
I heard some comment tonight about the United States from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. I would simply point out to members opposite that in the United States where there has been a massive movement towards the reduction of the bureaucracy, reduction of government intervention at all levels and, consequently a reduction of taxes extracted from individual and corporate owners, this movement has been followed by increased economic stimulus, an increase in revenues at the state levels, and a drop in inflation.
This measure is only one step in the unfolding policy of this government to entrust the taxpayers of this country with a larger measure of spending power over those dollars which they themselves earned by their own initiative and enterprise.
There are three other vital concerns in the implementation of the policy before us. The measure will assist those who are working to acquire ownership of homes and property. It will stimulate housing construction and the employment related thereto-I need not mention the multiplier effect of that. It will ease the tax burden, already unduly onerous, on nearly four million families, which was the responsibility of those who sit opposite when they supported the government of the day. What is wrong with easing the tax burden on four million Canadian families?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you do it and stop talking?


Erik Nielsen: Why don't you support a measure which will achieve precisely that objective? If you want to pass it tonight, that is great, we shall do it.
Surely, in view of past statements and policy enunciations by hon. members opposite, particularly in the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party, all of these are worthy and commendable objectives, objectives to which they have many times publicly and passionately subscribed.
I would hope in the light of this it would be possible to debate the merits of a measure so demonstrably beneficial to a wide range of Canadians, free of partisan recrimination and short-sightedness and free of the bitterness which still lives with them over there as a result of the verdict of the Canadian people on May 22.
One can discern, Mr. Speaker, in the tone of the House a recrudescence of partisan temper following hard on the events of yesterday. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre raised it again today.
One can even understand a certain exuberance on the part of the opposition, particularly members of the former government who, in a kind of prophetic frenzy, see the bauble, power, once again dangling before their eyes. I am afraid that is what it will continue to do, Mr. Speaker. Just dangle-as they have been doing ever since we began sitting here again. I want to convey in the friendliest way possible, to hon. members opposite, that just as one swallow does not make a hangover, so one byelection does not signify "Paradise Regained".

Some commentators, sir, have related the effects of the measure before the House to those of rising interest rates and have stated that the impact of the measure has already been lost, eaten up: conversely, I emphasize that the measure will soften the effect of high interest rates for several million Canadians. Hon. members who are critical of the measure do not address that aspect. The juxtaposition of the two matters is not unfair; it should be made clear that the tax credit we are now discussing reflects more clearly this government's policy and approach to taxation and, what is even more important, a balanced economic order, than does the policy of high interest rates, a situation in which the government was left with very little room to move.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Erik Nielsen: Members over there pooh-pooh that, but those who do so in the loudest voice have not had the same access to the books as we have had since June 4. That was the situation we found when this government took office. That is a fact. Like Old Mother Hubbard we found the cupboard was bare. Not only did they leave nothing in the pantry, they took the pantry away with them, too.


An hon. Member:: A sad excuse!


Erik Nielsen: Our first concern was to restore order and balance in the economic and fiscal affairs of this country.


An hon. Member:: What do you mean, "order"?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member interjects. Real order. Order where there was none. Order where there was a vacuum. Order where the Auditor General said Parliament had lost control of public spending. If you don't believe voices from this side, then at least believe the independent voice of the Auditor General.
Our first concern was to restore order and balance in the economic and fiscal affairs of this nation. I should also point out that while this government has been criticized for the present level of interest rates, it should not be forgotten that interest rates were already high when we took office and would certainly have gone higher. You cannot have a budgetary deficit of twelve billions along with inflation of 10 per cent to 12 per cent in real terms, and keep low interest rates.
One of the essential elements in the kind of double digit inflation we have suffered from for so many years, is that as the cost of goods and services goes up, so the buying power of the currency is eroded. Money out on loan can lose its real value, in terms of purchasing power, far more quickly than the rate of interest can compensate. The result is reluctance to lend by private lenders.


An hon. Member:: Whose fault was it?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member asks whose fault was it? Is he suggesting that in five months we created the mess we found? He is living in dreamland. That is the bauble they are looking at. When you have higher rates in a massive and
November 20, 1979

contiguous intermeshed market like the United States, then the forces compelling a comparable increase in rates are well-nigh irresistible. That's the hard fact. Nevertheless, this government remains committed to the principle of low interest rates as soon and as quickly as the international and domestic economic climate permits us to take appropriate action.
Massive deficits, high inflation, massive and virtually uncontrolled spending over a long period of time-16 years-were not conducive to a resurgence of prosperity. And that is what this country has been experiencing. The only possible end to the policies pursued by the previous government had to be a loss of confidence in Canada's ability to manage the national economy, a catastrophic decline in international acceptance of the dollar, loss of our competitive position, erosion of savings, and widespread and continuing unemployment.
Rather than permit these events to unfold with the inevitability of a Greek tragedy, or follow the stance of the former government paralysed by its own incompetence, we decided to act. One of those measures upon which we decided to act is before hon. members now. They ask what we have done. The measure is before hon. members. Let them support it.
We agreed with the recommendations of the governor of the bank, and we took steps to staunch the haemorrhage of confidence and the leaking away of our assets. At the same time, restraint will be exercised in bringing about increases in the money supply, somewhat contrary to the policy of the former government, which apparently attempted to use the device of increasing the money supply as a means of meeting its debts.
It is a fact that while a reasonable and prudent approach to money supply policy would indicate an increase rate of between 6 per cent and 9 per cent, under the former administration this was allowed to rise to 12 per cent and 14 per cent, contributing substantially to the inflationary levels in this country.
In the face of general uncertainty generated by the previous government's lack of policy, ours must be a policy of responsibility and getting Canada back on the track. To follow any other policy at this time would be self-serving and, indeed, politically motivated.
One of the areas in which we are committed to pursue a policy of selective recognition of the needs and the role of various groups and classes of Canadians lies in the field of tax credits for residential mortgage interest payments. There will be, from time to time, other examples of the government's concern for certain areas and groups within society whose particular role and the demands of that role necessitate a special kind of approach. There is no contradiction in this measure and no departure from the carefully considered policy of prudent restraint, brought about largely by the previous administration's failure to come to grips with the realities of the situation. We are now, all of us, faced with the consequence of that failure on the part of the previous government, and we shall by a measured, careful, and concerted series of
Mortgage Tax Credit
policy initiatives restore health to Canada's somewhat neglected economy, to put it in its kindliest terms, and to move this country forward along the path of economic and social progress. That is the state of affairs.
If hon. members opposite persist in the folly of opposing a measure clearly intended to bring relief to millions of Canadians and to provide a stimulus to the economy, then they are pursuing the course of disaster, a disaster which they experienced on May 22, and I am convinced that they really cannot see that they are headed down the same road again.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the program aimed at making home ownership accessible to a greater number of Canadians was a worthy one, but unfortunately Bill C-20 presented by the minister is only a band-aid on a wooden leg. Moreover, this bill is unfair to many Canadians, mostly the four million tenants and the majority of senior citizens who own their homes and have already paid their mortgages. In my opinion, this legislation is a joke as far as the home owner property tax is concerned, when we know that the same minister authorized a raise in the interest rates for the greater benefit of the banking institutions.
Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party, the Social Credit Party of Canada and Liberals have all criticized this unacceptable bill. I am also convinced that many of the government backbenchers are against the bill, but are not allowed to say so. Mr. Speaker, 1 would like the minister to say why his government will not grant a property tax credit to tenants and I hope he will not give a silly answer such as the one he gave newspapermen, saying that tenants will not get anything because they were not promised anything.
I would also like the minister to tell us why this Progressive Conservative program grants a maximum tax credit of $260 after four years to families with incomes between $10,000 and $15,000 compared with a tax credit of $900 for those with an income of $30,000. Is this the justice of the Progressive Conservatives, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: It is.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I would also like the minister to explain the inequity of this program for all Quebeckers because of the difference in the number of home owners and tenants. According to the experts of the Minister of Finance, during the first year, 44.7 per cent of the $575 million in taxes saved through this program will go to Ontario residents compared with only 18.1 per cent in Quebec. Will the minister grant financial compensation to Quebeckers? Moreover, I would like him to tell us from which department he will take the money needed to finance this program. Will there be a transfer from the budgets of old age security, family allowances, unemployment insurance or Canada Works projects, which have already been cut? I am curious to hear what the minister has to say about this.

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister and the government that since they have been in power they have passed or have intended passing legislation that will crush lower income citizens, such as the increase in heating oil and gasoline prices, the increase in interest rates for consumer loans, the cuts and the elimination of Canada Works projects, and Bill C-20, which completely ignores lower income citizens.
I would like to remind this government that there are more than seven million citizens whose income is below $10,000 a year, 1.5 million people who depend on social welfare and receive only $62 to $75 a week, 1.6 million senior citizens whose only income is old age security pensions and the guaranteed income supplement, as well as 743,000 unemployed, and that all these citizens have pressing housing needs.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, 1 hope that this government will consider lower income citizens and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) will put a stop to his buffoonery and replace his bill by a true housing policy which will take into account the needs of low income home owners and tenants.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker the hon. member who just finished, the hon. member for Saint-marie (Mr. Malepart), asked a number of questions about property tax relief for tenants, and 1 will be speaking about that in a few moments. 1 think he confused the tax credit scheme with a scheme in connection with deductibility from tax. I think it is important that he understand that this is a tax credit scheme, and the rate of tax you pay does not really matter. You get the same credit. Clearly, you have to be a positive taxpayer to receive benefit, but as long as you are a positive federal taxpayer and you are paying mortgage interest, the rich man receives the same benefit as the poor man in relative terms. This is not a scheme to assist people on welfare, people on low incomes, or senior citizens. The hon. member spoke about that. We have to develop other schemes for those people, and I want to speak about that tonight.
The lead speaker for the Liberal party, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), ranted and raved yesterday. This morning I decided I should read some of that gibberish, and I found that he said nothing, largely because he failed to realize, as does the entire opposition, the concept of this program. This program attempts to come to grips with some of the problems which have developed in housing over the past six or seven years. Some of those problems have to do with high interest rates. This program comes to grips with that problem by giving to home owners relief, as the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Fish) indicated, of between 2 per cent and 3 per cent against the interest factor on their mortgages.
We have been asked, both in the finance committee and in this House, what we are going to do about people who have mortgages to pay. What kind of relief are we going to give them in terms of interest? Unfortunately, on this terrible market-temporarily 1 hope-they may have to pay perhaps 14.5 per cent on a first mortgage. This program is one which gives them 2 per cent to 3 per cent relief, when it is fully in

place, against that enormous interest cost. That is a very important consideration which all members of the House should appreciate.
There is a problem in housing in this country because of some very foolish stimulative building programs conducted by the former government. I speak of the assistance program which allowed housing to be built with 95 per cent and almost 110 per cent mortgage financing under AHOP and other programs. In the city of Mississauga which I represent, it created situations where builders have just turned back condominium projects holus-bolus to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and said, "Here you are. You own them. They are empty". The problem the other side fails to recognize is that there is vacant housing because people cannot afford to buy that housing. They cannot afford to buy it because it costs more to be an owner than a tenant in this country. I will be speaking about that later as I go through this whole matter.
I thought we should come to the various objections to this bill. The bill attempts to develop some equity and to allow young people, particularly young people who want to raise families, to become part of Canada, to become owners, to have a place to stand. They want the right to own their own homes and have backyards for their kids. There are a lot of people who have paid for their houses. Other than the tax credit scheme in terms of municipal taxes, this bill does nothing for them at all. It gives them something toward municipal taxes. I will speak about that later.
Let us talk about mortgage interest. It is for the young people who have grown up, those who want to go out and buy their first or second house. It is those people who want to raise their families. Their first house is too small, so they need another one, a larger one. They need some relief so that they, like their parents before them, can realize the dream of Canada, the dream of owning one's own home, being part of Canada and having a place to stand in the country.
They say that it does nothing for people who own their homes outright. It does not earn too much for them on mortgage interest, because they own their own homes and do not have to worry about going out and borrowing mortgage money at the extortionate rates of interest developed by the tremendously stupid economic policies of the former government. They do not receive any help, so let us talk about renters.
They say that renters do not receive any help. They say there is no relief for tenants, so it is inequitable. Let us talk about tenants for a moment. The other day I received a wonderful brochure from Headway Investments Inc. Headway was introducing its new Guildford-Concordia partnership organized under the MURBs plan. The MURBs plan produced a housing program. It was introduced by the Liberal government which was defeated just a short while ago. Let us go through some of the various wonderful examples which Headway Inc. indicated that it could do for a person under MURBs. They set out a table in their form. They clearly
November 20, 1979

demonstrated, even with a graduated payment plan mortgage, which was an invention of the former government, that a person who is an investor, the person at the 56 per cent tax rate, can invest in this apartment complex. Over a very short period of time-five years-on a $10,000 investment he will have $19,000 in return.
At the same time they say that these apartments can be rented for $400 or $450 a month. Yet the cost of carrying the apartments, the cost of paying the interest, principal and maintenance costs, mean that in fact tenants are renting the apartments for $1,000 in the first year less than the carrying costs. Why is that the case? It is simply because of members opposite.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) was much in favour of the little people, the small people. His government was in favour of the 56 per cent bracket taxpayers who wanted to use tax shelters and MURBs. They were in favour of the people who wanted to make it big, and not in favour of letting ordinary little families deduct their mortgage interest. It is all right for big investors to go out and buy into a MURB. He can put his ten grand up and get his $19,000 back in five years. He can make a profit on people in tenancy just because he can take his money, his tax allowances, his capital gains, his deferrals, and come out with bucks in his pocket. But it is not for the little renter, not for the guy with a young family who wants to buy a house. They would not let him have any breaks in the tax system. They just made it for the big guys. That is their housing record. If one supports them in this vote, one should remember that that is their housing record. It is the type of thing we must vote against. We must give little people the same kind of breaks as these fellows gave the big fellows.
They say it is inequitable that there should be some specific tax relief. They say that it is terrible we should have tax relief for little people who want to buy houses, young couples who want to get started in this country. But it is perfectly all right for manufacturers to have fast write-offs, and for oil drillers to have drilling relief. It is perfectly all right to give old people an extra $1,000 allowance and to have registered retirement savings plans which allow people to deduct $5,500 a year from their taxable incomes. That is perfectly all right, but it is not for the young guy who is trying to raise a family and buy a house. It is not all right for him. Rip him off, take it out of is pocket, do not give him a tax relief. That is the attitude of hon. members opposite which is expressed in everything they say. They say that it is inequitable. Yes, it is inequitable in the sense that young people who are trying to raise families are being ripped off by our tax system. It is totally inequitable. They know it and they ought to be embarrassed about speaking against this bill.
This bill has some serious social objectives. It is the objective of this party to make it possible for Canadians to become owners as individuals in Canada. That is the same social policy we have with respect to the privatization of some Crown corporations. That is the same social policy we had when we talked about allowing people easily to become the owners of companies for which they worked. In the social fabric of
Mortgage Tax Credit
Canada it is important that Canadians have an opportunity to own a piece of Canada.
Earlier today there was a debate with respect to families. Good, decent, sound, owned housing is exceptionally important in building a family, in making it possible for young kids to grow up like their mothers and dads. It is important for them to have a place to stand, to feel that they are part of a community. That must be the social aim of this government as well, though it may not be the aim of the Liberal party or the New Democratic Party.
I should like to talk about older people. As a lawyer I have had the opportunity to wind up the estates of older people. Time and again the people who managed to buy houses in their young age, to develop those houses, eventually to pay for them and to own something, have not come crying to the state for supplements, extra assistance or social housing. They have been able to stand on their own, to raise their families as independent Canadians and really feel that they can carry their own weight. Even in their old age they are proud because they are able to stand on their own feet and not look to governments for handouts. That is the kind of society we must build.
When they say over there that we are not doing enough for senior citizens, they are right, but this bill is not going to do that. This bill is going to make sure that when people become older they too will be able to have homes and those homes will be paid for, and they too will be able to have a stake in Canada, and that stake in Canada will be free and clear from debt.
We could go on forever subsidizing rents in this country. What do those gentlemen want us to do? Do they want us to make the landlords wealthy forever? The Headway study shows what happens in respect of rents. They start off in the first year at $5,006 and by 1989, just through the progression allowed in the province of Ontario, the same apartment will rent for $8,019, a decade from now. When they say they want us to subsidize rental accommodation, really what they are saying is that they want to make sure these people remain tenants forever so they will always require assistance. Do not let them become independent on their own. Do not let them become owners in Canada, but make sure they are always dependent on handouts from a benevolent state, if the state is ever benevolent.
We have had experience in respect of the former government's housing program. I spoke earlier about AHOP. In 1975 that government put out 16,000 AHOP loans in the province, with 9,600 in Mississauga alone. Every one of those people has a mortgage coming up for renewal right now. That government made phony deals and told those people not to worry about buying houses because inflation would look after them. They told them not to pay enough now and all the rest of it because inflation would protect them. In other words, we had a government policy in which the people were dependent upon inflation to get out from under it. What a dishonest policy.

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
What we are saying is that we are going to give the people some tax relief. We are not going to give them crazy things like AHOP or graduated payment plan mortgages, or all of that gobbledygook with numbers and letters; we are going to give them something fair and something they can understand. We are going to give them a reasonable allowance so they can write off the interest they pay on their homes the same as one can write off the interest if he buys shares in Bell Telephone or perhaps in Petro-Canada.
I spoke about the situation with regard to this Headway matter, with the capital cost allowance, and I spoke about the way the present scheme with a MURB is a benefit to the rich and the wealthy. That was a scheme for housing developed by the former government. How they could ever say or come to this House and tell us that while they are quite happy about letting the rich have the benefits of tax deductibility, they are not going to let the little people have that benefit, I do not know.
One of the suggestions made by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre was that the effect of this mortgage tax deductibility allowance would be to increase the demand on mortgage money. I have been in the mortgage industry for some 25 years, and I know that at the present time there is more money, in a sense, in the mortgage industry chasing loans than there are loans available.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why is interest so high, then?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The hon. member refers to interest being high. I want to speak about that, and I am glad he raised it. The question as to whether interest rates are high or whether interest rates are low is one of perception. In my perception 1 think interest rates for housing are high right now, but I want to make it very clear that interest rates charged on mortgages are significantly lower than the prime rate at any bank in Canada. When you say interest rates on mortgages are less than the prime rate charged by banks, you have all of a sudden said something rather dramatic.
Anyone who has been in the mortgage industry for any length of time would know that the traditional rate of interest charged on mortgages has always been 1 per cent to 2 per cent above the bank prime rate. For the past 24 years that has been the case. It is only now with the surplus of mortgage money available in the market that interest rates on first mortgages are presently below Canadian interest prime at the banks. What you have here is a matter of perception; what is high and what is low? Indeed, in terms of historic levels, mortgage interest is in fact low. I think it is too high, too, but that is a matter of perception.
What the hon. member for Ottawa Centre ought to realize, and what this House should know in analysing the mortgage interest and this plan, is that there is plenty of mortgage money around in this country, and even if there were an increase in the demand, and I want to speak about that in a moment, there would not be any wiping out of the availability

of supply. The argument that this plan will wipe out mortgage supply and make mortgage money only available to those with the best credit rating, is drivel. It is drivel particularly because of the amendment to this plan from the original plan proposed by this party during the election campaign.
Members opposite will remember that during the election campaign it was suggested that mortgage interest should be deductible from tax. It was suggested that you could in fact go out, and this was said by someone in the NDP during the campaign I was involved in, and borrow against your house to buy a yacht. Under this particular plan you cannot do that. This plan only refers to interest owing on the mortgage one owes right now, or on the house one might acquire in the future. It has nothing to do with allowing people, other than for home improvements, to go out and increase their debt and so write off their interest.
When you look at it from that point of view you must realize, as must the hon. member for Ottawa Centre as an economist, that the people who buy houses are probably already living in houses which are already financed, so the only incremental increase in demand on the mortgage market as a result of this plan will be that which will result in an improvement in the quality of houses that individual Canadians own. There will be no real incremental demand on mortgage funds, simply because the funds cannot be used for other purposes than for home ownership.


An hon. Member:: It will have no effect on new housing?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am glad the hon. member has mentioned new housing, and I might as well come to that subject right now. In respect of new housing, there is no question but that this plan has a stimulative effect, certainly for the first five years. At it is phased in during the first five years, it becomes easier and easier for people who are presently tenants to leave their rental accommodation and become home owners. To that extent it will provide some stimulus to the house building industry. I think it is essential that the house building industry have some stimulus at the present time. I do not like to see an economy sponsored by house building stimulus, but perhaps this industry is over-expanded. It needs time to work things out, and this stimulus gives this industry an opportunity to work out this problem of over-expansion over a number of years.
This stimulus will also provide new markets for the industries which make such things as refrigerators, drapes, carpets, and all those things which go into housing. To that extent there is a stimulus, and it is very important to our economic setting. I do not believe that it is a permanent stimulus, but it is a stimulus that is available for the next five years. The disaster that the housing industry in this country has faced with the inappropriate and improper policies of the former government, particularly over the last five or six years, indicates that this industry at this point in time needs some relief. This plan will give it that relief.
November 20, 1979

I think this plan is important to the surplus of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation repossessions available on the market. To this government those houses which have been repossessed and which cannot be sold represent a value paid for by the people of Canada. Those houses must be occupied because they were designed as owner-occupied residences. This plan will allow and make it possible for people to buy these houses.
During the election campaign I knocked at a number of doors in apartment buildings as did, 1 am sure, all hon. members who are from urban ridings. 1 found that a great many of these people wanted to own a house. It was mentioned earlier today that 90 per cent of Canadians have as one of their desires the wish to own a home. People in rental accommodation said that they could not afford to own a home. They said, "I can't pay the payments. Sure, I could get the $2,000 or $3,000 for the down payment, but 1 can't make the payments".


An hon. Member:: Lower the interest rates.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is exactly what this plan does. It gives the people a 3 per cent reduction on the interest rate.


An hon. Member:: They are not very smart.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No, they are not very smart, and they cannot understand anything. This plan would allow people up to approximately $125 a month which can go toward the cost of home ownership. In order to get the $125, however, the individual must have a mortgage which would require some $5,000 in interest payments, and this in turn would indicate some tax payments. When I go through the Headway report which I mentioned earlier, I find that that is exactly the situation and that the mathematics are there. Instead of giving the $125 to the people of Canada through MURBs, through write-offs, through the tax deferral system, through a quick capital gain profit on investment, we do the same thing for the purchase of an apartment or condominium, and that is where this scheme makes sense. It makes it possible for the person who is a tenant to afford the same monthly payments, and that is what we are talking about-what it costs a month to carry the darn thing and to become a home owner. There has been some suggestion-


An hon. Member:: By whom?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Well, for example, the economic department of the University of Calgary wrote to me suggesting that this scheme would only allow for an increase of 10 per cent in the number of home owners in Canada. They were opposed to the scheme. If there is 60 per cent home ownership in Canada and this tax proposal increases that home ownership by 10 per cent, then that is some increase. In other words, the economic department of the University of Calgary said it would only increase home ownership from 60 per cent to 66 per cent. If that is a bad thing, then I do not understand what is good.
The New Democratic Party has also proposed a policy to assist home owners, having seen our plan, in the form of a direct susbsidy on interest to first time buyers. On the surface
Mortgage Tax Credit
that sounds rather intriguing. The only problem is that when a person buys his first house, he usually has to buy a second house before he can come close to paying off the mortgage on the first house. Usually a person will go through, if any of the studies are correct, three or four houses before he or she finally settles on the house which will eventually become his or her last home. If the government were only to subsidize their first house, then the family would forever be tied to the first house which they bought. That, of course, portrays the difficulty of that ill-thought-out scheme. In addition to that problem, they must recognize that such a direct subsidy scheme, presumably based on income, would require enormous numbers of civil servants, applications, checks on subsidy payments, cross referencing and, indeed, would result in setting up an entirely new bureaucracy. It is much simpler if it is partially allowable through a tax credit from income tax.
One of the characteristics of this plan that has always intrigued me, being in the mortgage business, is the knowledge that for once a great number of people who have been collecting interest from mortgages on a private basis will finally wind up meeting their maker, the tax collector. Once interest on personal home mortgages is deductible or allowable from tax, that immediately means that the person paying the interest will report those payments on their income tax form to their friendly tax collector. With the beauty of computers, those people who have for so long been avoiding the payment of income tax on mortgages collected on private single family residences, will finally wind up paying.
1 suggest to this House, as I have to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), that this plan will probably more than pay for itself in this first taxation year through the reporting of interest not presently being declared by those people who collect interest. If that is wrong-I notice the hon. member for Ottawa Centre shaking his head, and if I wanted to, I could show the hon. member in spades-one of the big advantages of the plan is that we will finally wind up finding out who really gets their investment income and does not pay the tax on it.
Before I finish, I would like to speak for a moment about the allowance on municipal taxes proposed in the bill. When the bill is finally in place it will give home owners an allowance of $250 toward municipal taxes. In the first year of operation, all owners of real estate including owners of mobile homes will receive an allowance of $67.50 from federal income tax toward what may or may not be payable with respect to municipal taxes. A person paying taxes at the 25 per cent marginal rate will be able to write off up to $1,000 in municipal taxes against personal taxes. That will put most home owners in the country in the position of being able to deduct municipal taxes from income tax. I have always felt that there should not be double taxation in this country, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre suggested that this is a transfer of power to the municipalities and that it is a terrible thing to give municipalities the right to be treated as real governments. I see this as a recognition that municipal govern-

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
merits are legitimate governments, responsible to their citizens for what they tax. To some extent that tax is allowable from federal tax in much the same way that provincial tax is recognized as being to some extent allowable from federal tax. It is important that we recognize the various levels of government in this country, Mr. Speaker.
This is a nation of communities. I come from the community of Mississauga which the world heard about last week, though not in a way we would have liked. In this country of communities, each community has a responsible government. This bill to amend the Income Tax Act is a recognition of the responsibility of the municipalities and their right to raise taxes, and the merit of that tax being to some extent allowable from federal tax is an important recognition which makes municipalities even more responsible in spending money on any programs they may initiate.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) offered certain amendments on behalf of the New Democratic Party. He said that the credit should not be tied to ownership. I think I have said enough about the situation as it concerns tenants, Mr. Speaker. He said that the credit should be refundable through a negative income tax scheme. The idea has some merit but I am sure he will realize, as I do, that it is probably beyond the fiscal competence of the government. The criticism that the bill only helps young people and does not help senior citizens is a legitimate criticism, but it is not a valid criticism considering the limits imposed upon the government with respect to fiscal action.
The government is being very responsible and is phasing this tax allowance in over a four-year period. The cost to the treasury in this year is less than $600 million. The program will be phased in as the money is available. It will be phased in because we want to get the stimulus through the system now. People will be able to buy up some of the surplus repossessions and so on, and thus get the housing market moving. It is phased in so that it will not totally upset the treasury.
I am sure the hon. member realizes that at this stage it would be totally impossible to bring in a negative tax scheme that would give rebates to people from whom no tax was collected. The hon. member also said that the tax credit should somehow be indexed backwards. I do not know how that would be achieved, but I assume it is a scheme that is graduated so that the more a person makes the less credit they get.
One of the advantages of a tax credit scheme as opposed to an interest deductible scheme is that the tax credit scheme treats all people equally. Surely a system of equity is what we should promote in this country. I really cannot make any sense of the proposals advanced by the New Democratic Party, although I appreciate the philosophy behind them.
This bill is an important thrust toward improving the housing of all Canadians, particularly young Canadians who want to raise families. If this bill is defeated, then clearly there will be an election. Hon. members opposite had better realize that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), have stated that the government may call an election if this bill is not passed by Christmas. I should like to ask them what they suggest I should say to my constituents this Christmas? After seven months of Conservative government what can I show them that has benefited my riding?
Yesterday I received a call from an 85-year old woman in my riding. Although she is in relatively good health, she has received home care service through a Canada Works project in the past. As of this date, however, our projects have not been approved. Last year most were approved on September 25 and the balance on October 10. I think it might be appropriate to ask this government what the cause is for the delay.
We have asked the government where it will get the money to finance the mortgage tax credit plan, but I suppose we will not get answers until the budget comes down on December 11. We know already that $50 million has come from the Canada Works program. The budget in my riding was cut from $500,000 to roughly $280,000. Am I to tell my constituents that I supported a program which deprived them of these services?
So much has been said already about the pros and cons of this bill that debate seems almost superfluous. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important to stress several points. First of all, everyone knows that this is not a housing bill. Instead, it is a tax cut directed to a certain segment of the population- those who own houses. As everyone knows, the proportion of those who own homes in Quebec is much lower than the national average. In the city of Montreal it is 38.2 per cent as compared to the 68.1 per cent which is the national average.
At the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on November 1, I asked the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing what this bill would do to help solve some of the problems in our cities, such as housing for the elderly and low income earners, the flight to the suburbs, and the deterioration of the urban core. The minister acknowledged that the solution of these problems was not, and I quote, "the primary purpose of this program".
1 also drew the attention of the minister to the CMHC Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the problems I have noted in the operation of this program in my riding. It is a familiar story now, because it occurred on a number of occasions and with a number of projects, since the election last May. Some low income tenants who have been living in the same apartment for over 30 years, some of whom are ill and handicapped, have been advised that their leases will be cancelled at a future date, when government approval is obtained. Owners are unable to set rental dates before undertaking the construction. The tenants doubt that the projects will ever be undertaken but feel that the owners would rather make some superficial repairs to take advantage of government subsidies at their expense. Tenant associations are set up to fight against the projects, or set alternatives. When tenants move out and the buildings become half empty, services worsen.
November 20, 1979

The owners argue that present subsidies are not high enough to meet every soaring construction cost, with the concrete results that rents are higher after repairs and this prevents many low-income tenants from moving back into their apartments. This problem may seem somewhat abstract to some of the members in the government, but believe me, when you get phone calls from people who have been living in these buildings for as long as 30 years, as I have said previously, and these people ask you where they can move to and what do they do, and could another apartment be found for them to move into, the problem becomes very much less abstract. I say to this government this program on which they will spend $2.3 billion in 1982 does nothing to solve the really pressing housing problems in this country.
For over 15 years, or even more, academic circles have recognized the importance of preserving our cities rather than mindlessly expanding to the suburbs. In a briefing given to our caucus committee, CMHC officials provided detailed statistics to show that our housing problem in the next 20 years will be completely different than in the past. This is something which obviously has escaped the government. They will have to get younger couples with families out of the apartments into existing detached and semi-detached homes which are now occupied by older persons who would be far better off in the apartments. It may be that rather than building new old age homes, we should be converting apartment buildings. 1 wonder when the government will turn its attention to these matters.
I think it is also important to note that this program is highly inflationary. The anti-inflation board in a publication entitled "Inflation and Public Policy" has stressed the limitations of economic policy caused by the slowness of the economy to respond to monetary and fiscal stimulus. The board favours selective measures to correct weaknesses in the economy. The government has ignored this advice. Rather than putting more money into programs such as the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, which I referred to earlier, that had produced good results in the past, it has wastefully committed $2 billion annually to a program of very questionable benefit.
The Liberal party has proposed a number of alternatives to this program, such as a national rental assistance program for the elderly and single parent families who have great difficulty in meeting their rental payments. I would urge the government to give serious consideration to these proposals.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to begin by saying that we in this party recognize the concern that this particular piece of legislation tries to address, that is, the very real problem of people who are seeking to own their own home or people who have already purchased a home and are finding it difficult to meet their mortgage payments as a result of the high interest rates or the price of a house in the first place. It is not with any lack of appreciation of the situation in which these people find themselves that we make criticisms today, tomorrow and in the days
Mortgage Tax Credit
ahead, of this particular piece of legislation. We do feel, however, in spite of our understanding of the need which this legislation addresses, that it is incumbent upon us to point out what we feel are some obvious errors, errors of direction that are embodied in the legislation which the government has brought forward.
Before I commence the remarks I have planned, I would like to say in response to the hon. member from Mississauga that we in this party are consistent in so far as we did not support the concessions and benefits which were granted to the big guys that he referred to in terms of the MURBs when they were suggested by the previous government. I take it that we are exempt from his criticim which he was presumably levelling at the Liberal party when he accused them of being in favour of gifts for the big guys and not in favour of gifts for the little guys.


An hon. Member:: Are you not in favour of the little guys?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is not that we are not in favour of anything for the little guys, we feel the way this legislation is set up at this point that it misses a lot of little guys.
I will try to point out this evening some of the social implications of this legislation. 1 will not go over at great length criticisms that have already been made. I will simply reiterate briefly the criticism which we have of this legislation in some other areas as well as the area of social policy.
As a tax policy it deserves to be criticized because it is regressive and redistributes money away from the poor toward the affluent. As a tax policy it deserves to be criticized because it is a rather large, and you might even say grotesque tax expenditure, a forfeiting of an incredible amount of revenue on the part of the government for the benefit of a small group of people.
As an economic policy it deserves to be criticized because it will be inflationary, as the price of houses will go up. It seems incredible to me that members opposite, most of whom have more experience in the field of real estate than those of us in this party, cannot see that the effect of this legislation will be to make potential home owners more willing to buy, and therefore make sellers more likely to jack up the price of housing in order to take advantage of that increased willingness to buy. To me the obvious and self-evident inflationary nature of this legislation needs to be taken into consideration.
As an economic policy it deserves to be criticized because it furthers what we used to call, and still do call, the corporate welfare phenomenon in this country. What it will be doing is subsidizing the banks, the ones which are charging the interest rates and benefiting from the mortgages in the first place.
As an economic policy it deserves to be criticized as a stimulative measure-if that is what it intends to be-because it is the sort of thing that will be very difficult to get out of once one gets into it. It will be very difficult to take it away from the people.
I am particularly surprised that this insight does not appear to have been picked up by members opposite, who are so in
1534

November 20, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
favour of sunset laws when it comes to other pieces of legislation.
If it is not a stimulative economic instrument, and if it will only add to inflation rather than reduce it, then perhaps we might think it has some merits either as a housing policy or as a social policy instead of just being a political move to appeal to the electorate. Again I am afraid to say that there are flaws in this bill which mitigate against it being a sound social policy and which mitigate against it being a sound housing policy.
With regard to the problem of acquiring housing that is faced by many Canadians, and this problem has been pointed out eloquently by other members, it will only create the illusion of an easier situation. Perhaps that was not intended by the government at the moment of conception of this plan. At that time they may not have been aware that interest rates would rise to the present level or that inflation would continue unabated after they got into power. Canadians who think that somehow by virtue of the passing of this legislation their economic situation will be radically improved, are either being misled or are in error. Their situation would not improve when taken in the whole context in which their economic situation would have to be judged.
As a major housing policy, it is inadequate. It is a big move. It is, however, directed at only a part, albeit a significant part, of the housing problem, and that is the affordability question for potential home owners and existing home owners who have an affordability problem even after their initial move to purchase a house.
This legislation ignores the needs of renters. That has been said before but needs to be said again. It does not meet the needs of the inner city housing sitution where over 75 per cent of the households are renter households.


An hon. Member:: Wouldn't they like to buy?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I will get to the question of whether people in the inner city would like to buy houses at a later point in my speech. We have a problem here that we often have when we talk about policy in this House, housing policy in particular. We try to talk about it as if the question of housing was a homogenous question, as if all housing questions dealt with one kind of Canadian, the Canadian family that wants to buy a home in the suburbs and establish themselves in a nuclear family setting and get on with what we have come to regard as the good life in this country.
This reminds me of a problem in Winnipeg. The president of the Manitoba Landlords' Association says they do not need any more public housing because the vacancy rate in Winnipeg is now 6 per cent. However, the vacancy rate in the inner city may be 3A per cent, 1 per cent or W2 per cent. On sheer mathematical averages of vacancy rates in the city, the rate might be 6 per cent. However, there are people living within a certain area who suffer the effects of a very low vacancy rate. Their needs are not met because the policy is decided in accordance with this rather abstract average. This is the

problem we find ourselves in with regard to this legislation. It assumes ail our housing problems are uniform.
There is something else that has not come up in this debate. This policy is inadequate because it fails to deal with the fundamental cause of high house prices, the price of land. The price of land has not been mentioned in relation to the high cost of housing in Canadian cities. I will get to that a little later. It is these two concerns I would like to concentrate on this evening, the question of inner city housing and the land factor in housing prices.
The third question which I will mention briefly came to mind when the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) was speaking. That is the question of the extent to which the benefits that this government intends to provide through this legislation to Canadian home owners will be offset by the actions of provincial governments eager to relieve themselves of various tax credit programs they may have because the federal government has now moved into this area. At this point I think of my own province. Although it was later denied, there was a rumour the province would be considering dropping its tax credit because the federal government was moving into this area. 1 suggest to members opposite that this is something to think about. Should this legislation pass, it should be ensured through conversations with provincial counterparts that the benefits do end up as a net benefit and are not offset by actions at the provincial level.
I now wish to deal with the inner city housing situation. As I said before, as much as 75 per cent of the people in the inner city are renters. They have a problem of affordability, not affordability to make the downpayment on a home because for many that is beyond the realm of possibility. Their problem is affording their rent on a month to month basis. Many pay well over 30 per cent of their income for rent, and in many cases this is for substandard housing. This has become worse in the last few years.
When I began work for the church in the inner city, if you were paying more than 25 per cent of your income for rent you were in a difficult situation. Over the past two years people are starting to say this is true if you pay over 30 per cent of your income. The same is true of unemployment. At one time 4 per cent unemployment was unacceptable. As things got worse, the level of acceptability rose.
This legislation does not deal with what 1 consider to be the most serious housing crisis in the country, with all due respect to those who would like to buy a home in the suburbs. The legislation is inadequate. We will be paying a terrible price if we do not have housing policies which address the problem of housing in the inner cities of major Canadian urban centres. Many of those who live in these areas are now paying a terrible price. At the school across from the place where I worked prior to my election, the turnover rate was 75 per cent. That is to say that 75 per cent of the students who enrolled in September were not there in June. Many of those elementary school children will have gone through three or four schools in the course of the ten-month school period. The reason is because their mothers are going from house to house trying to
November 20, 1979

find a decent place in which to live. They are trying to find a house where the rent is a little bit lower, where the heating system and the plumbing are a little bit better. It is not just a question of affordability, it is also a question of the quality of housing. This kind of transience, I suggest, leads to difficulties in education. I know many teachers in inner cities who are at their wits end trying to figure out how to provide a stable environment for children who, in the course of a single year, are enrolled in three or four different schools.
We need to face the fact that for many people home ownership is not an option and to hold home ownership before them as a model, as an example of what being a Canadian is all about, is not only unrealistic but-the hon. member behind me says "cruel" and I agree that is one way of describing it. Unless we change our economic system radically and substitute an entirely different, more equitable system for the distribution of wealth, there will be many people for whom home ownership is not a possibility. This legislation, to the extent it holds up single family dwellings and holds up this particular lifestyle as the way of life, is profoundly unsatisfactory.
I am a person who lives in the suburbs, a person who owns a home and who will benefit from this legislation should it be passed, but I still say we are making a great mistake if we hold up this way of life as the way of life.
1 should like to turn, now, to consider how the price of houses got to be so high in the first place. Again, 1 look to Winnipeg. Between 1972 and 1976 the price of land in Winnipeg jumped 400 per cent. The average price of a lot rose from $4,000 to $16,000 in four years. How did that happen? It happened because in Winnipeg, as in many other cities, land is controlled by a very small group of people. In Winnipeg some four development companies which own all the land around the periphery of the city were able to manipulate the market in such a way as to cause the price to rise to the astronomic extent I have described.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What has that to do with the price of houses?
Royal Assent


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That phrase was used earlier this afternoon, I believe. This "envelope policy" the government is following, this commitment not to explore new ways of raising money-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-23, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which reads as follows:
Government House Ottawa
November 20, 1979
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Julien Chouinard, O.C., C.D., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 20th of November, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
1 have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary
to the Governor General


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The hon. member asks me what that has to do with the price of a house. I can hardly believe the question. Some $12,000 is added to the price of a house, and the hon. member asks me what that has to do with the price! Insufficient attention has been paid to the real cause of the housing crisis in this country, and that is the way in which the price of land increased in the early seventies. It is this hidden nature of the real cause of the high price of housing, of the real cause of our housing difficulties, which brings me to another concern. I refer to the hidden source of the money that is to finance this program.
As yet, before the introduction of the budget on December 11, we do not really know where this money will be coming from, so we are being asked to accept something of an enigmatic or unknown nature.


An hon. Member:: A pig in a poke.
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned.
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-l 1, an act respecting certain postal rates-Chap. 1.
Bill C-23, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1980-Chap. 2.

November 20, 1979
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, on November 16 last, as reported in Hansard on page 1393, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to table in the House the famous report prepared by a group of researchers who at the beginning of 1977 carried on a study dealing with the relations during the last ten years, that is between 1967 and 1977, of the federal government and the Quebec government. Following the publication of an interim report, we were told that some 112 government agencies or departments took part in this assessment and there were 485 occurrences of federal intervention in provincial jurisdiction, especially that of Quebec. To the question which I asked the Prime Minister, he replied as follows:
We believe that we must honour the commitment given by the former government.
Mr. Speaker, of course I could not be satisfied with that answer since I had the opportunity, as you had, to read in the newspapers that the former minister of the Liberal government, the member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), asked that the studies be made public following a press conference and a public statement. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle) has also stated publicly that the studies should be disclosed. He did not object to the publication of the studies and still more recently, two editors of two important Quebec dailies, dealt with the contents of the interim report and effectively asked, on behalf of Quebeckers, that those studies be made public. Allow me to quote the comments of Mr. Marcel Adam in an editorial in the newspaper La Presse.
DOT]
I quote Mr. Adam's words:
Messrs. Clark and Jarvis have argued that these studies were carried out with the help of civil servants to whom the former government had given a commitment of confidentiality.
Surely it should be possible to honour this commitment by publishing a version of the study expurgated from anything that could identify those who contributed to it.
Mr. Clark must do so to hold the promise he has made to give access to any information that could be useful for public discussion, and also to demonstrate, as he himself has been trying to prove since May 22, that the functional quality of federalism is much more due to the attitudes and to the spirit that drives a given government political party than to the federal system as such.

In the context of the referendum debate and of the wide ranging reform of Canadian federalism, it would be unhealthy and ominous that important documents, however embarrassing be withdrawn from public discussion.
If federalism needs secrecy and dissimulation to survive in Canada, then it is a lost cause.
Which is not my opinion.
And this article is signed by Mr. Marcel Adam, editor for La Presse.
1 could quote as well some comments which were published in a remarkable editorial signed by Mr. Michel Roy, editor in chief of Le Devoir, and entitled "A document that must be published". In the context of the present referendum debate some cabinet members of this government believe that studies should be published since the former minister of the previous government does not confirm that there are commitments to protect in a way those who prepared this report, since there was a motion introduced by a Liberal member; at least there would seem to be some fair play on that side of the House.
Yesterday a motion was introduced under Standing Order 43 asking that these studies be tabled. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in light of all these facts and statements, and the desire of all members of this House, I wonder by what prerogative we can sacrifice the right of members to be informed and the interests of the people, in order to protect the interests of a few people who are supposed to serve the country.
Mr. Speaker, if the government refuses, it will have to state clearly who are those people it wants to protect because it is a matter of public interest that these studies be known and tabled. The government must tell us their names. Does it want to protect the former government? Do they want to protect officials who went beyond their functions, who exceeded their duties and responsibilities, or do they want to hide the abuses of the federal government? I think, Mr. Speaker, that given the discussions that are now taking place among the public, given the interest that the interim report has raised up among Canadians, the government has no choice but to accept my request today on behalf of the population, a request which has been echoed by hon. members from the official opposition and by some members of the cabinet.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given this opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) on the matter he has raised since it will allow us to explain the reasons for the government's actions with respect to what is referred to as the "Interim Report on Relations Between the Government of Canada and the Province of Quebec, 1967-1977."
November 20, 1979

First, I would like to clarify for the hon. member that the report in question is in fact not a study of federalism per se, nor is it, as he suggested in his argument earlier, a list of 485 intrusions into Quebec's jurisdiction. It is, in fact, an analysis of some 500 federal government activities relating to Quebec over that ten-year period. The study focuses on the management of federal-provincial relations during that decade. It concluded-and this is the part of the document, the hon. member will note, which has been made public-that there is indeed room for improvement, for more consultation, and for more sensibility toward the aspirations of the Quebec people and their elected governments.
1 wish to stress that the previous government was very courageous in its decision to launch this enquiry. It shows that federalists in Canada, whatever their political affiliation, have the ability to criticize themselves, and the sincerity to seek ways of improving federal-provincial relations.
The summary document which has been made public contains a number of recommendations for action which accord entirely with the kinds of changes that we had determined were necessary, from our opposition benches, without the benefit of the report because we, too, were concerned with adapting our federal system to the changing needs and values of Canadian society. Hon. members opposite, possessed, we hope of some objectivity, will see that this new government is moving along the lines suggested as being necessary.
There are two questions in our minds about the propriety of releasing the full report at this time. First, the report was never fully completed, and, second, when it was undertaken, assurances of confidentiality were given to participating departments, agencies and individuals. Surely hon. members will appreciate that even as the full document is now being reviewed, we must recognize that to make public an incomplete report, which was based on assurances of confidentiality, is not a decision to be taken lightly.
The summary document which we released did not give rise to these concerns because it was written at a level of generality which permitted its publication without violating the assurances given-in fact along the lines of what 1 believe hon. members refer to, if you like, as the expurgated version of the report.


NATIONAL UNITY-QUEBEC REFERENDUM-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because I was unable to obtain a satisfactory answer to the issue of the government involvement in federalist forces that will be grouped under the "no" umbrella in the referendum.
First, Mr. Speaker, I might say that I have no doubt that this government intends to defend the Canadian federalism. It
Adjournment Debate
seems obvious to me, but still they have a curious way of defending federalism when they hesitate between yes and no as we saw from the answers given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to various questions put to him. He hesitates between yes and no and refuses to show the leadership we have the right to expect from the Prime Minister of Canada by taking a stand for Canadian federalism. What is really happening? During a press conference, his Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle) said specifically:
The Conservative party should avoid militating with pro-federalist forces as our objectives are different from those of Mr. Ryan.
Those are extremely ambiguous words from a representative of the federal government. So, following this statement, 1 wanted to know if the Prime Minister was endorsing the remarks of his Minister of Supply and Services. First, 1 wanted to know if it was true that his objectives were not the same as those of Mr. Ryan and, second, if he intended to join pro-federalist forces in the referendum campaign. But, to my surprise, the Prime Minister of Canada endorsed the statement of his minister in the answer he gave me, and 1 quote Hansard of October 31:
There are diverging opinions between the Liberal party at the provincial level in Quebec and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. 1 suppose there are some as well between the Liberal party of Quebec and the Liberal Party of Canada.
He projects on us, federal Liberals, the same kind of reluctance shown by the Minister of Supply and Services. This I cannot accept, because although there may be disagreements of a minor nature between provincial and federal Liberals on objectives, we are in total agreement with provincial Liberals on preserving our Canadian federation, even with changes. Essentially we want to keep our Canadian federalism and in addition we do not think that by emphasizing this we hurt the feelings of Quebeckers, because we know there are Quebec federalists, and we even know they are a majority in the province of Quebec. But the government, for reasons I might explain later, are apparently very shy when it comes to expressing federalist feelings, as if they were inhibited by some covert if not shameful political interest. What keeps them indeed from stating unequivocally their solidarity with federalist forces in Quebec? Because this is all I was asking from him, that he express his solidarity with federalist forces in Quebec. 1 had no satisfactory answer on this.
I have been wondering whether some of these ministers, especially in Quebec, have election debts to repay, in the circumstances, because we all know that during the election campaign the Parti Quebecois gave the order that in large centres support should go to Progressive Conservatives, and in rural centres to Social Credit candidates. It may therefore be to pay his debt that this minister has made such ambiguous statements. We all know that during the election campaign the worst enemy was the Liberal, it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau,

November 20, 1979
Adjournment Debate
the great defender of national unity. But those who followed the election campaign closely saw that in Joliette, the hon. member for Joliette and Minister of Supply and Services was elected with the support of the Pequistes. As evidence of all this, 1 shall mention only his haste to dissociate himself quickly from the federalist forces and the statement he made on his first opportunity to hold a press conference in Quebec. I believe this explains why I did not receive a satisfactory reply to my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Is this also one of the reasons why the Prime Minister has shelved any idea of holding a federal referendum? Why should he have deprived himself of such an effective political tool when his political enemy has such a tool? He does not want to win, he does not want to use all the means at his disposal to win a real victory, especially when we know that if the referendum question is ambiguous, a referendum at the federal level organized by the federal authorities would have provided the means to check the true feelings of Quebeckers on the issue of federalism.
Who will benefit if we are deprived of this political tool? Only the Parti Quebecois. I do not know which other political party could benefit. However, this is the position taken by the Progressive Conservatives. We may well wonder why. I have the impression that this government does not want to face such a referendum. They want to have it both ways and they are trying to soften up the Parti Quebecois. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there should be no compromise when such a serious issue is involved.
This country will not be defended with faint-heartedness, it will be defended with clear, concrete, inspired and, if possible, inspiring statements. So 1 am beginning to understand, and I am trying to find explanation for those ambiguous and vague answers I got from the Prime Minister. Another dozen or so questions were put, and after searching his mind at length, the Prime Minister finally stated that it was another thing, namely, that there was an agreement between Quebec federalists under the provincial Liberal banner and Quebec federalists under the federal Progressive Conservative banner. That is really very strange indeed. Those people agree with the provincial Liberals but they do not want to work with them under the "no" umbrella. According to him, we have profound disagreements between federal Liberals and provincial Liberals, but nevertheless we are working under the "no" umbrella with Mr. Ryan. So the Prime Minister is trying to show there are deep differences on our side, but none on theirs, but he does not want to commit himself determinedly to work for the "no" side in the referendum. I find that situation entirely abnormal, and I think that on other occasions we will try to get clarifications on this point from the Prime Minister or his ministers.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, the normal phrase to say at this time is that I am pleased, and 1 suspect that 1 should say that, to answer
[Mrs. Sauve.J
the hon. member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mrs. Sauve) on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), although 1 do feel that every time the opposition continue their attempt to make a partisan issue out of the unity of this country, it is difficult to say that one is pleased to reply.
It seems to me that in fairness the hon. member has in fact asked three questions which she feels the Prime Minister did not answer adequately. Those questions are: what is the government's position in regard to the Quebec government's thesis, namely, sovereignty-association; what will be the role of the members of this government during the pre and during the referendum campaign; and what will be the attitude of the card-carrying members of the Progressive Conservative Party during this period?
On the first question, there can be no question as to the clarity of the Prime Minister's answer. For the hon. member to suggest otherwise is something I fail to understand. The Prime Minister has stated over and over that sovereignty-association is incompatible with federalism, incompatible with its renewal, and for this reason unacceptable to this government, absolutely and clearly unacceptable.
The answer to the second question is equally clear. The role for members of this government is to demonstrate that there is in Ottawa a government open to the aspirations of Quebeckers, flexible in its dealings with the provinces, imaginative in the managing of federal-provincial relations and, finally, totally determined to renew and to modernize our federalism.
Finally, the best way to handle the third question is simply to quote the reply given to the hon. member by the Prime Minister.
There will be a participation of the Quebec fighting wing of the Progressive Conservative Party under the umbrella committee which was organized to support federalism in the province of Quebec.
That is as clear as day. On this side of the House we do not and have not attempted to question or to impugn the sincerity of the previous government or members opposite in their attempts to renew the constitution. Nor have we challenged their commitment to federalism. However, we have learned from their sad experience that something new has to be tried to hold this country together. It is that new approach that the Prime Minister talks about in this House day after day. Surely the time has come to end the conversations about whether we are consistently or differently or equally federalist, and to recognize that we are all federalists here.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-INCREASE IN INTEREST RATE-ACTION TO AVOID SMALL BUSINESSES DECLARING BANKRUPTCY
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, on October 25 I raised a question about the relationship between interest rates and the number of bankruptcies that have occurred this year in this country. What prompted that question was the alarming increase of almost 9 per cent this
November 20, 1979

September over last September, meaning that this September there were 1,762 bankruptcies in Canada.
The day 1 asked the question, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) rose in his place. He did not propose any particular solution to this problem, easier loans, or any of the other possibilities that were used in the campaign of the Conservative party during the election, to tide over or to assist any of these business failures.
I would like to say that the Bank of British Columbia, in contrast to a number of other chartered banks, allows a preferred rate of one-half of one per cent below the prime rate for small businesses.
The "small business" Conservative election platform was reiterated on that day. All the minister did was beat his breast about how his party represented and reflected the interests of small businesses. He went on in his usual and rather tiring way of blaming the previous administration for all the problems of the current government.
To say that the minister and the government appear absolutely poverty stricken when it comes to new ideas having to do with a solution to our economic problems is perhaps trite, but it is true. It is also true that in Canada over the past 16 months interest rates have almost doubled. They have gone from about 8 per cent to 15 per cent or 16 per cent today. This has put thousands of people out of work. The risk is that thousands more will be out of work.
1 can give some examples. In Vancouver over 600 plywood workers were out of work over a month ago, and 11,000 temporary and permanent lay-offs in the auto industry in Ontario and Quebec. It appears that Canada is indeed in economic chaos due to high interest rates. It is incumbent upon members of Parliament to speak up about these matters. I can give all kinds of evidence, and this is not NDP rhetoric. I received wires from councils I represent, including the council in the municipality in Coquitlam. There are others from the president of the IWA. I could also go into the Globe story of November 9 entitled, "Sudden Downturn Hurts Lumber Producers in B.C. Interior". I will read the first paragraph:
High U.S. interest rates-
Reflected in Canada
-have finally brought the long-expected downturn in the lumber market. It has been so sudden and severe that producers in the B.C. interior are faced with serious production decisions in the next week.
It is not confined to the United States, because we slavishly ape the interest policies of the United States. I can go on.
Here is the National Association of Tobacco and Confectionary Distributors. They write all members of Parliament and they say in part:
The government's policy is indefensible and it is hurting the service trades which must stock large inventories of essential consumer items. The government's policy cannot but cause hardship for Canadian businessmen and consumers alike.
Adjournment Debate
So the effect is widespread, this concern over high interest rates is even reflected in the ranks of the government party. Here is a story which appeared this morning: "High Interest Rates Agony for Free-Enterprise Tory Backbenchers", according to which a number of Tory backbenchers have expressed their concern, including one from British Columbia, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish), who, it is reported, says that businessmen in his riding are going to their lawyers and accountants to find out the best way of going broke.
Another, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), admits, we read, that he would like to see Mr. Bouey replaced when his term ends in February. Well, I do not think he is alone there.
Then the article talks about the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) and the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Froese) who is in the contracting business. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Higson) is reported as saying that people want some reassurance that if they make any kind of contribution-known as "biting the bullet" by the Minister of Finance-there will be some assurance in the long run that things may get better.
I do not think the examples I am quoting are highly partisan at all. I think there are a great number of horror stories coming up from time to time and that we have only hit the tip of the iceberg. I expect that the reply to my question, when it comes, will be along the lines: wait until you see what goodies are revealed in the budget. I am looking forward to it, since the budget is coming rather close to Christmastime.
I do not know why the government would choose such ineffective and unpopular policies, policies which were criticized when they were in opposition, unless it is to prevent another Coyne affair. If they change economic policies against the advice of the governor of the Bank of Canada, he may quit; we may see another ugly Coyne affair, and the government may wish to avoid it and let him quietly disappear in February. That may be a reason. Or perhaps they have no other views on the subject. Other people have, though.
I should recommend a reading of the publication of the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy put out in July, and the four or five excellent suggestions which Don McGillivray made in the Southam Press. On November 1 he talked about closing gaps between Canadian and American interest rates, discouraging borrowing abroad, lowering borrowing to reduce the current account deficit overseas, and more moderate interest rates to create new jobs and encourage investment. It goes on and on and on. I do not have time to go into these details in the seven minutes allotted to me but it is essential the minister reconsider this policy.
Canadians are not begging, they are demanding that changes be made. The government is taking a stubborn and wrong-headed approach. I believe most people in Canada agree with me. The minister is asking Canadians to bite the bullet, but I believe the bullet has misfired. I think there is a strong risk of it striking a lethally vulnerable part of our Canadian economic anatomy.

November 20, 1979
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Ron Ritchie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. member as to what special measures will be taken to protect small businesses from the effects of the government's current interest rate policy. I emphasize in the first place that the economic policies the government is currently following are designed to contain and reduce inflation, and that they will aid small businesses in the long run by giving them the stable environment in which they can grow and prosper. If small businesses are facing difficulties today, and we know they are, it is not because of the economic policies of this government but because of a damaging degree of inflation which has its roots in the policies and practices of the last several years.
I know that the hon. member does not think that small business, large business, consumers or anyone else, for that matter, will on balance, and taking a longer view, be helped if the government should adopt policies which increase the prospects of inflation. Such policies, among other things, would
mean that we would face the prospect of double digit interest rates indefinitely and that the other cost inputs on small business would continue to be at their inflationary levels too.
No one-the hon. member or this government-welcomes higher interest rates but, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) has said, they are the lesser evil. In addition, I think it is worth keeping them in some perspective, damaging as they are. An estimate has been made that, for every one per cent increase in interest rates, the effect on the cost of the average business is about one-fifth of one per cent on total cost. That, of course, is the kind of cost increase which inflation, unfortunately, has been bringing to businesses from other costs other than interest rates as well.
I am sure the hon. member will understand that I must leave to the Minister of Finance on budget night the issue of whether the government is planning any special measures to assist small business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.

Wednesday, November 21, 1979