1979-03-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. My motion relates to a directive which came out of the office of the Solicitor General with respect to the security clearance of people in sensitive and public positions.
A paragraph in the directive reads that no person can be cleared for such a position while he or she has close relatives living within the borders of such foreign nations as may cause subjection to intolerable pressures, or if he or she has recently resided in foreign countries where no check of activities is possible. Having regard to this, and since one-third of all Canadian citizens fall into this category, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That the Solicitor General be required to rescind this directive immediately and avail himself at the earliest opportunity in the House of assuring hon. members that such clearances will not be carried out along ethnic lines.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be put to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of the same Standing Order on a matter of some urgency.
In view of the recent agreement, dated February 19 of this year, outlining the process for negotiating native land claims in the Yukon territory, in view of the undertakings given by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that the
federal government would negotiate directly and in good faith, and in view of the provision in clause 3 which now gives the territorial government of the Yukon complete veto power over any settlement, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House request the minister to delete the Yukon government veto power and accept the clear federal responsibility to negotiate, in good faith, a fair settlement of native claims in the Yukon.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NARCOTICS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an urgent matter under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Last night's CBC airing of the television drama "Drying Up the Streets" graphically brought to light the interrelated problems of heroin addiction and prostitution. In light of the concern about prostitution expressed yesterday in this House, and in light of the many requests made by myself and my colleagues for federal financial assistance to the British Columbia heroin health entry plan, a plan which is of considerable merit and which could lead toward the resolution of the heroin addiction problem in British Columbia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That this House recommends to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as well as the Solicitor General, that they request a special screening of "Drying Up the Streets" and that they spend some time with the Vancouver drug squad to witness first-hand the degradation and violence inherent in the heroin sub-culture and, further, this House recognizes the special drug problem of British Columbia by demonstrating its support for federal assistance to the British Columbia heroin health entry program.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 1, 1979


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the terms of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) has decreed that the Canadian Forces Long Service Pensioners Association must stop using that name and that it is now to be known as "90358 Canada Incorporated". Assurances have been received that the other side of the House is not totally opposed to the organization's using its time-honoured name. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House directs the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to rescind their objections and restore the name Canadian Forces Long Service Pensioners Association to that association.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie) has convened an ad hoc committee made up of distinguished representatives of the scientific community and other sectors to determine how the government could reach total investments of 1.5 per cent of the gross national product by 1983, and that the committee indicated that annual investments would have to be increased by 27 per cent in the industrial sector, by 10 per cent in government research and development and by 30 per cent in university research, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the government review its budget expenditures and honour its commitment made in June 1978 by the Minister of State for Science and Technology to invest the necessary amounts each year in research and development so as to reach 1.5 per cent of the gross national product by 1983.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such

a motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion regarding an urgent and important matter.
In view of the fact that federal-provincial agreements on assistance to the teaching of official languages will end in a month, and in, view of the importance of these agreements which guarantee to Canadian students the right to be educated in their mother tongue while remaining free to learn the second language, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That the House lends its total support to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement with all provinces, and considers that the desire of certain provinces for bilateral agreements would in effect bear unjustly on official language minorities and widen the ever present educational gap between Canadian provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed


Some hon. Members:: No.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
With regard to recent reports that Loto Canada is studying the feasibility of setting up a luxury lottery entailing the sale of $20, $25 and $100 tickets, and in light of the minister's recent confession of having lost over $13 million because she rushed into the Loto Select lottery without proper consultation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
March 1, 1979

That this House directs the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) to await the study requested by the hon. member for York West and which has been undertaken by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in order to assess the full implications of lotteries in our society before endeavouring to implement another federal lottery.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services relating to the loss of some $13 million in the government's aborted attempt to set up a computerized lottery.
[DOT] (M15)
Yesterday, the Minister of Supply and Services indicated to the House that his officials in the Department of Supply and Services had recommended to Loto Canada that they include in the contracts that they signed with General Instruments Limited an escape or cancellation clause. May I ask the minister what the reason was for the officials making that recommendation ?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: cancellation clause is included in all our contracts, naturally, to establish the terms under which damages are payable to the contractor. The formula is therefore most simple. We pay the contractor for the work performed up to cancellation, plus a certain percentage of profits. We suggested to the management of Loto Canada that such a clause be included in the contract, and I believe Loto Canada asked the company to include it but the latter refused to do so.


REASON LOTO CANADA IGNORED PROVISION OF CANCELLATION CLAUSE IN LOTO SELECT CONTRACTS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to the minister who is responsible for losing this $13 million of public funds of which she is the trustee.
In light of the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services has indicated to the House that his department recommended
Oral Questions
the inclusion of a cancellation clause in these contracts with General Instruments, can the minister tell the House why she and her officials ignored this very prudent advice?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member appears continually to refer to the amount of $13.15 million expended on Loto Select as a loss, and he attempts to attribute it to the General Instruments contract alone, which he well knows is false.
In addition, he knows that it is usual and traditional-and the proper term, by the way-to call it a "termination for the convenience of the Crown" clause. This "termination for the convenience of the Crown" clause is used in the Department of Supply and Services' contracts at all times. However, in this case the Department of Supply and Services was making recommendations to Loto Canada on a number of different contracts and, in fact, on the General Instruments' contract they made the recommendation and the management of Loto Canada examined it carefully, taking into account the recommendation of DSS, and determined that it would be more favourable to the company if they made a plan, should it ever become necessary, for a negotiated release of contract rather than the traditional termination clause.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Apparently, if this minister were playing poker she would prefer four two's to four kings.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: We should have a convenience for the Crown clause to rid of the minister, too, I think, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether she will now follow the example that has been set by her most junior colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, and put an end to the wall of secrecy that she has constructed around this whole affair. Will she now table in the House of Commons the contracts with all the clauses which were signed by her with suppliers?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, if I were playing poker, I would certainly not play it with jokers who had already been tried and failed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: I find it surprising and strange indeed that the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo would prefer to join his leader in getting rid of Loto Canada altogether than in knowing the facts which I tabled in the House and which his most assiduous colleague, the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, researched night and day only to discover one missing paragraph, which I will discuss later today.
These facts, and the papers tabled in the House, were discussed with the Auditor General. In fact, he is the auditor of Loto Canada, as the hon. member well knows. A copy of the

March 1, 1979
Oral Questions
Loto Select document was sent to the Auditor General's office. I believe the hon. gentleman opposite wants me to table all manner of contracts. 1 will simply say that the action taken in terminating the contract of General Instruments was done at the least possible cost, and if the hon. gentleman had taken the time to read the Loto Select cancellation document, he would have seen that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, along with Loto Canada, had budgeted in excess of $11 million- $11.7 million-for the cancellation of that contract, which was cancelled at $8 million, thereby not even reaching the potential amount. There was the amount of $3.7 million which was not expended in the provinces' recommendation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOSS SUSTAINED IN LOTO SELECT PROGRAM
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the same minister. Yesterday, in an interview with journalists outside the House, she was asked a question as follows, which I read from a transcript of that interview:
Just to make it clear, when you went to General Instruments, when your consultants went to General Instruments, and asked for a cancellation clause, did they say "no" outright, or did they say if you want it it will cost you a lot more?
Well, I'm afraid you would have to ask the management of Loto Canada that. As you know, I am the minister who reports to the House for the Crown corporation; it is a Schedule "C" corporation. You might want to look into that because the president of Loto Canada would make those decisions.
Is it the minister's position that the responsibility for the $13 million in disclosed losses resulting from the cancellation of Loto Select lies solely with the officials of Loto Canada and not with herself as the minister who answers to the House for Loto Select?


Iona Campagnolo: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, policy decisions are made by the government. Management decisions-and in this case the General Instruments' contract was a management decision-are made by management. I think the hon. member for Yukon did a great service in the over-all discussion of Loto Canada yesterday when he inserted himself into the discussion of a question of privilege and said that he did not want to be confusing the issue by bringing any facts forward.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Iona Campagnolo: I see he is staying in that same form today.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo, the Auditor General, Mr. Macdonell, disclosed that he is now carrying out an audit of the costs incurred by Loto Canada in setting up the Loto Select game.
Since a detailed report on investigations such as this can be provided to parliament only in the annual report of the Auditor General, would the minister undertake to seek approval

from her colleagues for an interim report by the Auditor General on Loto Select, to be provided to parliament? Since Loto Canada is a Crown corporation and as such its spending cannot be reviewed by a committee of the House, will the minister move a special reference to the appropriate committee of the House so that a thorough investigation of the operations of Loto Canada can be undertaken?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, here we have, again, the strange anomaly of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: Last year, when they had ample opportunity to call before the committee members of Loto Canada and members of the auditor's staff we had with us, they did not even bother to call Loto Canada. Not once in the whole year was it before the committee. Now, this year, they want two to make up for the fact that they did not have one last year. That is an independent office of the House of Commons, naturally, and I believe we will have our regular report, as we always do, to which the opposition then can make reference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD REPORT-SURPLUS OF NATURAL GAS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the most recent report of the National Energy Board which indicates that if the board had followed the formula it has always used in the past, there would be no surplus of natural gas, but by means of a formula specially concocted for the occasion, it finds a surplus of 1.6 trillion cubic feet or 3.4 trillion cubic feet, depending on which premise is taken, and recommends an export of two trillion cubic feet.
In view of the fact the government has endorsed the idea of the Q and M line to the maritimes and the idea of making gas available to transfer from oil to gas in many of the industries in central Canada, can the minister assure the House and the country that no exports of natural gas will be approved until such time as it has been demonstrated that there is sufficient natural gas, first, for the Q and M line and, second, for the transfer from oil to gas in industry; and, finally, to supply the growing demands of the petrochemical industry for petroleum products?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the government's priority has been to increase energy security for Canada; also, it has been to use natural gas to the maximum possible extent to displace foreign oil. For that reason, the government welcomes the findings of the National Energy Board that our
March 1, 1979

reserves have gone up significantly by 4.7 trillion cubic feet. There is absolutely record activity right now with respect to the exploration and development of our gas fields and petroleum resources.
The prospects for the future are exceedingly good. We are particularly pleased with all these events because they result from initiatives and a climate which the government has provided to get this kind of activity going.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Clearly, it is going to be possible for natural gas to provide a greater degree of energy security for Canadians than was thought to be the case a short while ago-two years ago-when the National Energy Board last reported. They have, as hon. members know, included two new tests along with the reserves test. We believe this deliverability test will be an improvement to the protection of Canadians in terms of future energy supply.
With the additional reserves, the additional tests and the possibility of using exports, as the hon. member has indicated, to maximize Canadian markets for natural gas, I think the outlook has changed quite significantly in the last two years.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of gas, but not much of an answer to my question.
In view of the fact that in 1970 this government accepted the recommendation of the National Energy Board and approved the export of these three trillion cubic feet, and only a few years later the same board and the same government were telling the people of Canada that unless we built a pipeline into the Arctic we were going to freeze in the dark, the minister will have to find something better than this rhetoric in order to convince the Canadian people that we can meet our needs and at the same time export an additional two trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
I want to ask the minister this very specific question. In view of the fact that the estimate of Q and M for gas requirements is 5.1 trillion cubic feet, and the National Energy Board estimate is 3.3 cubic feet-which is a difference of 1.8 trillion cubic feet-and if Q and M is right in that regard, then two trillion cubic feet for export will be used up-and you cannot use the same gas twice-which will take priority, Q and M or the exports? Would the minister please answer that question?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear in answers in this House over the last few days, and even before, that the potential of the Q and M pipeline and the other competing application, the application by TransCanada PipeLines, to move Canadian gas into the Quebec and maritime markets is a matter of very great importance to this government.
I have just said, in answer to the hon. member's first question, that we believe that exports can also support that
Oral Questions
particular expansion of the Canadian market for Canadian gas. I think I made it very clear in my first answer that we would expect the National Energy Board, at its hearings, to examine the potential, the linkage between gas exports and the development of these markets in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, neither the National Energy Board nor anybody else, other than the government, can make the final determination as to which will have priority. I am trying to find out from the minister if Q and M is simply a pre-election gimmick for the people in the maritimes, or whether the government is serious in its intention to see to it that the gas available for that pipeline is reserves.
I want to tell the minister that page 5 of the National Energy Board report points out that in its previous report of two years ago it predicted we would have gas deficiencies by 1983, and it now says it is able to say that we will not have gas deficiencies before 1992. At my age, 1992 does not give me any concern, but to a blossoming youth like you, Mr. Speaker, it must cause some apprehension. I am, therefore, asking the minister if he considers that a 13-year down the road possibility of gas shortages does not concern him and does not make him feel that the government ought to say that the first priority for the gas which is now in place will be the Q and M line and the need for Canadian supplies, rather than the export market. Will the minister tell us where he stands on that?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back over the same ground, because I think the hon. member has missed some of the important points I have made.
1 have stated many times my belief in the importance of the Q and M pipeline, or the competing application, to Canada. I have stated many times why I believe that the expansion of the gas markets in Quebec and the maritimes will be important to Canada, because it can displace foreign oil. I believe that the NEB makes this point, that natural gas can displace imported oil by as much as 100,000 barrels of oil per day by 1995. That is a very important factor in Canadian security.
The NEB, in their report, made it quite clear that they have taken my advice and the advice of the government with respect to this hearing, and they have made sure that there is sufficient gas to look after the expansion of eastern Canadian markets before they have looked at exports. I have gone further than that and said in my answers just a few moments ago that I would expect exports to be made as a result of the surplus which they have found.
Those exports could support the development and expansion of those markets in the way that, if we did not have any exports, we would not be able to support them. I think those exports could change the economic viability of the Q and M pipeline very considerably, and that is why I have said in my answers today that I believe export potential can be of very considerable help in moving that particular project forward.

March 1, 1979
Oral Questions


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology. In the report he got recently from the ad hoc committee he set up on funds earmarked for research and development, annual increases of 27, 10 and 30 per cent respectively were recommended for the industrial, government and university sectors. Statistics Canada reported recently that an increase of only 8.4 per cent was to be expected for the current year for research and development in the private sector. In view of the huge gap between the recommendations of the ad hoc committee, the figures announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and those of Statistics Canada, can the minister explain to the House how he plans to respect the commitments made last June to increase funds for R and D to 1.5 per cent of the gross national product by 1983?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of very significant increases in the allocation of moneys by the federal government for research and development in this country. Those were announced by my predecessor. At the same time, last summer, the government announced a number of measures aimed at securing more research and development in this country, and I refer to the Centre of Excellence policy.
At that time it was made quite clear that the increase in research and development, if we were to achieve the target of 1.5 per cent of the GNP by the early 1980s, would require a significant contribution from the private sector. The point was made that the government could not find the funds and spend the money to do it on its own; that it had to be done to a large extent in the private sector.
To that end, the Minister of Finance in his most recent budget changed, altered and improved the tax credit system for research and development in industry, a significant incremental change. I believe that the amounts there may be worth in the order of $125 million, and I very much hope that private industry will take advantage of this benefit.


Gérard Laprise: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's arguments do not relate to what we just found in the estimates tabled recently by his colleague of the Treasury Board. According to the statistics reported in October 1978 by the Department of Science and Technology, the cuts on research in that department represent 78.4 per cent of the budget cuts in the Department of Communications, 62.9 per cent in the Department of Environment, 53.2 per cent in the Department of Fisheries, 100 per cent in the Department

of Science and Technology and 85.7 per cent on the social sciences and humanities research program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question, he should ask it right away.


Gérard Laprise: Could the minister explain why, among those departments, his Department of Science and Technology is the most affected by those budget cuts?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of changes in budgets. Some have gone up, and some have gone down. But the effect is an increase in research and development. As I noted in my first answer, of course, the budget estimates do not reflect the tax credits which the Minister of Finance provided in his last budget because those tax credits affect the revenue side of the equation, not the expenditure side, and the most significant increase we could expect would be through the tax credit side.


OPPORTUNITY FOR DEBATE ON GATT AGREEMENTS ARRIVED AT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would like to welcome him back. I hope that he had a lift while he was away from the House last week and that his spirits are improved.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister: In view of the situation that the GATT talks are concluded, and the importance of these talks to Canadian industry generally and to Canadian resource industries such as agriculture and fisheries, will the Prime Minister make a commitment that there will be a full disclosure of all agreements which the government has entered into, and a full debate on the results of those arrangements, as well as information on whatever adjustment assistance will be provided, before there is an election which is rumoured to be coming between now and July?
Will the goverment be making full disclosure before an election and giving us a chance for debate on that full disclosure?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if my spirits had not improved, this applause would certainly improve them. I am not worried about the hon. member; he always has his spirits with him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 1, 1979


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as the undertaking which the hon. member is asking me to give, of course I would give it, provided the House is sitting at that time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, at least I did not say that the Prime Minister was sinful, as his Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did, or perhaps he said "had a skinful"; I am not sure which.
My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister-from the sublime to the ridiculous. The Deputy Prime Minister made a speech several days ago on GATT in which he said, "The major trade deal appears to be shaping up fine between Canada and the U.S., but there are still problems with Japan and the European Economic Community." But on February 21, Mr. Strauss of the United States said, "The tariff issue between Canada and the United States is far from settled" and that they were very upset over Canada's refusal to accept a new custom's code that would standardize valuation procedures. Who is telling the truth in this instance, the Deputy Prime Minister or Mr. Strauss?
[Editor's Note: Mr. MacEachen and Mr. Trudeau rose at the same time to answer the question.]


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I think-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Give Allan a chance.


An hon. Member:: Welcome back.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for making your job difficult. I understand that it must be impossible to know which of these ministers will answer, because we are all so anxious to put the facts before the House. I realize that on this subject my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister is probably more competent than I am, but I just could not resist the temptation to congratulate the hon. member for his "wry" sense of humour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to Flip, and not Flop. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, who is no longer in command. I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is not in trouble in his own ranks, as he is in Canada, apparently, according to his speech in Toronto.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House what the difficulties are with the Japanese and European Community offers? He said they have not taken adequate action on many of our essential export interests; and do those interests include fisheries' products?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the earlier question, the statement I made about the possibility of
Oral Questions
imminent dealings with the United States was made on Monday of this week.
I said in the statement that, subject to the settlement of certain issues, there appears to be a major deal in the offing with the United States. That was true on Monday and it is true today, Thursday.


An hon. Member:: What about tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Quite apart from what Mr. Strauss may have said, on whatever date, with respect to possible dealings with the European Community and Japan, in the latter case we have not received offers that we believe are equal and provide a reciprocal advantage to Canada with respect to the offers we have made to Japan. It may be that with respect to that country we will have to withdraw certain concessions which we have put on the table.
With respect to the European Community, in our view we have not yet received adequate recognition of our requirements with respect to fisheries, non-ferrous metals and wood products.


POST OFFICE
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact many Canadians still are not receiving door-to-door mail delivery, when at the same time we could hire many more letter carriers and help the unemployment situation, will the minister speak to the President of the Treasury Board, and whatever other minister is appropriate, about transferring funds in some way from the government's budget and hiring more letter carriers?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, my relations with the President of the Treasury Board are very friendly. I have spoken to him a great deal about the possibility of having letter carriers for door-to-door delivery, but I would like to repeat again that this government has a policy of restraint as far as the budget is concerned. It is not a question for us to decide if we want to have a larger or smaller deficit; we want to have as small a deficit as possible.
As long as we abide by our policy of budget restraint for the moment we are trying to give the best service possible to everyone across the country. If by any chance we have more money, the economy is getting better and the policy of the government changes, this will be the first priority.

March !, 1979
3710________________________________
Oral Questions SPORTS


REQUEST THAT GYMNAST KAREN KELSALL RECEIVE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). As the minister knows, Karen Kelsall is the only amateur gymnast who has reached world cup ranking. She has been promised help since last October, but has not received any as yet.
Is it now the minister's policy, or the policy of her department, that there are millions of dollars for professional hockey, but not one cent for world class amateurs?


Iona Campagnolo: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The total amount for gymnastics this year is a great deal more than it was last year. Miss Kelsall's total support in help to her coach, help for travel and help for her over-all training, has amounted to $16,000, including her Game Plan support program.
We are very proud of Miss Kelsall, as I know the hon. member is. She has brought honour to Canada and will continue to do so with the help of Sport Canada.


Benno Friesen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has two letters from the mother of Karen Kelsall that are waiting to be answered. Will she take time to answer them and provide the parents with the promised money that was supposed to be there last October?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the only reason Mrs. Kelsall writes to me is that she knows very well I intervene for all amateur sports people when they have these difficulties. The Game Plan support program is-


Mr. Forrestall:: October, November, December, January, February-five months.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member from somewhere in the Atlantic provinces is perhaps bubbling over a bit.
I will make sure this matter is looked into today. If Miss Kelsall is having any problems, I will certainly see that they are attended to.


AIRPORTS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Chretien:: Welcome back.


George Harris Hees: As the operating deficit for Mirabel airport has cost Canadian taxpayers in excess of $150 million in the three

years since the airport started operation, and as the early deficit shows no sign of decreasing below $50 million per year, I would ask the minister how much longer the government intends to operate this great white elephant which is not needed by the Canadian air transport industry or wanted by the Canadian travelling public.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the hon. member knows well that the deficit to which he refers and calls an operating deficit is really made up of carrying forward interest charges and depreciation.


Mr. Stevens:: What is wrong with that?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member for York-Simcoe, who knows all about these things, asks what is wrong with that. There is certainly nothing wrong with it, but it was never thought of by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings when he was minister of transport. It simply was not done in those days.
It paints a rather misleading picture just to take that figure. It is as though we carry forward the original investment cost. The fact of the matter is, of course, that Mirabel airport was built because of the clear signs that Dorval could not be expanded with the pleasure of the people in that area, just in the same way as Malton has limitations on it because of what people who live around it feel must happen.
We went along with Mirabel in order to produce an airport which would allow for long-term expansion. I am happy to tell the hon. member that steps to encourage cargo to come there are moving along very well in the airport, because it can be operated on a 24 hours per day basis without inconvenience to people in the vicinity. It is a superb airport for that purpose. Over the next number of years it will prove to have been a tremendously worth-while investment as more and more traffic goes there.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. minister that when I was minister of transport, we showed profits, and these profits are possible-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There were no airplanes in those days.


George Harris Hees: -by businesslike administration of our airports. As more and more Montrealers are showing a preference to travel overseas via Toronto, rather than using Mirabel and undergoing the inconvenience and inefficiency of that airport, would the government not reconsider the matter and take into consideration the fact that this airport, at a minimum, is costing Canadian taxpayers $50 million per year out of their pockets, and in future they will fly overseas from Dorval? Dorval could handle the traffic easily for the next 25 years, as the minister will find out if he talks to the air traffic people in his department.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is not a fact-


George Harris Hees: Yes, it is a fact.
March 1, 1979


Otto Emil Lang: -if one takes into account the desires of the people in the area not to have major expansions take place to things like runway capacity and the like.
As I say, in the same way as is the case with Malton-which the hon. member may understand a little better-we find that the interests of the people in the vicinity of airports must be taken into account in the way in which the airport is operated. The fact of the matter is that Mirabel is required and will play an increasingly important role. There will be rapid increases in the number of passengers moving through that airport.
The figure to which the hon. member refers includes interest and depreciation. It is true that acquiring the land and building the airport cost in the order of $325 million. The figure of $50 million is related to that original cost. At the same time, it must be put into the perspective of the $130 million we have just spent on the Calgary airport, and the very large, similar sums spent on Toronto international airport must be considered as we go forward with what is a very good airport system throughout Canada.


POST OFFICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Since the estimates for his department in the coming year indicate a reduction in the number of staff by some 1,850 workers, and since mail between cities in Canada is now regularly taking four to five days to reach its destination, would the minister indicate whether he expects the mail to be delivered even more slowly as a result of these cutbacks, or does he expect that the more than $1 billion spent on automation and computerization will finally begin to work and the mail delivery will be speeded up?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I should even answer such an allegation, because it is completely false. From 95 per cent to 97 per cent of the mail is delivered within one or two days across Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lamontagne:: That is true. If the hon. member would like to have more details about the Post Office, our estimates will be tabled in the transport committee on Monday night and at that time I will be able to give him all the figures. Also, what I just said about delivery of the mail, I can prove to him.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary along the same lines as the question asked by the hon. member for Halton. In every city in Canada there are tens of thousands of people living in newly built areas in the suburbs who do not get door-to-door delivery. Some of them have been waiting for three or four years. Will the minister urge his colleagues in
Oral Questions
cabinet to hire as letter carriers at least the 1,800 people-the number by which his department will be reduced?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the curtailment of 1,800 people in our department will not stop us from giving proper service to the people. As the hon. member for Halton asked, I am aware of the fact that many growing areas, especially suburban areas, are without door-to-door service. I am also aware that in Scarborough, Calgary and other areas there is restraint in door-to-door delivery. I can assure the hon. member, as I said before, that as soon as money is available it will be my top priority in these urban areas to give Canadians door-to-door delivery.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and it relates to the gun law which was passed by this House. According to this legislation, section 105, the attorney general of a province may apply to the governor in council in order to declare any hunting licence, certificate, permit or other relevant document to be a valid firearms acquisition certificate.
My question to the minister is this: Have any provincial attorneys general so applied, and has the minister done anything to encourage this course of action which would help to make the gun law more acceptable to those regions of the country where hunting is a necessity as well as a way for life?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I fully recognize the preoccupation of the hon. member and, indeed, the preoccupation of other hon. members who live in rural areas.
When this bill was introduced, there was a provision within it-which the hon. member has identified-that would permit the provinces to issue firearms' acquisition certificates through the issuance of licences for recognition of proper training. However, because it was strictly within provincial jurisdiction, these provisions were left unproclaimed until such time as the provinces chose to opt into the specific provision.
At the time of passage of the legislation and subsequent proclamation, Quebec was the only province ready to accept proclamation of the act and put in measures that would permit the sort of training envisaged by the act. Unfortunately, as a result of some technical defects we were unable to carry that through. As a result of some initiatives we have taken, including the creation of the Firearms Advisory Council, we will be able to encourage the provinces to now take on the training program and thereby facilitate implementation of the provisions of the act.

March 1, 1979
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


SALE OF GRAIN ELEVATORS-FUTURE OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that bids on government elevators closed on February 1, can the minister advise what bids, if any, have been accepted and what elevators will be sold? If no decision has been made, will he tell us when the decision will be made by the Grains Commission.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made at this time with regard to the sale of the elevators. We are reviewing the tenders. Meetings are still going on. As far as we are concerned, most of them are not satisfactory; that is the first impression or opinion we have formed. However, we are reviewing them further. At the present time we are providing bridge financing to carry them over.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is probably aware that late last fall letters were sent out to all employees of government elevators declaring their positions surplus, I believe, as of March 31. In view of the uncertainty that exists, what steps has the minister taken with regard to these employees? Is he going to extend the period of employment? What guarantee is he prepared to give these employees with regard to pension rights and other rights which they have under their terms of employment?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, they will be treated the same as any other employees of the government where operations are phased out. The employees are fully aware of what is going on at the present time. The Grains Commission has been instructed to inform them.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can he provide the House with a report on the progress being made between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia with regard to financial assistance for the rejuvenation and modernization of the Sydney Steel Plant?
I ask this apropos what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, that ministers are anxious to give all the information they can. I trust the minister will give us some encouraging information, thereby alleviating the fears of the steelworkers, their families and the public in general.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the matter is under intensive consideration. In fact, it is now before cabinet for consideration. I hope within a few days we will be able to make our position known to the province.


Robert Muir: In view of the fact the Prime Minister says the government is so anxious to give all the information possible, I will direct this question to the same minister or to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is also involved and who I know is vitally interested.
Has there been an approach by any officials of either department, or in fact officials of any department of government, to the Tree Island Steel Corporation as to the possibility of renegotiating the supposed contract that has been announced time and time again by cabinet ministers and representatives of the government, so that financial assistance will be forthcoming and they can get ahead; or will we lose the contract with Tisco in Vancouver?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, as it has been indicated and as I have indicated myself to the hon. member on a number of occasions, we did indeed set up a small task force. The Nova Scotia premier and I had agreed to put three of four people on this particular matter in December, so that all aspects might be reviewed, and there have been indeed meetings with Tisco officials to clarify some clauses of the contract. Since then our officials have submitted a report to us concerning the contract as such, and it is on the basis of the findings of this task force that we have been able to make proposals to the cabinet on which it will have to act.


CASH INCENTIVES PROGRAM TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATE SOURCES OF ENERGY
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology. It is pursuant to my motion in this House last Thursday.
In view of the apparent sustained energy problems in motive power that now exist in this country, will the minister and the government devise some form of cash incentives program which could offer national prizes to encourage our inventors and scientists to develop and attain more efficient uses of fossil fuels as motive power and also to develop alternate sources of energy for the same purpose?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to take that representation under consideration and to discuss the specifics of it with the hon. member.
March 1, 1979


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. The International Labour Organization meeting in Geneva has expressed very deep concern at the rapidly increasing, aging labour force which will put a severe strain on resources, social security and pension systems, and have recommended that older workers should be free to choose when to retire, depending on their health and capabilities. Has the Department of Labour made any study, or does it propose to do so, and does it have a labour representative at Geneva?


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the government established an interdepartmental committee two years ago to examine pensions both in the public and in the private sectors. Any announcement to be made with respect to this matter will be made in due course. The proposal concerning a flexible retirement age is one which is under consideration by the interdepartmental committee here in Ottawa.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday perhaps I might ask the government House leader some questions with respect to the business of the House.
First, may I ask him whether he will designate Wednesday of next week as an allotted day in accordance with the schedule he and I have discussed. I understand it is the intention to call Bill C-29, the National Housing Act amendments, today. With respect to government business, can the hon. gentleman tells us what he plans for tomorrow and the coming week? Further, is he in a position today to give the House a definitive statement as to the government's legislative priorities looking down the road toward the Easter adjournment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I am quite agreeable to designating next Wednesday as an allotted day. As the hon. member has stated, today we shall continue the debate on the housing bill and, if necessary, tomorrow as well, although I should like to raise privately with the representatives of the parties the possibility of dealing with the Judges Act amendments at the beginning of the day tomorrow. After the housing bill I would consider taking Excise Tax Act and Income Tax Act amendments arising from the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien).
If the hon. member would like me to project a number of other bills, I would certainly want to mention Bills C-6, C-22, C-27, C-32, C-41, C-44, C-13, S-2, S-4 and S-7.
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Happy Easter.


Walter David Baker: Just one question: The hon. member went through that list so fast that 1 could not follow all the numbers. Was the Arab boycott bill among the bills he mentioned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32. That is the bill to which the hon. member has referred and if we could reach some agreement to deal with it quickly I would call it at an early date.


Walter David Baker: I believe some amendments were being proposed by the government. Would they be available? As I understand it, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has one amendment to make. Would that be available at the same time? Also, would the hon. gentleman tell me whether there is any sanctity attached to the order of legislation or is this still a matter of discussion? The answer would be very helpful in terms of planning.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 have never detected any sanctity in my immediate presence as far as the opposition is concerned, whatever may be said of the legislation. No, there is no special ranking; these are the bills which are on the docket. As to Bill C-32 about which the hon. member inquired with respect to a possible amendment, whatever amendment may be in mind would be available to hon. members before the bill is called. If we could agree to pass this bill in all stages in one day, I would consider calling it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as some of these matters require consultation among the parties we are, of course, prepared to participate. May I say with respect to the proposal to call the second reading of the bill amending the Judges Act tomorrow that we would go along with it, and the likelihood is that that debate would be short provided that the bill we shall be dealing with is the reprinted version and not the original copy. The original bill contains proposals for salary increases which I am glad to see are not in the reprint. I see I get the approval of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde). Speaking of sanctity, I thought the burial of Bill C-22 had been sanctified. Is it not a mistake on the minister's part to put it back on the list?
There is one other question 1 would like to put to the minister. A few years ago in another capacity he promised a certain piece of legislation before the end of September of that year. He did not make it and his excuse was that he had forgotten that September had only 30 days. I wonder if he would speak to his colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), who promised us a statement on the review of the War Veterans' Allowances Act in February. Well, February has only 28 days and those days have gone. I seriously hope the government House leader will prompt the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make that statement very early in the month of March.
3714

March 1, 1979
Business of the House


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the speed with which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) replied to the question asked by the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House, I tried to take note, as best as I could, of the numerous bills on which the government intends to seek approval before Easter. I was wondering if the Deputy Prime Minister intends to table a motion to postpone the date of the Easter recess.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the government House leader of our utmost co-operation in the consideration of all these bills. I would also like to ask him if there have been any new developments concerning Bill C-12 now before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and if the government intends, when the bill is brought back to the House, to have it examined seriously at the report stage and seek passage on third reading before the Easter recess.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I have had discussions with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and I have assured him that when and if he is ready to bring forward legislation affecting veterans I will co-operate with him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear! So will the whole House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the hon. member who just a moment ago mentioned Bill C-12 and asked me whether it was the intention of the government to proceed with that bill before the Easter recess, may I say this: that bill is now in committee and when it comes from committee we shall want to deal with it at report stage and on third reading.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre questioned whether it was a mistake on my part when I referred to Bill C-22. It was not a mistake. That bill is still on my list. When it will be called is, of course, another matter, but it is still on the list at the present time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) was going to consult his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), with respect to bringing before the House a motion to expand the terms of reference of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so as to enable the subcommittee on penitentiaries to be reconstituted. In keeping with the unanimously expressed desire of all members of this House and in view of the increasing unrest again in our prisons, has the Deputy Prime Minister had that discussion,

and is he going to bring forward quickly that motion to expand those terms of reference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in a sense I believe I owe the hon. member an explanation, if not an apology. Although I have made a number of attempts to be in touch with the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), I have not yet succeeded in discussing the matter with him. I will attempt to do so as quickly as possible and I will advise the hon. member.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). It has to do with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and, I believe, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I do not think those hon. members have had sufficient time to advise the government of what happened this morning in the committee dealing with Bill C-12, the indexation bill. We heard from what is still known to many of us as the Canadian Forces Long Service Pensioners Association, but for some reason the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) has advised the association that it can no longer use that name and that it should operate under the title "90358 Canada Incorporated".
The important thing is that we received very concrete assurances from the hon. member for Ottawa West and, I believe, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier that the government is not opposed to this particular organization's reverting to its former, time-honoured name. As a result of the input of those very excellent members, who seem to be on top of the situation, I hope after consultation that the government will be prepared to accept this, given the assurances which came from the hon. member for Ottawa West. We will move a motion again tomorrow after the Deputy Prime Minister has had an opportunity to discuss this matter with his colleagues.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister give me the assurance that he will at least discuss this matter with the two hon. members to whom I have referred? I see that the Deputy Prime Minister is nodding his head in the affirmative, and I want to thank him for that.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) when he will be able to introduce the freedom of information legislation which has been in the process of drafting since May of 1976, a fairly long period of gestation even for this government. When I last heard of the bill it was in the process of four-fifths having been accepted and one-fifth still being discussed, a favourite formula. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister can give us some idea about this.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). It concerns the commodity tax review reference which has been requested for several months by this side of the House. I am somewhat surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister did not tell us that the reference would be forthcoming shortly, bearing in mind that in the budgetary papers it is specifically referred to as
March 1, 1979

being something to be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. In one of the 46 responses to the overview statement the government states that it has in fact been referred to the standing committee and that the government is waiting to hear from that committee.
I know the Deputy Prime Minister would not want to leave that misrepresentation in its present form and that he will hustle that reference over to the committee without any further delay. I wonder if he would confirm that.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has indicated that I denied the Canadian Armed Forces Long Service Pensioners Association the right to use that name. This matter has been raised and I believe it is in the hands of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I will certainly discuss it with my colleague. 1 have also received representations from the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre).
I look forward to meeting with these people. They have not asked for an appointment, to my knowledge, but I would be happy to take the matter up with them and with my colleague. They have met with the assistant deputy minister, personnel, Lieutenant-General Smith, who has been very sympathetic to their concerns. They make a very strong case in some areas. Their talents are not appreciated fully by the private sector when they retire from the armed forces. I should like to point out to the hon. member that 6 per cent of the skilled tradesmen entering the Canadian labour force come from the armed forces, and I hope that fact and others will be appreciated by the employers of this country.
I will certainly be very sympathetic, but there may be legal implications with regard to the question of the name. 1 will discuss this with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand).


MR. DICK-LOTO CANADA-PRESIDENT'S REPORT INTO LOTO SELECT PROJECT
Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in response to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick).
The essence of the hon. member's question of privilege relates to the fact that one paragraph was omitted in the English language copy of a letter dated June 26, 1978 from Mr. Guy Cousineau, president of Loto Canada, to myself concerning Loto Select. With respect to the omitted paragraph I have consulted Loto Canada on this matter and I have
Privilege-Mr. Dick
received a response from Mr. Cousineau, the president of the corporation, which reads as follows:
May I on behalf of Loto Canada apologize to you for the omission which occurred in Appendix B of the English copy of my report submitted to you and tabled in the House on February 21, 1979. The total report consists of a covering letter, an itemized account of the costs incurred in settling the Loto Select game, a copy of the settlement agreement with GIC and my letter to you dated June 26, 1978 on the Loto Select game. The material was tabled in both official languages.
In order to produce a report with typing uniformity, we employed an electromechanical process referred to as a Word Processing Machine. This process does not contain photocopying ability, therefore all the material had to be retyped into the Word Processing Machine and was re-signed with my signature stamp. Through a human error, the paragraph in question from my letter of June 26, 1978 was unfortunately omitted in the processing of the Appendix B of the English copy of my report. For this, and for any inconvenience caused to members of parliament, I again apologize.
The Appendix B in the French copy of my report did include the paragraph in question from my letter of June 26, 1978 which repudiates suggestions that there was any intent to mislead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: The response continues as follows:
For your additional information, Madam Minister, I would like to advise you that my officials sent to Members of the House of Commons, Members of the Senate and to the media, copies of the total report on February 21, 1979 of which the Appendix B of the French copy of this report did contain the information in question.
I would further advise you that my letter dated June 26, 1978 to you and which is specifically in question, was shortly after that date issued to the media across the country, and I attach a copy for your information.
It should be clear, through this wide distribution to the House and the general public of the information in question, that there was no intention by Loto Canada to mislead parliament in this most important matter.
Yours sincerely,
Guy Cousineau President
With the permission of the House I would like to table copies of this document in both official languages.
The hon. member stated yesterday that he had given the Chair notice and "notice to the minister involved". He also stated that he had left a copy of the letter in question with Your Honour's office on serving notice. What he did not say was that he did not provide my office with a copy of this letter. Nor, in fact, when he served notice to my office, did he advise me of the specific nature of his question. He referred simply to anomalies and omissions in the report.
When the hon. member and I discussed his pending question of privilege in the House on Tuesday evening, he did not advise me of the topic. In fact, he said his researchers were looking for one. He did not consult yesterday either my office or Loto Canada about what was clearly a simple oversight, a human error, as has been stated by the president. He did not see fit to grant me the courtesy yesterday of advising me of the specific nature of his question of privilege.
If, at any of these times, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had cared to bring this oversight to my attention, the matter could easily and simply have been resolved. Instead, the hon. member has seen fit to rise on a most specious argument and

March 1, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Dick
accuse me-either directly or by implication-of "deceiving the House", "fabricating a document", "breaching the privileges of the House", and "acting in contempt of parliament".


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Iona Campagnolo: These are serious charges, Mr. Speaker, most serious charges, and I would think it incumbent upon any member of this House who is considering levelling such charges at least to attempt to check his facts. Not only did the hon. member-and I use that title only out of respect for the institution of this parliament-not attempt to check his facts, but he went out of his way to avoid checking them fully.
Also, he did not give me specific notification of what his question of privilege was about. He carefully avoided reference yesterday to the official French language version of this document, which would have shown just how specious his case was. At no time has the hon. member shown interest in the facts of this issue. His only interest appears to be in headlines and innuendo.
The hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton stated yesterday that I sent him a letter on June 28, 1978 pertaining to Loto Select and that in this letter I asked whether he wanted a briefing and so on. Instead of so summarily dismissing that offer, he might have, at any time during the last eight months, accepted that offer and met with me or officials of the Crown corporation to discuss this important matter. Again he has not done so, and again it would indicate he prefers not to have his mind confused with the facts.
I owe the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) a little bit of an apology. I took him out of context today. The hon. member for Yukon said:
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to get into the merits of the facts.
1 want to put that firmly on the record. Therefore, I submit this letter for tabling and 1 trust it will resolve the issue because I cannot find any attempt to mislead the House in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the feelings of the minister but I cannot support the point of view that, whenever she is questioned in the House, the attack that is made is a specious attack and that questions that may be asked of her are specious. This is the place for questioning. It is questionable parliamentary language which she used in any event, but I am not relying on that. I am sure that the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) will consider the source from which it came.
It seems to me that there was a precedent set in this Houe not too long ago involving the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) when he was solicitor general. You will recall that at that time, although it was recognized by all parties in the House that the minister was not charged with intentionally deceiving the House by producing for the House and for the reliance of the House a record that was
improper, it was none the less found by you, sir, that even without the intention to deceive, the very placing of a document on the table of the House of Commons-or the delivery of a letter to a member of the House, not using the method of tabling-was such that there was a prima facie case of privilege found.
In this case the matter relates to the question of tabling, and I think it takes on a different aspect. So despite the fact that the minister displayed anger with respect to the matter, I think the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton has acted assiduously in this case. I think the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton would be remiss if he had not done what he did. I do not think it helps, in the conduct of public business in this House, for there to be that kind of attack on an hon. member. Moreover, I think it is extremely important that we recognize and that the minister recognizes that there has been, despite the smokescreen, a tremendous loss of public funds, and that is the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The comparison has been made in respect to the case raised by the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). If anybody, on the basis of the facts which have been disclosed now, wishes to consider and put forward an argument that there was similarity in the two cases, that is to say that there is some indication that the action in respect of the official of the minister was in any way a deliberate or contrived action-that was the allegation in the case involving the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, which was a departure from our previous practice in that it did not involve a question of privilege in respect of the minister directly but rather an action of the official of the minister in deliberately attempting to mislead the minister-then the facts are now disclosed and that point is open to argument.
But at the moment that is not the case that is before me. I think we should close the case before me, leaving it open if there is to be an argument; as some hon. members said yesterday, they hoped to have a chance to argue it. I leave that point open to argument, and if hon. members want, having received this information, to give the Chair notice of an intention to argue it, they can do so tomorrow or on the first possible date after they have had an opportunity to examine this case and to examine the precedents. I would not expect them, just having received the facts at this moment, to be prepared to deliver that argument. So that case rests open.
I do call to the attention of the House the fact that in the case of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham there was at least the allegation that the official involved had said at some time or other that the action on his part was in some way contrived to mislead the minister. I think that will be quite important.
In respect of the case of the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, he has put before the House a motion which relates to an action of the minister in tabling this document. On the basis of the reason put forward by the minister at this moment, I have to close the book on that procedural point. The

March 1, 1979

action of the minister has been explained, that the minister has not done anything which was in any way contrived to mislead the House. I leave the matter of the comparative argument open in respect of the action of the official of the minister, but so far as the action of the minister is concerned, we must be clear that the explanation by the president of Loto Canada today, which explanation has been read into the record and tabled here by the minister, is the complete explanation of the action of the minister, in my opinion. That matter in respect of any action of the minister should be closed at this time.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I had not intended to get into this matter and there will be others who, I am sure, will want to reply tomorrow in respect of this matter. So I do not intend to close it off. But I merely ask you this, sir: What is the purpose of a minister tabling a document in the House under his or her name? Certainly there has to be some responsibility for that. I do not care whether it is inadvertently or intentionally misleading; the point is that if there is to be cabinet responsibility, if there is to be accountability in the House, if any of us here are honourable members of the House, we have to be responsible for our actions in the House.
Apart from whether it is inadvertent or intentional, surely the special powers given to a minister of the Crown to table a document in the House indicates some responsibility on the part of that minister. Quite frankly, I am certainly willing to listen to the minister, as I did quite carefully this afternoon, but the one aspect that I found deplorably absent was the fact that the minister herself was obviously in no frame of mind to apologize to this House or to any member of the House. Surely, if there is going to be any responsibility, any accountability, the House, at the very least, requires that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I did not make it perfectly clear, let me point out that for me to find a question of privilege the minister would somehow have had to contribute to an action which has misled the House.


Mr. Clark:: She tabled the report.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has tabled two copies of a document, one of which was distributed. I do not know whether or not it went to the hon. member, but the minister filed in the House two copies of a document, one in English and one in French. Both are official languages of this parliament and both are official languages of this country. I cannot thereby determine that the absence of a paragraph from one text and not from the other text in any way could be construed as a deliberate act.
Therefore I have found-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the fact of the matter is whether that may be an action involving some carelessness respecting the
Privilege-Mr. Dick
minister's failure to compare the two texts. That may be, but it is not a procedural point. I must decide this matter on procedural grounds. If the paragraph had been missing from both texts, I might say the case would be different. Since the text has been distributed widely in both languages, one containing the full text and one missing a paragraph of one sentence, obviously it was accidental and not intentional, as the minister said today.
Furthermore, it is the minister's official who has apologized for that accidental omission. The minister has tabled that report and that apology in the House. I do not think the minister is required by precedents or practices to do anything more than that, and certainly on procedural grounds I cannot find any question of privilege based on the actions of the minister in those circumstances.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour finalized the matter, I attempted to seek the floor as I felt the minister went beyond what was necessary. The minister spent approximately one quarter of her time dealing with the point in issue and three quarters of her time making a direct attack against myself. The minister revealed that she would not want to refer to me as an honourable member but for her love of this institution.
I have gone over what I said yesterday, and I did not accuse the minister of one thing other than the fact that she tabled a document. 1 did not say that the minister had altered the document. I said that it was an altered document, and that the committee would find what official did what. With all due respect, I find it very interesting in her comments today that the minister admitted the signature on the document is not the signature of Mr. Cousineau, and is now a forged document.
The minister said that it was a stamped signature, whereas yesterday at 4.30 Mr. Beauchemin reported to the CBC radio announcer that he had signed Mr. Cousineau's name. Whether it is a stamped signature or whether it was signed by somebody else, the signature of Mr. Cousineau was not put to that document. The best it can be is a facsimile. In the document tabled, the apology of Mr. Cousineau, it was indicated that there was a stamp there, whereas Mr. Beauchemin said yesterday to the radio correspondent that he had signed it. This morning a newspaperman said that it was stamped. Perhaps stories change overnight. We cannot start filing things without somebody putting his or her name to it with pen. At least I did not think we could in the House.
The fact that they give the excuse that they were retyping to make uniformity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Wyatt Dick: There is no uniformity in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I want to be clear of the grounds on which the hon. member is addressing the House at the moment. I have accepted the explanation of the minister. That has been filed; that question of privilege is closed. I have left open if there are any points to be argued which raise privilege

March 1, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
or procedural matters resulting from the explanation tabled by the minister today. That can be done at a time after hon. members have had an opportunity to prepare argument. But the issue raised by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) yesterday respecting the actions of the minister is closed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Perhaps I should leave it open for tomorrow and Your Honour will have an opportunity of reading it. But 1 distinctly heard that it was a stamped signature, which is not the actual signature, and therefore it may be a facsimile.
I feel an apology should be forthcoming for the attack made. 1 do not think it was warranted because I never attacked the minister yesterday in my comments. If the minister feels she has no defence other than to attack people, that is her problem. It is interesting that the automatic typing machine can skip a paragraph.


MR. BEATTY-ALLEGATION BY MINISTER OF STATE (FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT) OF DELIBERATE MISLEADING
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate question of privilege. Today in her question of privilege the minister made great point of the fact that someone on this side claimed she had misled deliberately the House or Canadian people. I can understand, if such a claim had been made, that the minister would be quite properly upset. That is why I am particularly disturbed by the fact that during oral question period today the minister made exactly that charge against me.
In response to a question which I put to the minister during oral question period today, she said that I appeared continually to refer to the amount of $13.15 million expended on Loto Select as a loss, that I attempted to attribute it to the General Instrument contract alone, and then she said "which he knows well is false".
At this point I will not digress into the question of the veracity of the minister's statement where she claimed that I indicated all of the $13 million she wasted had been wasted on the General Instrument contract. I well know that figure is $8 million and that she wasted $5 million elsewhere. Of course, I at no time indicated that the whole of the $13 million wasted was wasted on the one contract.
The procedural point here, which I think is very important, is that the minister claimed I deliberately gave information which I knew to be false. On the basis of all the precedents I have seen, an imputation made by one member against another that a member deliberately would mislead the House constitutes a breach of privilege. I think the onus is upon the minister to withdraw that statement and enter an apology for it.
If it would be useful, I could make available various precedents in which it is made quite clear that it is totally improper for one member to accuse another of deliberately misleading the House or deliberately making statements which he knows to be false. I would be prepared to do that if Mr. Speaker felt

it was useful, but I am sure the precedents are so well known to all members of the House, including the minister, that they do not need to be cited by me now. When the minister said "which he well knows is false", no other construction can be put on it than that she is accusing me of having misled the House deliberately. Clearly that is a breach of my privileges as a member of the House.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the last question of privilege first, that of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty). When he asked the question in the House today, he addressed the cancellation clause of the General Instrument contract. It was to that that he addressed his question and not to any other contract. There were a number of other contracts involved. In fact, the hon. member was saying that the cancellation clause should have been included in the General Instrument contract. I regarded this as an address to the General Instrument contract alone and not to the other contracts. So that is why I replied as I did.
Also I reminded the hon. gentleman that a clause regarding termination for convenience of the Crown was a proper title, and I was addressing that again to the General Instrument contract. If the hon. gentleman in fact was addressing contracts other than General Instrument, I did not hear correctly and I would apologize to him. If he was addressing more than one contract, I was in error. If he was addressing one contract, my remarks stand.


MR. DICK-LOTO CANADA-PRESIDENT'S REPORT INTO LOTO SELECT PROJECT
Iona Campagnolo: If I may, I should also like to answer the matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). It is a normal business procedure for documents to be signature stamped, particularly when they are produced in quantity. It is a normal practice, and it was carried out with respect to copies of the Loto Select report which were distributed on February 21. The original copies of this report in English and French were signed personally by Mr. Guy Cousineau. These are the ones I tabled.
I have a note from Mr. Cousineau which I brought along just in case the hon. member should be disposed to cry "forgery", which unfortunately he did. It reads as follows:
My personal signature stamp was incorporated into the process of producing the reports. The authority to use my personal signature stamp was delegated by me to the person responsible for producing copies for release.
This note is signed personally by Mr. Cousineau. I guess I will have to table this also. I regret the extended time taken in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we had better establish a clear pattern of procedure here. There seems to be the impression that whenever someone raises a question of privilege and puts the case forward and it has been replied to an
March 1, 1979

opportunity is given for the hon. member to reply. This has happened twice already. The hon. member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton sought the floor and I recognized him for a moment. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) is now seeking the floor to rediscuss the matter. 1 do not think I can grant a second opportunity to the hon. member in that way unless I am prepared to grant two opportunities to hon. members addressing the other side of the question. I must consider that both members have now made their interventions in respect of this last question. I see there are others who want to enter the discussion.
I again say to the House that matters which relate to a tabling by a minister ought to be taken under consideration by members and, if they see there is something which gives rise to some procedural argument, they should examine it, prepare the argument and present it at a time in respect of which they have given notice to the Chair. If hon. members want to settle the matter now, I am perfectly prepared to listen.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the minister said in respect of the remark made against the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty). No member when he is accused of uttering a falsehood has to accept a qualified apology or withdrawal. The minister has qualified this. There are certain rules of this House that apply even to Iona Campagnolo.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Due to the sensitivity about referring to members as "hon. members", I think we ought to reserve that nicety.


Walter David Baker: I refer to the reply by the hon. minister. I have read the question which dealt with losing $13 million of public funds of which she is the trustee. No matter what the minister understood, whether she understood the question correctly or misunderstood the question, or even heard it all, she has no business, and neither has anyone else in this House, calling any member a liar, or accusing any member of making statements he well knows to be false.


An hon. Member:: That is quite different.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Hon. members over there say there is quite a difference. I suggest that if the shoe was on the other foot the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Har-quail) would not see the difference. I think it is just about time this kind of exchange was stopped. Members should not call other hon. members liars, and that is the position here. I think the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo is entitled to an unqualified apology from this minister, as he would from anyone else in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we can probably solve this procedural point very quickly. It is not uncommon in this House when withdrawals are made that they contain riders. I want to address myself to this. I suggest it depends on the nature of the
Committee Report
subject. I grant that sometimes members have said they have used an unparliamentary term and feel they should change it to something else. That is a sort of qualified withdrawal.
However, what the minister has said, it seems to me, in respect of the question of privilege of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo is that she may have misunderstood him, and if he has said that this was only in relation to a certain and particular-


An hon. Member:: It does not matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I wonder if I might be allowed to conclude this point. I think we can conclude this matter quite properly. The minister has indicated that she may have misunderstood the hon. member, and that if the hon. member was talking about a matter in a certain context then her accusation was not a proper one.
I think we can solve this quite simply if the minister will now, knowing that the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo has clarified his statement, and in any case out of an abundance of caution for the niceties of this House, make a withdrawal in those terms. The use of the word "false" in almost any context is very dangerous, and its use is almost always getting us into trouble. It would help me and help the House greatly if the minister would simply make an unqualified withdrawal.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to do so; and having my name mentioned in this House, I recognize more than ever the niceties of this chamber.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to submit the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The committee has considered Bill C-28, an Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act, and has agreed to report it without amendment.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

March 1, 1979
Committee Report


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 229, 418,954 and 1,182.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Did Eldorado Nuclear Limited, or any other agency on its behalf, undertake measures in the past year to inform or educate the residents in the vicinity of any proposed site in the Province of Saskatchewan where the corporation intends to construct a uranium refinery?
Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for
Science and Technology): Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports that in the past year it has announced through press releases and statements from its Saskatoon office that the company is proceeding with environmental assessment studies for the purposes of investigating the feasibility of establishing a uranium refinery at a site near Warman, Saskatchewan.


Mr. Nowlan: 1.	Was the Post Office in Enfield, Nova Scotia moved out of the building it occupied from 1961 until December 31, 1977 and, if so, for what reason?
2.	What was the cost to (a) transfer the postal equipment and furnishings (b) renovate the new location?
3.	What portion of the cost was borne by the (a) Post Office Department (b) Department of Public Works?
4.	Under the new lease, what (a) is the monthly rental (b) are the services and amenities provided by the landlord (c) are the terms of renewal?
5.	Does the Post Office Department intend to provide a permanent facility for the Post Office in Enfield?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Post Office and Public Works as follows: 1. The post office in Enfield, Nova Scotia was destroyed by fire on May 15, 1976.
2.	(a) $300 (b) $31,408.
3.	(a) and (b) 100 per cent of the costs was borne by Public Works Canada.
4.	(a) $937.50 (b) The lease provided that the landlord pays for all repairs, taxes, water and sewer charges, hot and cold water, air-conditioning and heating, electricity, replacement of burnt-out lamps, ballasts and fuses, Venetian blinds and drapes, washroom facilities, ice and snow removal and garbage removal, (c) The lease does not include a renewal option.
5.	Yes.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What was the total cost of the booklet The Tax Systems of Canada and the United States published by the Department of Finance?
2.	How many copies were (a) printed (b) distributed?


Alan Gray Martin: 1. $26,770.
2. (a) 40,000; (b) 36,705.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What was the question posed in the 1942 plebiscite?


Yvon Pinard: 1 am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer:
"Vote by marking a cross, thus X, after the word 'Yes' or after the word 'No'.
Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any YES past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?" NO
Note: The foregoing is an extract from No. 227, Vol. LXXV, (Extra) of The Canada Gazette dated Monday, March 9, 1942.


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 Wednesday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-29, to amend the National Housing Act and Central Mortgage and Housing Act and to make other related amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, just prior to calling it six o'clock last evening I was speaking about the CHIP program which provides grants for insulation.


March 1, 1979
1 am delighted to see the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) here this afternoon and I welcome him.
Let me point out again that this is a program in respect of which we should be spending more money. I hope the department is doing a good job publicizing the advantages of this program, as I have been trying to do.
I am also hoping that the minister will relent and treat the rest of Canada in the same way he is treating Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island by allowing the full $500 grant. The minister can wipe the tears from his eyes. There are many people in other parts of Canada who are just as much in need of the $500 grant. 1 might also point out that the $500 grant in other parts of Canada is subject to income tax. It has to be added to taxable income and I certainly do not think that is fair. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to changing this provision. It is very difficult to get an application processed. I am still receiving a great many phone calls and applications, all of which have to be channelled through Montreal. As I have stated before, I think this whole thing would be handled more expeditiously if the minister would allocate this insulation program responsibility to the CMHC offices throughout the country.
I spoke this afternoon to people at two of these offices in my riding, one at North Bay and one at Barrie. I was told their only input was, in response to requests on a hit and miss basis, to make inspections in respect of allowed grants.
Let me emphasize the need for public housing in rural areas. A large segment of our population is still living in rural areas and is still in need of adequate housing. My own village of Burks Falls, where I served as reeve for 26 years, was one of the first municipalities in the area to take the initiative in providing housing for senior citizens, as well as low rental housing. Over ten years ago, and this probably is not very much, four senior citizens' units were built along with four low rental housing units. Just prior to my election to the House of Commons in 1972, our municipal council had obtained approval to build an additional senior citizens' apartment complex of 23 units and five low rental housing units. I am delighted to say that these units are completed and fully occupied.
I mention these examples to drive home two basic and important points to the government. The first is the case to be made for the forgotten or non-urban part of Canada-in other words, the rural areas. The second point is that these exemplary initiatives on the part of this small village serve to point out the need for a social element in the housing policy. Our senior citizens have devoted many of their best years, their young and dynamic years, to building this country. Many have made significant contributions in the defence and security of this country through service in the armed forces.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to the Canadian Legion in my village of Burks Falls, which is sponsoring another senior citizens' complex of 25 units, and I hope that it will receive approval. We of later generations owe a debt of deep gratitude to them and also comfortable living
Housing
during retirement. It is for this reason that I have on a number of occasions spoken on improved conditions for our senior citizens. Today I would urge the government not to neglect the many in this group who do not have the means to acquire satisfactory and adequate shelter, and to render every assistance possible.
There is another element of society which is having difficulty, and I believe that it is a problem which is occurring more in the smaller towns and villages rather than in the cities. I refer, of course, to the physically handicapped who find it difficult to get houses in which they are able to get around satisfactorily. I have with me a news item from the Gravenhurst News dated February 22. I would like to point out to the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) that, while I realize that the delivery of weekly newspapers is not very good across Canada and particularly not in Ontario, this particular newspaper left Gravenhurst on the 22nd and lo and behold arrived in my office yesterday. I know the Postmaster General will be delighted to hear that this weekly paper arrived within a week after posting, whereas many of them are delivered considerably later than that.
The news article takes the form of a letter to the editor and is headed "Physically handicapped face desperate housing problem". It reads:
I am writing to you to inform the residents of Muskoka of a problem that exists in this area.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, there are many other areas where there is this problem of suitable housing for the physically handicapped.
There has been provisions made for the senior citizens, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped that cannot take care of themselves and for people on low incomes.
The government and municipalities have done a good job for these people, although it took some persuasion.
I now feel that the physically handicapped who are married with a family need single level housing or apartments that have elevators so that the ones in wheelchairs or who are unable to climb excessive amounts of stairs have proper housing.
Most people that are physically handicapped are on pensions. These pensions are usually very small, similar in fact to the senior citizens. Some of us are, in fact, on welfare where a family of four are given $429 a month to live on.
Some of us are injured on the job trying to do what our employers want, like myself lifting equipment that's too heavy and injured my back. Others through auto accidents; the ways to get injured are too many to mention, but it shows it could happen to anyone.
The article goes on to outline the needs of these people:
Luckily for me there was an area that I could put a bed in.
He is referring to his own house, and he goes on to describe how he was able to make do. The article continues:
This along with the rent, utilities and other bills, a place that is one level and geared to income would be a blessing. I don't know how many more are in the same situation as I am but we that are in this situation need help. If people would write to their member of parliament, mayor, town council or anyone that might be able to help, I know I would appreciate it and I think many more would also.
Thank you for reading this and be thankful for your health.
The article was written by William Manary of Gravenhurst. He will certainly find that his letter has received some publici-
3722

March 1, 1979
Housing
ty. I personally have not received a letter from him, but in all probability I will be writing him in answer to his request.
Another important area of housing where the government ought to provide encouragement is in the building of energy saving devices into new homes in Canada. The federal government should provide the lead and assistance in this area. I will relate one disturbing example of the bureaucratic set-up which some manufacturers of energy saving devices are up against. One could import an energy-saving device package from the United States, an item which is exempt from federal sales tax. But if parts of an energy saving device are bought individually in Canada, they are subject to federal sales tax. This is grossly unfair, not only to the consumer but to the small manufacturers in Canada. The government could easily require assurances from suppliers and users that a part sold will be used as a part of an energy-saving device and thus be exempt from federal sales tax.
Solar heating along with heating pumps should also be encouraged in the form of tax exemptions or deductions, or possibly in the case of new homes grants could be paid out. The Progressive Conservative party has already gone on record that they will bring to parliament, after the next election when they become the government, legislation which will allow tax credits for owner occupied homes that instal solar heat up to a maximum of $2,100.
CMHC is in the process of becoming a land-owning baron with control over large and luxurious pieces of property. Given the minister's lust for power in any form, the desire to acquire as much inventory for CMHC as possible comes as no surprise. The establishment of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs has not in any substantial way alleviated many of the hardships resulting from inadequate or poor shelter. When
280,000	families in Canada pay more than 50 per cent of their family income for housing, 500,000 families pay more than 35 per cent, and another 820,000 families pay more than 25 per cent, and when two-thirds of those Canadians in need of housing cannot afford to buy or rent a home without a government subsidy, one begins to question the policies of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, and specifically, of CMHC. The state of housing in this country is a serious problem and affects each one of us in a very human and financial manner.
The unhealthy state of the economy has had its effect on the housing sector as well. The desperate attempts by the federal government to salvage the declining Canadian dollar has resulted in higher interest rates to attract foreign funds. In the process, however, mortgage rates have also skyrocketed. The graduated payment mortgage program involving a payment reduction is merely a juggling of figures and not a solution to the root of inflation and mismanagement in housing. This scheme may serve as a rude awakening to many at a later time, if they become accustomed to low monthly payments and then are later confronted with high monthly payments.
Another important facet in housing is our native and rural housing. In the field of native housing the federal government has a long way to go to meet its obligations to native people in

Canada. I recall that some years ago the government made the great promise that 50,000 units would be allocated for native housing. I have had the privilege of serving on our housing committee for as long as most members, almost six years, and over those years the government has conducted one survey after another to determine housing needs on Indian reserves. The native people are still awaiting the implementation of the results of these surveys. The money designated for upgrading housing for native people has probably been spent by the federal government on building palaces across the river in Hull to house 20,000 civil servants.
The federal government should encourage funding and subsidy housing programs at the band level which will create job opportunities on the reserves. The government has failed to award the majority of contracts to those willing to generate employment among the residents of reserves.
To meet the goal of adequate housing for our native people an annual construction rate of 4,500 new units and approximately 6,000 major renovations per year are required. Currently, the annual average construction rate is merely 2,400 units and only a small number-1,800 units per year-are being renovated. This obviously falls far short of the necessity to meet the goal of providing adequate housing for our native people.
There has also been a housing program for native and non-status Indian and rural people. In my area there is one such subdivision. The individual who was going to develop the property purchased it and made his first overtures to the government in 1961. He was told there was no need for it. Finally, it got under way about 18 months ago after consultation with the CMHC office in North Bay. Five homes have been completed and another three are almost complete, but so far the builder has not received any money from CMHC.
I concede it is not all the fault of CMHC because other levels of government have participated in the project. The Ontario government held up final approval through the Department of the Environment. Those of us who are aware of the problems of builders and developers know that in a great many cases the municipal governments are the culprits. It would be a good thing if a limit could be put on the length of time a government department may hold up a subdivision, and if they did not provide a proper answer within a reasonable period of time, then automatic approval would be given.
The subdivision I refer to entailed an outlay of $300,000 with the homes being in the $35,000 to $36,000 bracket. The local builder and developer has had to pay all the bills and be responsible for the financing for the past 18 months. Naturally, these costs will be levied against the ultimate homeowner and in all probability will cut down on the profit. I am delighted to be able to inform the House that some units were also built in Parry Sound in the same period.
In my riding the AHOP program is too expensive and very few, if any, houses were built, although the RRAP programs have been successful. In Muskoka 120 different RRAP pro-
March 1, 1979

grams were approved and in Parry Sound 25 RRAP programs were approved. I commend the government for this.
It is interesting to note that in the town of Gravenhurst there was an aggressive program to make certain that they took advantage of every government program and every housing project that was available. They are to be commended for this. The former clerk-treasurer, Mr. Ted Soucie, was an expert in this field. Perhaps he was too good because Gravenhurst lost him to the city of Orillia where he is now co-ordinator of housing. I am sure Orillia will do very well under his direction.
I understand that the municipality of Bracebridge is getting housing programs under way. I hope that one of the banner towns in my riding, Huntsville, will look into this and take advantage of any opportunities.
We are all well aware of the confusion brought about by the federal government's move to introduce metric conversion, or probably I should say metric confusion. Beginning May 1, it will be mandatory for all applications under the National Housing Act to use the metric system so as to conform to the directive issued by CMHC.
My colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), expressed concern on behalf of the housing and lumber industry very eloquently in the adjournment debate last Monday, February 19. The concern is very legitimate and obvious. About 80 per cent of our lumber trade is with the United States and they have not yet converted to metric. They are being allowed the option whether to convert to metric or not, while we in Canada have been told it is mandatory. I could mention the millions and millions of dollars this metric program will cost Canadian businessmen in every walk of life.
I want to refer briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the remarks by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in Toronto about a week ago. The minister made desperate attempts to spell out a housing policy on behalf of his Liberal colleagues. Needless to say, he fell flat on his face. When cornered by the press to further explain the specifics of his statements, the minister took shelter by stating that he was merely "thinking out aloud" some of the concepts which as yet have not been discussed by the federal government. This clearcut confession on the part of the minister, Mr. Speaker, comes closest to affirming the fears of many Canadians that this government lacks any well thought out policy on housing.
In the same speech, in trying to make a case for a shelter allowance system, the minister stated that this will be done "in the near future, as soon as our economy permits". Mr. Speaker, I ask how can the minister in all honesty proceed to announce the implementation of certain policies while at the same time introduce a clause such as "as soon as our economy permits"? I hope the minister does not tell his landlord that he will pay the rent as soon as his personal finances permit, or go to a store and purchase items with a promise to pay when the minister gets rich-or perhaps, I should say richer.
Canadians have responded overwhelmingly to the housing policies outlined by the Progressive Conservative party. Our
Housing
housing policy will benefit both home owners and tenants and, as well, provide much needed economic stimulus.
Nothing could be more beneficial to the housing industry than the proposal by my party to allow deductibility of up to a maximum of $5,000 on mortgage interest payments. Under this far-reaching proposal local property taxes will also be made deductible up to a maximum of $1,000 a year.
I take great delight in our mortgage and tax deductibility plan, Mr. Speaker. I was a member of a municipal council for a great many years. I served as a vice-president of the Ontario mayors and reeves-which is now the Association of Municipalities of Ontario-association for some years which continuously brought this resolution before the convention which comprised 900 municipalities in Ontario. The resolution was passed every time and I certainly had something to do with bringing it forward in the first place. It referred to municipal tax deductions only but I welcome the fact that this party, because of the high rate of mortgage interest at the present time, has seen fit to include mortgage interest also.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, 1 took great interest in the comments of my good friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). Perhaps I might comment on one portion of his speech with regard to the apparent lack of progress on the issue of native housing. I wonder whether the hon. member is aware that for the first time in the history of Canada, through Bill C-29, loans may be insured when made to Indians living on reserves, be they individuals, groups or bands, to help them buy, improve or build housing projects on those reserves.
Up until the present time, and until this bill is passed, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) is charged with the responsibility of guaranteeing loans made to bands, individuals or groups and making payment should default occur. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has had a problem in this area, because the finances of the department are not set up in such a way as to enable the department to enter into large scale housing projects.
Under Bill C-29-and I hope the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka agrees with this concept-this responsibility will be taken out of the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and placed where it rightly belongs, under the guarantee program of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This means that when loans are made for use on reserves, whether to individuals, groups or band councils, CMHC will be the guarantor. Therefore, CMHC will be able to have more construction go ahead on reserves. Some of the constraints previously placed on the program due to the fact that housing on Indian reserves had to be guaranteed by the Minister of Indian Affairs will be

March 1, 1979
Housing
removed. I hope the hon. member will agree that that is a step in the right direction. I see he is nodding his head.
I do not want to give a political speech on the question of mortgage deductibility. However, I ask the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) in all seriousness whether they would stand up in this House and say on the question of native housing on reserves whether the interest deductibility brought forth by the Conservative party will apply to Indian housing. I think both hon. members would have to agree that the deductibility of mortgage interest would not affect Indian housing one iota. Bill C-29, whereby CMHC will guarantee loans on reserves, is a far better method of attacking that problem.


Mr. Whiteway:: It is not the only way.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Hon. members are no doubt aware that through the department of Indian affairs we already have a $12,000 grant system for each home that qualifies to be built on reserves where funds are available. What I am speaking about is in addition to what CMHC guarantees. We all agree that housing on reserves is inadequate. Therefore, the government has addressed that problem. There will now be a better weapon to attack it by making much larger funds available to Indian housing.
I would like briefly to review what has occurred to bring us up to the point where Bill C-29 is now in front of the House. In 1978 the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) announced a series of changes in federal government housing policy which were the result of a number of consultations that had taken place between the provinces and the federal government.
The first objective of government housing policy at that time was to maintain a high level of housing production. Hon. members will recall in the 1974-75 period the former minister of urban affairs set up a four-year program. The target was to construct 250,000 houses per year over a four-year period. That program was announced in order that contractors could be made aware of the government's policy. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson), who is now in the chamber, was minister of urban affairs at that time. The government of Canada said it would build one million homes over a four year period. That objective has been met. The present Minister of State for Urban Affairs says that he wants to maintain that high level of housing production started by the former minister.
It was also targeted in May, 1978 to increase the number of non-profit housing units to be constructed per year from
19,000	to 30,000. The philosophy was that the government thrust in housing policy should be in those areas where people have the greatest needs and the least income. That was the second point brought forward in May, 1978.
The third point has not been discussed during the debate on Bill C-29. It is something we all agree is desirable. I refer to the disentanglement of the complex set of arrangements under federal and provincial housing regulations which had been operating over a number of years.

The fourth point brought forward by the Liberal government-and my friends across the aisle will be very surprised to hear this-was to utilize the capital that exists in the private sector. I think even the Conservative party could live with that objective. The capital sitting in our banks and trust companies would be utilized to the fullest possible extent rather than using government funds.
What did we propose to meet those four objectives? First, we brought in new non-profit housing programs. We said at that time that we would operate a program through non-profit corporations, whether they be private corporations such as the Lions Club, Kiwanis and organizations like that or whether we deal through municipal or provincial governments. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka brought up a good point. Very seldom in this House are organizations such as the Lions Club, Kiwanis or Rotary Club recognized for the great contribution they make.


Stan Darling: And the Legion.


Hugh Alan Anderson: And the Legion. They sponsor senior citizens housing projects, organize them and accept the lead thrust in setting up those programs. I thank the hon. member for bringing this to our attention. These organizations have sponsored a great number of projects for senior citizens across this country.
What did we say we would do? At the present time CMHC through government funds provides 50-year mortgages for senior citizen housing complexes at a rate slightly below the prime interest rate. That has been going on for the past number of years. They get 90 per cent financing. In other words, the organizations had to provide up to 10 per cent of the cost of the project. The other 90 per cent was financed by the federal government under CMHC with 50-year mortgages repayable at a rate of interest in the neighbourhood of 9 per cent.
We said that 19,000 units per year were not enough, that would bring in a better bill and utilize funds from the private sector by cutting off CMHC funds to those organizations. The banks and trust companies told us they had adequate funds on deposit to handle the situation. So under the new arrangement the banks and trust companies would provide not 90 per cent but 100 per cent of the financing.
Most hon. members are aware that interest rates are high these days. If we had just left it at that, with the banks and trust companies lending the money at these high interest rates, it would have been very difficult to provide housing for senior citizens or others whose incomes are restricted. What the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) undertook to do was to subsidize through the Bank of Canada so as to bring down the current rate of interest, whatever it was, to as low as 2 per cent. In other words, the Kiwanis, the Legion branches or any of those groups which do this great work would benefit from a subsidy which would reduce the current interest rate to 2 per cent.
March 1, 1979

We believe an initiative of this sort would make it easier for the organizations concerned. First, they will not have to worry about paying interest rates of 10 per cent or so and, second, they would be able to reduce the length of the mortgage. Because if they are not paying 9 per cent or 10 per cent, more funds can be devoted to repayment of principle. This, we believe, will stimulate the construction of senior citizens' housing.
The solution which hon. members opposite have proposed is to allow deductibility of mortgage interest and municipal taxes paid by senior citizens. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the plans which have been put forward by the government in Bill C-29 are not a better source of funding, a better way of stimulating the construction of senior citizens' housing. 1 suspect even hon. members opposite will agree that our plan is better because it goes much further to assist people living on low or fixed incomes than the proposal advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
There is a second aspect to Bill C-29 and it concerns community service programs. Many of us are aware that an assistance program for municipalities has been in place in the form of the Canada Works program. We have been putting in sidewalks, rural electrification, scout halls, a variety of items which are of assistance to municipalities, providing 100 per cent funding for labour on selected projects. We realize this does not meet the need completely because we are not dealing with capital cost for such things as the erection of libraries, museums, parks, swimming pools and skating rinks, for example, which are so important a part of the facilities communities try to provide for their residents.
We have on a number of occasions provided programs to assist municipalities, realizing that in many cases provinces were not able to address this need. In May, 1978, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs announced a global approach in assistance for community services. For some years the federal government had been providing assistance to provinces and municipalities with respect to neighbourhood improvements, sewage treatment plants, the installation of water lines, medium density housing and so on. What the minister is proposing in Bill C-29 is an expansion and consolidation of this assistance under a program called the community services program. The object is to provide increased flexibility and wider latitude to the provinces and their municipalities in using federal funds, to enable federal assistance better to respond to local needs and conditions and to reduce duplication in administration by disentangling the federal government from project-by-project scrutiny.
What is even more important is that it seeks to enhance the degree to which federal assistance meets the priorities of the provinces and the municipalities and ensure that it is available equally to all provinces. Funding under the community services program will be used not only for neighbourhood improvements and water and sewage treatment for medium density housing, but for building social, cultural and recreational facilities, such as day care centres, community centres, libraries, neighbourhood ice rinks and parks.
Housing
Most members here have been asking for some method of funding recreational activities, day care centres, community centres, libraries, parks and so on. Well, there was a program a number of years ago called the winter works program which was capital intensive. That program was dropped, but I believe that with the community services program, the Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works program we shall be able to address the needs of communities to a much greater extent than in the past.
Most hon. members recognize that communities do experience a real and pressing need for services to be provided to their people. However, in larger cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver this need may not be so pressing as in smaller communities because, after all, they do have a large tax base. I see I have the Minister of National Defence on my side; 1 have probably got him offside now! But there are many communities with populations of 500, or not much more than
1,000,	which do not really have a tax base large enough to enable their residents to enjoy some of the amenities which Canadians in the larger centres sometimes take for granted.
It has always been my contention that if the government wants to see more people living in the smaller centres, it will have to make a conscious effort to assist these small communities so that they can retain their populations. Unless some of the amenities of life are provided, people will likely move to the larger centres. I might point out that it was only some 18 months ago that television service was brought to the northern part of my riding, and I would remind the House that I do not represent a constituency in the Yukon or in the Northwest Territories cities; I represent upper Vanvouver Island. It is only within the last 18 months that the lumber and mining communities of northern Vancouver Island got a CBC repeater. Small though they may be, these communities have a very important role to play in our society. We should be attempting to attract people to these communities to work in the mining industry.
On northern Vancouver Island there is a mine called the Utah mine, which is the largest open pit copper mine in Canada. However, it was only 18 months ago that we got a repeater in there. It is hard to tell people to come and live on northern Vancouver Island when only a few months ago there was no road connecting northern Vancouver Island with southern Vancouver Island. There was no television to watch. Many of the communities did not have community halls for recreation. I think this part of Bill C-29 will assist such small, remote communities perhaps to an even greater extent than it will assist larger centres, because I think we will be able to provide services to those small and remote communities. I hope it is the intention of the federal and provincial governments to maintain these areas.
I suspect that in coming parliaments, regardless of what the government of the day might be, there will have to be direct assistance to people living in small and isolated communities. Otherwise we will have a group of city states where the

March 1, 1979
Housing
population will be centred and where crime will be on the increase because of jamming more and more people together. I hope future parliaments in conjunction with the provinces will look very closely not only at maintaining small rural centres but also enlarging their roles and enhancing their facilities so that people will continue to reside in them and not be drawn like a magnet to the city states of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. I suspect that if we were to look at Alberta we would find the same thing happening in Edmonton and Calgary, and if we were to look at Saskatchewan we might find the same thing happening in the cities of Saskatoon and Regina.
I have heard federal and provincial governments paying lip service to the idea that we do not want all the people in Canada living in small city states or large city states. We have said that. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and I have both debated this. Both of us have brought this to the attention of the House on numerous occasions, because there is a concern in rural Canada about people being drained off.
Let me give an example. We talk about a decentralization program for the federal government under which we move civil servants out of Ottawa. Where do we move them to?


Stan Darling: 


Hugh Alan Anderson: We move them to cities like Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina-


Stan Darling: 


Hugh Alan Anderson: -or Vancouver. We who make decisions, presumably for the benefit of the country, in our own wisdom are furthering a centralization program, not in Ottawa but in the city states I have named. There is absolutely no need to transfer civil servants out of Ottawa to Vancouver. Vancouver already has a housing problem. There is a shortage of land.
The provinces also have a role to play. All industry seems to be located in areas such as Hamilton, Toronto and Vancouver. When it comes to setting up new facilities, whether they be brand new plants or expansions, some consideration must be given to the idea that every plant and every branch plant cannot be built in already crowded cities. I think the provinces have a very large role to play in this.
In my province of British Columbia the concentration of population and industry is within a few miles of the lower mainland and the greater Vancouver and greater Victoria areas. There has to be a change. If jobs are not created in small communities such as Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Courtenay, Campbell River or Port Hardy, which are small communities on Vancouver Island, the sons and daughters of the people living in those areas will be forced to leave. They will be forced to seek work in such places as Victoria and Vancouver. That will cause more problems for transit systems. It will cause policing problems, problems for fire departments and urban planning difficulties. There is a role for the federal government in this, and there is also a role for provincial governments.
In Bill C-29 an attempt is being made by the federal government to provide community service programs which, I

re-emphasize, will benefit small communities with small tax bases more than it will benefit larger communities. For that reason I am pleased to support this legislation.
There are other aspects of the legislation which are important but upon which I have not touched. I will leave those aspects to other hon. members.
I would like to say something regarding the question of mortgage interest deductibility and municipal tax deductibility of up to $1,000 which is being proposed by the Conservative party. I suppose many Canadians look at politicians with some jaundice. I suppose there are good reasons why Canadians look at us somewhat askance. In 1978 we had a federal deficit of which most of us on both sides of the House were not very proud.
In 1978 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Government of Canada announced that government spending would be reduced by $2 billion in 1979. I have sat in this House for the last four and a half years and listened to hon. members opposite tell us that we are financially irresponsible and spending too much money.


An hon. Member:: Right.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Hugh Alan Anderson: There were two "rights" there but no "wrongs." When an election looms on the horizon those same proponents of financial responsibility jump up on their hind legs and say that they would have twice the deficit we have now. The point is that the boy who would be king is attempting to win an election by bribing the electorate of Canada. He would allow the deficit to be increased, and he would pass it on to our children and grandchildren. Hon. members opposite propose that. Are they telling us that a mortgage interest deduction and a municipal tax deduction will not create a higher deficit? The Leader of the Opposition told the people of Canada that what his party is proposing is a constructive deficit.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Don't talk about ours. Tell us about yours, all $12 billion.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I thought hon. members opposite were at least-


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Let's hear about your deficit.


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


Hugh Alan Anderson: I realize the hon. members opposite do not like being criticized, but all I am asking is that the people of Canada ask themselves whether they want a higher deficit at this point. That is the paramount question. Even the Leader of the Opposition admits that this program would cost in excess of $2 billion initially. Total cost after a four-year period when the entire program would be in effect can only be estimated. It has been estimated by one source that it would cost the people of Canada up to $4 billion.
March 1, 1979

It is said often in Canada that there is very little difference between the Liberal and Conservative parties.


An hon. Member:: Vive la difference.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I suppose that is one example of the difference in philosophy that exists between the two parties. The government says that our housing policy should be directed at people on the lower end of the income scale. The programs about which I spoke were for the senior citizens. It is our attempt to answer the very real need for housing of our senior citizens. When I referred to what was happening on the reserves, this is our approach to dealing with a very difficult problem. I repeat that the Liberal government's housing policy is aimed at helping people at the lower end of the income scale on the assumption that people at the high end of the income scale do not require the same assistance.
The difference between the two parties is that the Conservative party has come up with the brilliant idea that it is not the native people, the senior citizens and young couples starting married life who need that assistance. What the Conservative party in its wisdom has come up with is that it is people who earn more than $20,000 a year who need that assistance. I hope that the people of Canada on election day, which I hope will come shortly, will decide whether or not this is an election gimmick and who will benefit from that scheme. I will campaign on Bill C-29, and I suppose the hon. member will campaign on giving more money to those people who already have it.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member entertain a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: That is not a point of order. Would the parliamentary secretary entertain a question?


Hugh Alan Anderson: I would be very pleased to entertain a question, except that I am catching a taxi at a quarter to five to get back to my riding.


An hon. Member:: This is not Friday.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the housing bill that is before us today is an example of the withdrawal of the Liberal government from the serious commitment to help Canadians with affordable housing. It reflects the acceptance by the Liberal party of the Conservative idea of restraint and cutback in government spending. Because when you analyse what is in the bill, Mr. Speaker, you can only conclude that the government has reduced the amount of money for certain programs to assist the development of housing in Canada and has further restricted the scope of programming that is already on the books. Having listened to the debate I must conclude that it is a case between Liberal and Conservative members of Tweedle-dum saying to Twee-dle-dee "I am different from you." In reality there is not that much difference.
Housing
When one looks at the bill, one finds that government is initiating a withdrawal of its lending policy through CMHC and letting the private sector take over the responsibility. It also shows that the government has embarked on a withdrawal from supporting and building public housing and cutting back on low income housing. The bill shows clearly that the government intends to cut back on assistance to middle-class housing.
I will discuss the details of the bill more thoroughly in committee, but let me point out that we find, in summary, that the bill ends the generous aid to co-ops and non-profit housing which was initiated during the minority parliament in response to the pressure that the NDP was able to put on the government at that time and replaces these programs and this assistance with less expensive or less generous subsidies to co-ops and non-profit housing. This program will bring an end to rent supplements on the fifty-fifty federal-provincial sharing basis for co-ops, non-profit housing and provincial or municipal housing.
It will also end loans to provinces or municipalities for the construction of public housing and the fifty-fifty sharing of operating losses in such projects. CMHC will continue to offer provinces a partnership arrangement in public housing. The federal government will pay 75 per cent of capital cost and operating losses. The trouble is, of course, that the provinces do not care very much for this option and their initial response has not been very enthusiastic.
As I said, this bill will bring an end to assisted home ownership and assisted rental programs. It will introduce the graduated payment mortgage, insured but not offered by CMHC. Like AHOP, it simply postpones the monthly mortgage payment you cannot afford to make anyway.
The bill expands the type of mortgages which CMHC can insure to make up for the fact that CMHC no longer lends money. The bill will expand the residential rehabilitation program, but without sufficient funds to implement it in the way it should be, and it will end the municipal infrastructure program for water and sewers, the municipal incentive program and grants for medium density housing. It will end the neighbourhood improvement program and replace it with the community services program which, contrary to what the previous speaker said, provides less money for a wider range of projects.
In my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie, our municipality is quite concerned about getting federal aid to expand and develop a second sewage treatment plant in the western part of the city and also to extend the water main services to areas in the northern part of the city. I am afraid that because of the Liberal government's policy of adopting the Tory philosophy of restraint and cutback, the funds for our city will be pretty tight if it wants to implement these much needed improvements in sewer and water main construction. I am continuing to lobby with the government and the minister to give our city some priority on this and I pledge to my constituents that I will continue to do so.
When we look at the housing situation today, we find that there is only one phrase which can accurately describe it, and

March 1, 1979
Housing
that is that we are facing a housing crisis, a crisis in terms of affordable shelter. Government statistics show that over one third of Canadian households, or over one million Canadians in actual numbers, are suffering from some kind of housing deprivation; that is to say, either inadequate or overcrowded housing or housing which costs more than 25 per cent of the total income. The figure of 25 per cent is a universally accepted standard. If you pay more than 25 per cent of your income for shelter, it is unacceptable in terms of your budget; you are spending too much on shelter and having to go without other essentials such as food and clothing.
It is a shameful situation in Canada today. Many citizens of large municipalities such as Montreal, Toronto and some others where there are many problems with finding adequate, affordable housing are spending more than 25 per cent of their income on shelter. We find that 547,000 Canadians are in that category. It is a shameful situation in terms of the reality of housing today. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has stood up in the House and said what great progress has been made; but the reality, those cold, hard figures which represent human beings, cannot be denied by this government, and I hope that during this election campaign we will be able to drive that message home.
The reality is that home ownership is becoming or has become too expensive for thousands and thousands of Canadians. It has become too expensive especially for young couples. I have talked with many young couples and parents of young couples, and they said that they do not know how they will ever attain the goal or dream of owning an individual family household, a home in which to raise their children with some sense of comfort and decency. Even if young couples have incomes of some $14,000 to $17,000 a year, how many of them can afford the $385 a month mortgage payment it takes to pay off a 25-year mortgage of $40,000 at the current interest rate of some 11 per cent? That is the reality for young couples today who want to own homes.
In my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie the average monthly mortgage payment is $400. For most home owners it means that both the husbands and wives have to work if they are to meet their mortgage payments. Indeed, the manager of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Sault Ste. Marie said that 99 per cent of the couples or individuals coming to him for mortgage assistance are faced with situations where both spouses have to work in order to make ends meet. Many young couples today cannot afford the mortgage costs for an average home because of their actual incomes or because one spouse cannot find a job. Therefore, in many cases they raise their children in a crowded environment.
Another group really hurt by the housing situation today, of course, is senior citizens, pensioners and those on very low incomes. They need assisted housing and senior citizens' apartments. They need rent geared to income units built by governments at all three levels. Yet we see what is happening at the federal level. The government professes to have some concern

for and commitment to Canadians, but we find it gradually withdrawing and pulling out of an active and meaningful involvement in building housing units and accommodations which many people desperately need.
If we are to get at the central problem of high housing costs, we must analyse what pushes these costs up and then try to deal with the factors in a rational and sound manner. In the course of my speech I should like to examine the key factors and whether government can take any action to bring down or hold down the rising costs which are making housing unaffordable.
First we can look at some recent statistics. Housing prices doubled between 1971 and 1976. We must look at some of these factors, one being the cost of construction. One cannot deny that the cost of building a house has gone up. In the period from 1971 to 1976, the cost of materials rose 65 per cent. Recently in the House I raised the issue of the high cost of lumber. The price of lumber has gone up 70 per cent in the past two years. This adds approximately $1,200 in cost to the average size house with a floor space of 1,800 square feet.
I have pressed the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) to take some kind of action to stop this price rip-off. The cost of production for lumber has not gone up. What has happened is that the world and American markets are demanding wood at such increasing rates that companies are charging whatever those markets will bear, as well as charging the same prices in Canada. The government sits by and does nothing about it.
There are various policies and initiatives which could be taken. Perhaps the best would be to implement a two-price system so that we in Canada will not be paying the high world price for something we produce here. The cost of materials has gone up. The government could take action to stop that escalation, but it is a toothless tiger when it comes to protecting consumers and home buyers.
The second cost is that of labour. Wages in the construction industry have gone up some 80 per cent in the period from 1971 to 1976. Some hon. members, especially Conservative and Liberal ones, would say, "Perhaps we should have held down the wages of these workers". They would argue that despite the fact that during the same period of time the cost of living rose 75 per cent. Somehow these workers would have been required to bear the burden of inflation by not trying to keep up with it. Of course, that is an unacceptable solution. Nevertheless, that fact is that the cost of labour has gone up, as everything else has.
The third reason housing is so expensive today is what has happened to interest rates. In 1971 interest rates ranged around an average of 5.25 per cent. In January, 1978, the interest rate was 11.25 per cent. That is some record during this Trudeau administration! It should be noted also that while these interest rates were going up, something dramatic was happening to bank profits. After all taxes had been paid, bank profits increased some 159 per cent during that same period of time. The increase alone in 1978 over 1977 was some 33 per cent in profits, representing almost $1 billion. Yet that trend
March 1, 1979

was never countered, nor were any attempts made by the government to slow it down or to bring to bear some type of moderating influence on actual interest rates.
The government has implemented various kinds of subsidy programs for certain groups in terms of Canadian taxpayers subsidizing the person with a mortgage by giving him a lower mortgage, with the bank receiving the going rate. But that is not a solution for the majority of people who want to own homes. Thus we see the cost of money has been a major factor in this tremendous increase in the cost of home ownership.
There is another reason for the current housing cost, and that is the cost of land. Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock? I will resume debate later this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Air Transport-Request for regular jet service into western Manitoba; the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga)- National Defence-Suggestion overseas armed forces personnel receive free mailing privileges; the hon. member for Park-dale (Mr. Shymko)-External Affairs-Government's instructions to Canadian delegation at Belgrade conference.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions for papers and public bills. As there are no private bills under this heading, the House will proceed to the consideration of notice of motions for papers.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent that we proceed with notice of motion for papers No. 12 and that preceding notices of motions be allowed to stand.
Job Studies


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House agreed on the hon. parliamentary secretary's suggestion that we proceed with consideration of motion No. 12 and that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


JOB STUDIES IN CONSTRUCTION TRADES
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the approximately 1600 job studies in the construction trades across Canada prepared in order to update the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupants and contracted to South-am Business Publications, Don Mills, Ontario.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I became aware that this study was going on, my interest was activated because, as many of the members of the House know, before I came here as a member of parliament I was in the construction industry. Possibly some members would suggest that I should go back to the construction industry. 1 was interested because I wondered what they were doing and why they were doing it, so I asked for the papers and was told by the parliamentary secretary that he could not comply with the motion since the information on jobs that they had asked the contractors to gather for the studies may in many instances be regarded as confidential.
1 know that on many occasions I have found that the persons answering had not seen the papers in question, and in many cases some of us have seen papers that are marked confidential. The problem I have arises often from the fact that no one is willing to make a decision that the papers really are not that important and could quite easily be released.
My interest stemmed originally from looking at the document for which the study was being made. I read in the information section of the Annual Guide to the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupants, put out by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), that within the next few years a series of books will be replacing the present CCD volume, and the first book in this series, "Construction Occupations", is being published under separate cover. I assumed this study is in connection with the production of this particular book.
I wondered what would be produced because in looking at the document to which I have already referred, I saw something I found interesting under "Tree Trimmer". It tells me that a tree trimmer trims trees, climbs trees, prunes tree tops and branches, using saws and pruning shears. He trims damaged trees and paints stumps. He removes broken limbs and he fells trees. Then in relation to occasional duties it says that he works from a bucket on an extended truck boom to reach the branches. If that is the kind of information that is considered confidential, then the House will understand why I suggest that these documents should be produced.
Looking at this book, quite by coincidence 1 noted that under "Cook (cater, and lodg.)"-that is, catering and lodging, the first item-there are 38 different kinds of cooks, including everything from catering and lodging down to the

March 1, 1979
Job Studies
thirty-eighth "cook, vacuum kettle"; but nowhere in the list does it mention a plain, ordinary cook. I inquired and found out that they are going to correct this deficiency, and I shall be able soon to tell my wife what is a plain, ordinary cook.
Just to continue in this same vein-and maybe I am being a little lighthearted this afternoon-under "Hair-curler maker" we find five groupings down to "hair stylist", but it does not mention hair grooming.
Another interesting one covers everything from aquarium attendant down to an aquatic-biology technologist; but I find they have forgotten aquacultural technician. Hon. members can understand why I was interested in seeing what they were going to produce for the construction industry.
My interests stems-and now I am going to be serious for a moment-from the fact that most of us, whether we are federal members of parliament or otherwise, look upon construction generally as being a provincial area of responsibility. I wonder why the federal government should be mixing into what is generally accepted as provincial jurisdiction.
To get back to something a little lighter, I notice in this book a "guide to qualifications profile factors", something which I presume is used in categorizing these various groupings. I find a very interesting group referred to as "physical activities". I mention this because it could be of interest to members of parliament in that it groups various workers in categories of sedentary work, light work, medium work, heavy work and very heavy work. 1 presume that we as members of parliament are in the sedentary work category. We are permitted to lift, carry, push or pull up to 10 pounds but no more. We also see in this same list reference to climbing and/or balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching and/or crawling, reaching, handling, fingering and/or feeling, talking, hearing and seeing in various terms, and control of the hand and control of the foot. I think we should put all members of parliament through this questionnaire.
To be serious, Mr. Speaker, there are many questions I want to ask about this study which might have been answered had I been able to get my hands on these papers. Obviously I want to ask why the study was considered necessary, how often such a study is done, and I would like to know how up-to-date it is to be kept. I would like to know who uses this Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupants, and who in construction trades is going to use the book when it is put out. I would like to know how many are going to be printed, how many are going to be distributed and to whom they are going to be distributed. I would like to know how they are going to be used by other departments and whether other departments of governments are really interested in construction workers.
I should also like to know why Southam Business Publications was picked. I am not objecting at the moment, but I would like to know if there was a tender call. I would like to know what price was paid in terms of this reference, and I would like to know why 1,600 was the figure adopted. I would like to know who decided on 1,600. I assume it was the Department of Employment and Immigration, but why 1,600, and what kinds of jobs were the 1,600 to cover? Was it all

trades in the construction industry? How many in each province? Are we comparing the differences from province to province? Did the provinces agree and co-operate? Was every trade covered in every province? Because as everyone knows, each province handles the construction industry differently. I wonder if apprentices were covered. Apprenticeship is quite an issue at the present, particularly in the province of Quebec.
If I might interject a point of some concern here, it is that the control of apprenticeships is also affecting the number of persons in a particular trade which can enter into the work force. Obviously, one way of controlling the supply of that type of labour is to control those who are entering at the bottom, the apprentices. Another important point is that since the provinces are responsibles and since they set up the apprenticeship centres, the provinces can also control the language used, and this has become quite a factor to persons who wish to enter into the construction industry but are barred because of language restrictions.
I wonder if in this study the apprenticeship levels of competence were considered from province to province. Once again, because it is a provincial concern the different provinces make their own decisions as to the number of years of apprenticeship required in each particular trade. I do not know the situation in each province, having only been a member of parliament for some seven years now, but with regard to Quebec I wonder if the persons who were being considered were all holding competency cards and if the problem of issuance of competency cards was dealt with in the study.
Was a study made of the comparison of union and nonunion construction workers in those provinces which are not fully unionized? Was any comparison made of the differences in qualifications between a unionized carpenter and a nonunionized carpenter? Also, did they consider self-employed construction workers? I mention self-employed construction workers because it is my experience that the productivity of this type of worker is similar to the productivity of the self-employed construction worker of some 25 years ago, whereas the production of the regular construction worker, unionized or non-unionized, is considerably less than what it was 25 years ago. This is one of the reasons field construction today is so much more expensive and why there is less field construction going on than there is factory construction.
! find it quite extraordinary that this situation has developed to the point where a factory-made house today, for example, can be produced at about half the price of a field constructed house. I do not wish to get into the bill which is presently being discussed in the House, but it is apropos to my motion when discussing the construction worker who works in the factory and who is generally considered unskilled as compared to the man who is working in the field doing almost the same job. I wonder if this has been taken into account. In other words, a man operating a gun which shoots nails into plywood and who works for a factory is probably not considered in this study as
March 1, 1979

being in the same grouping as the construction worker in the field who uses a hammer to beat nails into plywood.
I wonder if the problems of these overlapping responsibilities which often result in union disputes were a consideration. Quite obviously, the union worker is finding that there is less work available to him because of the increase in the amount of work which is taking the form of factory production today. From a construction point of view this is easily understood. To illustrate, three weeks ago I visited a factory that produces prefabricated houses. These are houses of which all of us could be proud, containing three bedrooms, a fully equipped kitchen, carpeting, hardwood floors, tiles, all that one would expect in a nice house. The opposition may also be interested to know that these houses are being sold in the province of Quebec on a serviced lot for a total cost of $32,000.
I wonder how these people who conducted the study looked at the limits of a particular trade. I wonder if they concerned themselves with the different wage rates that pertain par-ticuarly in areas where there are union and non-union workers working side by side. Most of all, however, I am concerned about the apparent interference-and I would like this explained-of the federal government in what I consider to be an area of provincial jurisdiction.
That is why I ask for these papers. The federal government is studying these construction trades and considers that it has the right to do so, whereas it stated categorically that it would not express similar interest in education. I am inclined to the view that if we are going to mix in provincial responsibilities, perhaps education would be a good place to start.
I have one last point which I consider of major importance with regard to the province of Quebec. Since the study was authorized by the Department of Employment and Immigration, I wonder what their attitude is with regard to the use of hiring halls in the province of Quebec and the fact that the construction companies are not able to go to the Ministry of Employment and Immigration for the labour which they require. In fact, the Department of Employment and Immigration has been effectively shut out in the province of Quebec. I am not saying that this is wrong; I am only pointing out that in Quebec the Department of Employment and Immigration can have very little interest in the employment of construction workers because the hiring is done through the hiring halls.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, though I have been somewhat lighthearted in my approach to this particular motion and though I have no doubt that the government will continue to refuse to produce these papers which I consider are of relatively little importance to them, my chief concern in bringing this matter forward for debate is this apparent interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction. I have asked a great deal of questions and hopefully the parliamentary secretary will have noted some of them and will be able to refer some answers back to me.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will not be very long. I would like to thank the hon. member for introducing this motion. It just goes to show
Job Studies
one why it is so important to have leadership, as has been provided by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), in the area of freedom of information.
As I understand it, this government is committed to this sort of thing, yet I hear the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) blasting the parliamentary secretary because that hon. member says the type of information that is required is confidential. Even though his remarks were lighthearted, I think that was an attempt to cover his anger at what the parliamentary secretary was doing.
He says he wants to see jobs studies in the construction industry. He should understand that the construction industry is one of the most important in this country. I do not intend to get involved with provincial jurisdiction as my hon. friend did; he has researched it and I have not. One of the main problems with this industry at the moment is the lack of work. There is no industrial strategy which would create a climate of confidence and put people to work.
Between 1977 and 1978 there was a decline in construction employment. In 1978 the average unemployment rate in the construction industry in Newfoundland was 31 per cent, in Nova Scotia, 22 per cent, in New Brunswick, 23 per cent, in Quebec, 20 per cent, in Ontario, 12 per cent, in Manitoba, 12 per cent, in Saskatchewan, 11 per cent, in Alberta, 7 per cent, and in British Columbia, 13 per cent. Only in Alberta was the unemployment rate down.
It is significant that these figures do not show that there is a very high rate of unemployment within the trade union movement. Within this very vital and important industry there is a skill bank and we are not making sufficient withdrawal from it. 1 do not really want to blame the federal government but the fact is that they have no industrial strategy. There is no climate of confidence and consequently we find ourselves in a mess.
Another factor is the mobility of construction workers. I understand that the Department of Employment and Immigration has appointed a task force to look into this matter. I am given to understand that there are about 4,000 unemployed carpenters in British Columbia, though there is a shortage of carpenters in Calgary where business is apparently booming. This is the sort of thing we want to know. We want the information set out in these 1,600 job studies, some of which concern the construction trade. This is the sort of thing we need in order to cope with this enormous problem.
The president of the Hamilton Construction Association has indicated that there is nothing in Hamilton to sustain the industry after this year. Surely if this is to be a viable industry, one that can make a significant contribution toward a greater industrial nation, then the type of question that the hon. member has placed on the order paper must be answered. I will be very interested to see if the parliamentary secretary flim-flams and tries to justify refusing this information.
It is our position that the onus is upon the government to show why the information cannot be released. I think most

March 1, 1979
Job Studies
information can be released unless it is in the line of security. On a simple question pertaining to job studies it makes no sense to be told that the information is confidential. I believe this is doing irreparable harm and is unwarranted. If a climate of activity and excitement is to be created in the construction industry, surely the information required to do this could be made available.
With these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to let the parliamentary secretary know that, in my opinion, the construction industry is one of the vital industries in this country and every effort should be made to create a climate of confidence in it. This refusal on the part of the parliamentary secretary-whether the one who is going to speak now or his predecessor-was irresponsible and shortsighted. He has tunnel vision. I hope I am not directing my remarks to the parliamentary secretary who is going to stand up now. If I am, I do not mean in the way it sounds, and I will withdraw most of it. He will have to figure out which part.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the desire of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) to get the documents to which he was refused access. I do so because we on this side of the House have had this experience on many occasions. It is good to know, although not very helpful, that we are not alone and that the government treats its own members in the same cavalier manner as it treats us.
It is part of the madness of this government that it refuses to give information to the public, members of parliament, the media and educators-information which is of the utmost importance if the problems which this country faces are to be dealt with in a rational manner and solved.
This government, which has been in power for 55 of the last 65 years, has come to believe it has all the answers and can refuse to give the most elementary and necessary information to anybody and everybody.
I have no knowledge of the study dealing with problems in the construction industry which the hon. member for Vaudreuil wanted. I have a copy, however, of a study made for the Department of Manpower and Immigration by Robertson, Nickerson, Group Associates Ltd., entitled "Case Studies in Aspects of Training Upper Skilled Blue Collar Workers". This is a study of the problems and needs in the manufacturing industry which is probably complementary to the study which the hon. member for Vaudreuil would like dealing with the construction industry.
Any minister or deputy minister who has read this report should hang his head in shame-if he did not immediately offer his resignation. The study shows that the opportunity for high level young Canadians to enter a skilled trade is so remote as to be described as non-existent. It points out that there is a shortage of upper skilled workers now and that the shortage will get more serious as the economy picks up. It also says that industrial growth in Canada will be inhibited by a lack of skilled workers. According to this study, government programs are not receiving industry support and need a mas-

sive overhaul. This refers to a department of government which has spent $2.5 billion on job training in the last five years. Last year we spent $680 million on the job training. Of that amount only $80 million went to subsidize on the job training, namely training in industry, in companies involved in manufacturing. The provincial educational institutions received $340 million, and $260 million was paid directly to individuals for income support while attending provincial technical schools.
We spent $2'/2 billion in the last five years and we still have a million unemployed. What did this group hired by the department to look into the situation in the manufacturing industries have to say? They said there is a crying need for skilled people.
Since World War II most of our needs for skilled workers have been met by immigrants. We have imported the people we needed. Because of high unemployment in Canada, one million unemployed, naturally Canadians are saying to government that we have to cut back on the number of immigrants we permit to come into this country. One cannot blame the people of Canada when they see one million unemployed. That is why they do not want more people coming here. The government has responded to that feeling. Last year it cut back substantially on the number of immigrants permitted to come to this country.
At the same time as we are wanting to cut back because we have unemployment, skilled workers who could come to this country if there were jobs available are not coming because unemployment in the industrialized countries, particularly in western Europe, is much lower than it is here. Their standard of living has risen compared to the standard of living in Canada.
A few years ago the average per capita income of Canadian citizens was the second highest in the world. We were second to the United States. Today, we are seventh or eighth. West Germany, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, just to mention a few, have all gone ahead of us. The result is that the skilled immigrants we attracted in the years after World War II no longer want to come to this country. That is the situation.
As the report to which I referred indicates, there is a grim shortage of skilled tradesmen. The report indicates a tremendous shortage of tool and die makers, machinists, and electronic technicians. They are and will be needed in large numbers all across the country. They will particularly be needed if this or whatever government is in power in the next few years can get the economy moving, and instead of having 83 per cent of our capacity being used we will use 90 or 93 per cent, which is what it should be. The shortage of skilled workers in Canada would then cause a real crisis situation. That shortage has been attested to by companies all across the country. The shortage in the manufacturing industry which I talked about is just as prevalent in the construction industry about which the hon. member for Vaudreuil was asking.
March 1, 1979

Something that everyone but the manpower department is agreed on is that our manpower training programs are tragically inadequate. They are a disaster. There are reasons for that, such as jurisdictional disputes between Ottawa and the provinces. Under the provisions of the British North America Act, the provinces have responsibility for education. The federal government has taken the responsibility for manpower training.
I believe, and I have expressed this view since the day the Department of Manpower was set up, that the division which the federal government insisted on between manpower training and education is an artificial division. It does not work in practice. The federal government has insisted on its jurisdiction. It has designed manpower programs to a large extent in a vacuum, without consultation with the provinces, industry and the unions. The result is what we predicted. When I have more time I will prove, by quotations and illustrations from industries and corporations, the kinds of shortages which I have indicated.
We have spent tremendous amounts of money, but we have no reliable information about our future needs in the construction industry, the manufacturing industry, and the service field. There are very few really good training programs on the job in the plants. Most of the money is spent in institutions which were built with the financial carrot of federal funding for construction and operations held before them.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Chair would explain to me what connection the hon. member's remarks have with the motion we are discussing here this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should listen to the speech and not ask the Chair to explain to him what the hon. member is saying.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would listen he would understand, which 1 doubt he has the intelligence to do from listening to his many interjections. He would know that I am supporting the request of the hon. member for Vaudreuil for documents pertaining to studies on manpower needs in the construction industry. I am doing that by summarizing a similar need for documents with regard to manpower needs in the manufacturing industry. There is a close relationship between what I am saying and what was said by the hon. member for Vaudreuil.
I was saying, before I was somewhat rudely interrupted, that there are very few good on the job training programs in industry. Where there are such programs, too few apprentices are being trained. The reason for that is that it is cheaper for employers to take the easy way out when they need skilled workers. They either depend on the educational system, which we now know has failed miserably, or they recruit immigrants.
There is no quick or easy solution to the problems we face. We need programs to meet both the short and long-term needs. The federal government should stop trying to make all decisions unilaterally as it has been doing since the manpower
Job Studies
department was set up. We must stop turning the tap off and on by contracting for more or less seats in the community colleges. Decisions as to how many seats to purchase in our community colleges are not based on the needs of the region or the country, but on political and budgetary considerations. In this period of restraint we should at least partially turn off the tap because we do not have the money. In a period in which we think we need to prime the pump, we turn the tap on.
The federal government, the provinces, industry and labour must get together to work out programs to meet our needs. The one body which could secure that collaboration and co-ordination is the federal government, though it has not shown any inclination to do so up until now. The federal government should invite provinces, industry and labour to assess the need and, upon the basis of that assessment, to develop the necessary programs. But this cannot be done because nobody, except possibly the federal government, knows what the needs are. The only information available is in the possession of the federal government which refuses to give it to the hon. member for Vaudreuil, to other members on this side, to industry, labour, or anyone else.
I join with the hon. member for Vaudreuil in urging the government and the Department of Manpower to change its policy, its desire to keep everything secret. I urge the government to make available as much information as possible so that the people as individuals and through their organizations, whether trade unions or companies or manufacturers' associations, can really begin thinking about the problems we face and attempting to find solutions to them.


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the request of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for the tabling in the House of approximately 1,600 job studies in the construction trades series which were prepared in order to update the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations (CCDO), and were carried out under contract by Southam Business Publications, Don Mills, Ontario, I am bound to say there is a very compelling reason why I cannot agree to that motion.
In many instances job information collected for studies such as these is considered to be confidential by the companies concerned. As a result, to reassure those establishment assisting in this program, the then Department of Manpower and Immigration gave an undertaking that the information supplied by companies would be treated as strictly confidential. Under the circumstances the tabling of these job studies in the House would constitute a breach of trust on the part of the government and I cannot condone such a course of action.
I am sure that my hon. friend from Vaudreuil knows that during the past two decades Canada has experienced a period of rapid economic development. The growth of a technological society produces numerous socio-economic changes. Although each economy makes similar responses to technological change, its job structures are largely a reflection of its own

March 1, 1979
Job Studies
policies, developments and goals. For this reason it is desirable to establish and maintain an occupational classification system suited to its national requirements.
A multi-purpose standard classification of occupations is an important instrument for studying the development and utilization of employment resources. It needs to be standardized because, for research and analysis purposes, data compiled on the basis of one system cannot be compared satisfactorily with data compiled on the basis of other systems. It needs to be multi-purpose because standardization is worthless unless it meets the needs of various users and facilitates communications between them.
Experience has shown that the development of a standard occupational classification which completely satisfies the requirements of every probable user may not be possible but one that services as many needs as possible is invaluable. Statisticians or economists studying the labour force are normally concerned with wide groups of jobs rather than individual jobs. Their statistics are usually assembled in a limited number of categories designed to contain job groupings which are relatively homogeneous in terms of a particular characteristic. On the other hand, continuing labour market programs such as job placement, vocational counselling, training and immigration deal with individuals, and thus specific occupational definitions are needed. For statistical reporting purposes, however, the latter programs are also concerned with wider groups of related jobs. This common interest provides a link between persons concerned with otherwise different programs.
The concept of a standardized occupational coding system has been recognized by many countries as essential for effective labour market planning, employment operations and career development. In October, 1966, the Quadrennial Conference of Labour Statisticians at Geneva endorsed the concept of national multi-purpose classification systems and urged that these systems be related to the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO).
Because Canada did not then have its own standard occupational classification system, a number of quite different systems had been used for many years. Statistics Canada used a classification system suitable for collecting and compiling information from census enumerations, but not for other purposes. The job placement operations of Canada Manpower Centres used the United States Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) to code occupations, while the immigration service, for a number of years, used the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO). It was difficult to compare data compiled from one system with data compiled from the other two systems. The use of a variety of systems tended to complicate planning and operational activities.
Social scientists require an occupational classification system that enables them to determine the actual changes which have taken place in the structure of the labour force. Such a system is essential for analytical studies and the preparation of projections and forecasts. The design of a Canadian classification system had to ensure, as much as

possible, the historical continuity of statistical data. Statistics Canada, therefore, had considerable interest in and input into the initial design of an occupational classification system that was to be convertible to, and a replacement for, the 1961 Canada Census and compatible with the revised International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) for international study and report purposes. The then Department of Manpower and Immigration required a system that was convertible to the American Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) because past records were coded to this system. In 1966, to resolve these inadequacies, the Department of Manpower and Immigration and Statistics Canada launched a joint project to develop a standard national classification.
The main objective of the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations, or CCDO as it is familiarly known, is to provide for Canada a standard multi-purpose instrument for use in labour market research and analysis, for statistical survey purposes including census taking, and for operational activities such as placement, counselling, training and immigration. It is designed to facilitate analysis in various manpower fields, for example, job market analysis and worker mobility; it is a useful tool in career counselling and placement services; it provides essential data for the planning and evaluation of educational and training programs; and it has many uses for personnel operations in business and industry.
The census occupational classification which is now based on the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations is widely used throughout Canada in many statistical surveys. Thus, the CCDO has achieved the most important function of a multi-purpose classification system, for example, increasing the quantity and improving the quality of occupational information in Canada by standardizing the occupational categories and definitions used in different programs and, consequently, the occupational statistics and other information derived from various sources.
Internationally, CCDO is recognized as the leader in systems of this kind. In such diverse countries as Japan, Mexico, Algeria and Fiji, CCDO has had a direct influence on the development of national systems. Recently, after having reviewed the major systems available, Australia has opted to base its own system on the CCDO approach and has asked the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission for assistance. The United States, which is only now moving toward a system comparable to Canada's, recently published the "Standard Occupational Classification Manual", and in the foreword it says:
In its work, the project staff also considered new developments on occupational classification at the international level. In this regard, the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations, and the British Classification of Occupations and Directory of Occupational Titles were major references.
Extensive use was made of the Canadian Classification; we are grateful to the Canadian government for their permission to use concept, definitions, and phrases from their publications in this classification.
March 1, 1979

Canada's lead in this field is being maintained and expanded as the system adjusts itself to face an automated future. This lead and excellence could well be jeopardized if we dried up the sources of valuable detailed data volunteered to us under the protection of confidentiality.
The actual nature of work performed was selected as the basic principle in the CCDO because it is significant to all users of the multi-purpose classification system. Other criteria such as "training time required" or "working environment" were considered and rejected. Such criteria are related more closely to the worker than to the occupation and are thus more subjective in character. For this reason they are not acceptable as basic criteria to all users of a multi-purpose classification structure.
The CCDO classification is a coded taxonomic structure that organizes occupations into distinct categories. The first category consists of 23 major groups which describe broad fields of work. The second category consists of 81 minor groups which are further subdivisions of related fields of work. The third category consists of 498 unit groups which describe closely related groups of occupations. These three categories permit the aggregation of statistics at three different levels and are designed for the common statistical reporting requirements of all types of programs dealing with occupations. Within each of the three category or unit groups we find several individually coded and defined related occupations. This latter development serves the needs of job placement, immigration, counselling and training.
The important basic principle of using "work performed" to develop categories at all levels in the CCDO was determined by the duties and tasks indicated by job analyses conducted in private and public establishments and institutions, and through a variety of associations across Canada. In order to gain the co-operation of these establishments and institutions it was First necessary, as I have already mentioned, to give an undertaking on behalf of the federal government that all data gathered by our analysts would not be directly linked to the establishments which co-operated. If these 1,600 studies were tabled in this House, this undertaking would be severely shaken and I am, therefore, opposed to the tabling of these studies.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, it was not over a month ago that I stood in my place and supported the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who was then seeking information on an entirely different subject. At that time I sat and thought perhaps there was something very secret in what he was seeking. I thought that again today. I thought perhaps there is something which should not be made public. However, the situation is the same now as it was then. What we got again today was gobbledygook, bafflegab and flimflam.
I have to say that the parliamentary secretary reads exceptionally well. I do not know that in 12 or 14 minutes I could handle all those 35-cent words one after the other. It used to be that they were 25-cent words, but this government has pushed inflation so high that those words now cost 35 cents.
Job Studies
I have never heard such nonsense in all my life. No one expects the government to make known in this House the fact that John Jones is working for the Dow Construction Company or what he does. That is not the point. We are not in the least interested in that. I have spent all my life in construction. I am not directly involved now to the extent I was years ago, but I am still involved in construction in a peripheral way, and I know that the information which has been discussed would be very valuable.
I commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil. As the hon. member ticked questions off his list, I thought to myself that that information would be worthwhile to a contractor or a construction man. I do not care whether Mr. Jones works for Dow Construction, but I would like to see the results of all this study. I would like to know the answers to the hon. member's questions. If the Department of Employment and Immigration received answers, it should give us those answers. We are not interested in names. We do not need to know that a job on the corner of Gladstone Avenue and Bank Street was done in a certain way. We do not need to know that, but if the department got answers to all those questions, why in heaven's name can we not have them?
Surely in our enlightened age we know that if the government gets information from certain contractors, it will not pass it on to another contractor to help him bid in opposition. I cannot believe that as he stood in his place the parliamentary secretary believed that nonsense. However, he stood there for 12 minutes. He spewed out words about CCDO, ISCO and all kinds of things. He has not the foggiest notion of what they mean. I have a great deal of respect for my friend from the Wellington area. He is an excellent scientist, but I would bet that he has never done a bit of construction work in his life. If he had, he would realize the value of this information. He would realize that the possession of this information by contractors would produce tremendous results.
I know this government gets involved in this sort of thing. In the last few days we have seen some indications of what the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Cam-pagnolo) and her department can do with computers. The Department of Public Works has a computer specification coming out, and it is a dandy. By golly, you can push a button and get a 15-page specification for a push-button on an outhouse door. However, if we are going to do all of this and if we are going to put all this information into a computer, why can we not get it out?
Why did the hon. member for Vaudreuil not receive an answer to his question? He is not asking for names or details. I did not count them, but I think there were 25 or 30 questions, all of them legitimate questions. Let us see if we cannot get the answers. They would be valuable to the whole of the construction industry. Surely to goodness there is no justification for hiding the answers, unless it is the innate sense of secrecy of this government.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that hon. members opposite, with the exception of the last speaker, should get up and demand

March 1, 1979
Housing
information without knowing what they are talking about. They are asking that the government release information it promised industry it would keep confidential. It surprises me even more to hear an experienced member like the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) talk for ten or 15 minutes all around the subject but refer to it directly only at the opening and closing of his remarks. The hon. member for Winnipeg North spoke about something else and pretended that what was at issue was a report instead of the date on which the report is based. The hon. member was being either devious or dumb, and the House can be the arbiter of that question.
There is a vast amount of information here. The opposition is always complaining about the government's wasting taxpayers' money, but on the other hand it says it would spend more. Now hon. members opposite want somebody in the employ of the public to go through the interviews upon which these 1,600 job classifications were based, remove all names or references to companies or individuals, and then table all that information in the House.
Who would use it? Certainly not the hon. members we have heard from today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), a Liberal, would use it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being six o'clock, 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 Mr. Ouellet that Bill C-29, to amend the National Housing Act and Central Mortgage and Housing Act and to make other related amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, before we moved on to other business at five o'clock I was speaking on the housing bill before us today and the criticisms I have of it in terms of the Liberal government moving away from an activist role to the degree that is needed for providing afford-

able housing to Canadians. I began analysing what were the reasons behind the high cost of housing and I elaborated on the fact that the cost of materials is increasing, the cost of labour is increasing, and the interest rate on mortgages is going up. The fourth factor on which I should like to comment is that what is pushing up the cost of housing is the cost of land. It is only by understanding what the causes are that we can hope to come up with solutions to the problems.
The cost of land in Canada for housing has been rising at astronomical rates over the past few years. One study shows that the cost of lots in any moderate-sized community from 1971 onward at least has doubled, and in some cases has moved higher in price than that. Of course there are a number of developers assembling land in urban areas. They are sitting on that land, holding on to it, and allowing the price to increase through speculation and lack of supply. They only release a certain amount of land at a time. Also studies have shown the control of land in major urban centres is in the hands of a very small number of developers.
What has happened is that we do not have much competition any longer in terms of land development. Certainly this is no exception in my community of Sault Ste. Marie. Indeed certain prominent members of the Conservative party are involved very heavily in land assembly in the Sault Ste. Marie area.
One study shows just what is happening with land developers. Profits gained by large suburban land developers have added some $7,000 to $10,000 to the price of new $50,000 homes in cities such as Regina and Winnipeg. In Ontario, the Peel Housing Task Force found that profits on lots were 22 per cent of the final selling price of houses. One can only conclude that certain developers are making windfall profits, and that is a major factor in forcing up the cost of housing.
Of all the reasons I have given for the increase in the cost of housing, I think two stand out above all others, namely, the cost of land and the cost of mortgage interest rates. If we are to have any kind of meaningful government policy to deal with rising prices in housing, we must tackle those two key problems, the cost of money and the cost of land. Throughout the history of housing policy of the Liberal government, and even its Conservative predecessor, we do not find any policy or legislation addressing itself to those key problems.
I do not think we would find much initiative on the part of the Liberal government, or for that matter a Conservative government, in terms of attacking the banks and telling them they must bring down their interest rates for certain income groups. There is a very cozy relationship between the two old line parties and the Canadian banking institution. I was interested in reading the reports of the 1977 Election Expenses Act which listed the contributions political parties received from various sectors and interest groups. What caught my eye was the amount of money donated by Canadian banks to the Liberal and Conservative parties.
March 1, 1979

For example, in 1977, according to the official returns, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce donated $25,000 to the Liberal party and $25,195 to the Conservative party. The Bank of Nova Scotia gave the Liberals $21,500 and the Conservatives $20,000. The list goes on and on. There is a rather vested interest on the part of the old line parties and the banks which charge these interest rates. I would be very surprised to see any kind of meaningful government initiative to attack such generous donators to its political causes.
In terms of dealing with the horrendously high cost of mortgage interest rates, one must recall that over a period of a 25-year mortgage in the amount of $40,000, with an interest rate of 10 per cent, $4,000 a year is paid in interest alone. That is forgetting about even reducing the principal amount borrowed. Over the term of a 25-year mortgage, a $40,000 or $50,000 house costs in excess of $100,000, and of course the great bulk of it is interest charges.
We in the New Democratic Party say that the only way to attack that major contributor to rising costs of housing is for the government to become tough with the banks and to say to the lending institutions, which have been making incredible profits over the past few years, that they can afford to absorb a less high profit by reducing or offering 8 per cent mortgages to families earning $25,000 or less. There are ways and means by which the government, through the Bank of Canada, could direct the lending institutions to make such lower cost mortgages available to Canadians who want to own homes. Of course this would help renters, the majority of our people who live in apartments. It would provide them with an opportunity to own homes, the dream of many couples. Especially it would help young couples who must face mortgage payments of $400 a month under the present situation. It would bring down dramatically the monthly mortgage bill if 8 per cent mortgages were available. Surely that is a much more progressive means of dealing with high interest rates than any of the proposals I have heard from either of the old line parties.
The only way we can deal with the high cost of land is by the implementation of certain taxation legislation to make it very unattractive for land speculation on the part of developers. It would be more important to move into the idea of public land banking by municipal or provincial governments assembling land which will be released when needed, at prices people can afford, rather than it being left in private hands and suffering the price escalation I have described.
Government funding for low rental housing and senior citizens' units must be enhanced and increased. As I said earlier, I am dismayed the government is pulling back and not offering the needed funds for this very worth-while housing.
In the course of my speech I would be remiss if I did not examine with some seriousness the proposal of the official opposition, the Conservative party, offering a mortgage interest deduction up to a total of $5,000 and a property tax deduction up to $1,000 as a solution to the high cost of housing. I can only conclude that it is a pre-election gimmick on the part of the Conservative party. Every study I have seen shows that it would be just too costly to implement such a
Housing
program, that it would cost Canadian taxpayers $2 billion to $3 billion a year in lost revenue, which would only increase the deficit.
It is ironic that the Conservative party, which daily attacks the Liberal government for a huge deficit, would advocate a policy to increase the deficit even more. If members of the Conservative party argue its proposal will not increase the deficit, the only way it would do so is if taxpayers pay for it in terms of higher taxes in order to make up the lost revenue through the mortgage and property tax deduction scheme. If we did not take that course in raising taxes to put this scheme in place, then the only other course would be to reduce government services which are now in place further, and in that way reduce spending. Of course, that would only make those who need these vital government programs suffer from the lack of them. I think this is a gimmick and I hope Canadians are not taken in by it. As I said, we can not afford it.
There is a built-in unfairness to this program because it does nothing for tenants. About one third of all households in Canada are described as renters and they would get absolutely no tax benefit from this home owner interest deduction scheme. Nor, of course, would senior citizens, who probably have paid for their houses and are not holding active mortgages. This is unfair as well because it would probably mean interest rates would rise as there would be a greater demand for mortgage funds. More people would probably re-mortgage their homes in order to obtain the advantages of the tax break. In addition, the interest rate could be written off against taxes and there would be no pressure, and there is little now, to keep interest rates down. I imagine the banks would seize the opportunity of increasing mortgage rates even more.
The major default in terms of unfairness in the program is, of course, that it benefits upper income Canadians more than middle or low income Canadians. Surely we do not need any more inequities built into our present tax system than are already there, courtesy of a decade of the Trudeau Liberal policy.
When we look at the inspiration for this mortgage deducta-bility scheme we see it comes from the United States which has a plan already in place. Most United States housing experts, and many government officials, would like to get out of that program because it costs so much and because, as I say, it is so unfair.
The U.S. Treasury Department conducted a study in 1977 of this program which the Conservatives want to bring into Canada and discovered that the highest income group, that is to say, 15 per cent of U.S. taxpayers, derive 75 per cent of the benefits from the plan. It works in such a way that the more you make and the higher your mortgage payments, the more of a deduction you get from your taxes.
What would happen in Canada is that middle income taxpayers would save a couple of hundred dollars under the Conservative plan, but someone in the top bracket would get a

March 1, 1979
Housing
windfall of $4,000 when calculating taxes in the way that this system operates.
Surely if any party in this House, particularly the federal Conservative party, is concerned about a fair tax system, it should follow the Conservative counterpart in the province of Ontario. That government does not have a tax deduction system but a tax credit system for home owners and tenants. The advantage of a tax credit system is that it is on a lower income scale and is cut off at the upper income level. The tax credit system has fairness built into it, and statistics show that the greatest benefits go to the lower and middle income wage earners.
Under the present scheme with the federal Conservative plan, the greatest benefit would go to upper income Canadians and not to those who need them the most. In other words, the Tory philosophy is, the more you earn the less taxes you should pay. I think any honest political party would reject that as a proper base for a tax system. What we have in terms of the old line parties is a gimmick by the Conservatives, and general indifference by the Liberals, when it comes to implementing a viable housing policy for Canadians, especially designed to get at the two key problems, high mortgage rates and high cost of land.
The policies that my party has outlined during the debate, and elsewhere, on the whole issue of bringing interest rates down and the cost of land down, make more sense and offer much more hope to tenants, young couples and others who desperately want and need affordable housing. This is the direction in which we should be moving, not in the direction that this bill proposes, or in the direction of the gimmickers of the Conservative party.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refrained from interrupting my colleague in the NDP, the hon. member for Sault Ste Marie (Mr. Symes), during his speech, but in the course of his remarks he made reference to prominent Conservative supporters in his constituency. It is difficult to know what he means because most Conservative supporters are distinguished. He went on to say that they made a great deal of profit. I am sure that, with a sense of fairness, he would want to name those Conservatives who made these astronomical profits he alledged to be somewhat-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. Perhaps the hon. member could raise the matter during the course of his own remarks, or speak to the hon. member.


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the opposition party will soon put an end to their foolish tricks to delay the proceedings in the House and will finally let us speak once and for all. I am therefore pleased to speak once again in the House, especially about Bill C-29 on housing. Since I have been sitting in the House, I have always been hoping for a housing policy governing corporations and nonprofit housing co-operatives. So I am quite pleased to see that

we are now considering amendments to the legislation which will allow us to fill some gaps and make improvements.
First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) for having agreed to introduce this bill in parliament and 1 hope it will be passed before the next election. And before going further I have a short message to give to the Progressive Conservative party. They will probably be disappointed but I must say to them that I will be a candidate in the next election. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that this legislation will fill some gaps.
There are experiences that have been lived through. I remember that before I was elected to Parliament, when I was with the Workmen's Compensation Board, I used to take mornings or afternoons off to go to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to try to do something because in the district where I come from, in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, Ste. Marie, St. Jacques, La Salle or even in Verdun, there certainly is a housing problem, it is obvious. Being conscious of these problems, like any good citizen having lived in slums, having lived what the people are living today, I thought I must do something.
There is a National Housing Act, so I will ask that the law be enforced and I will request a starting fun whose maximum is $10,000, as hon. members knows, or 10 per cent of the cost, as the case may be, just as my friend Mr. Joyal did in his riding. We have established non-profit corporations.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, this concerns housing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I want to remind the hon. member that he must not refer to one of his colleagues by name but by his riding.


Jacques Lavoie: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw what I said, but there are other members who have done what I just did. I hope things are restored. So then we needed this type of grant for rehabilitation purposes. Obviously this amendment will correct the situation, I am sure, but there is still one thing and that is that CMHC officials do not want to co-operate. 1 want to relate to the House, as I did a few years ago in committee, something which actually happened. If we had been listened to, not only me but also certain CMHC officials, we might not have today in Hochelaga a vacant $50,000 lot, at 8 per cent interest a year, which CMHC has to recover and add to its assets and liabilities. Of course, we were thinking of senior citizens, families, we wanted to develop low rental housing, but at the time that was not possible, because things were going too slow. It took at least two years to build a unit.
Two out of six units were occupied during a period of a year and a half. Why? Because costs were too high and because of
March 1, 1979

the slowness not only of CMEIC, but also of the city of Montreal, because there are regulations, the National Building Code, the Municipal Building Code, all of which create confusion and slow things down. Building costs increase and in the end, what can we offer people? Not low rental housing, but high price housing.
Naturally, I do not blame the minister for that. Nor do I blame the National Elousing Act: it is just there. But what happens too often is that those who administer the act are obsessed with setting up regulations that often run counter to our wishes as legislators, I feel we must some day find a way, when we pass a law, not to be exposed to being laughed at later on by the people or the civil servants who say: Sure, you are the legislators but come the next election and you may no longer be there while we will still be here. Those are the answers we get, Mr. Speaker. But it does not matter, these people need not worry because after the next election we will still be here on this side of the House. That I can guarantee.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Lavoie: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to a certain point and I will do so briefly, of course. We know that the National Housing Act allows any home owner to apply for a grant to repair his house. So what happens in my riding and obviously in others is that people go to Montreal, more particularly on St. Paul Street, to apply for grants and are told: "Sure you will get a grant, but it will take a year and a half before you are paid". Considering that everyone in my constituency is not a millionaire, people get discouraged and forget about the grant. Meanwhile the whole neighbourhood is deteriorating. I invite any of my colleagues from this House who are interested to come and spend one day in the riding of Hochelaga, in Maisonneuve or in Sainte-Marie to visit one street after another. We see more and more derelict houses. What happens then? We all know that a number of aged people live in slums although their pension is reasonable. But it turns out to be expensive for people living in slums. Indeed, medicare is higher because people get sick, heat is higher and so on and so forth. If those who were here before us in this House as well as in Quebec City and in Montreal had thought of the future we would certainly not have ended up with a situation where neighbourhoods like ours are disappearing. And I think that in the case of a ward like mine everything should be undertaken to protect it, not to protect it in a narrow sense but to revive it and keep the traditional image which it has always had and to give its inhabitants decent houses. I suggest that in this society which claims to be just and civilized, we should be able to demand from our governments decent housing and security for our people. I suggest also that if we fail to do so, we should not go and say to the faces of Canadians that we are civilized people, for I should be the first to deny it and say that on the contrary we are heartless people who do not care for our senior citizens.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, let us take the case of the low rent housing situation in Montreal. Last year the city of Montreal had a supply of 600 housing units to meet the demand of some 6,000 applicants. This supply represented only 10 per cent of the demand. 1 feel therefore that all interested parties should join hands to increase the number of units, and I am sure that some members in the opposition are afraid this bill will cost too much. Well, I have news for them. I shall not go into details, that would be too simple, Mr. Speaker; if they do not understand them, I hope the voters will take advantage of the forthcoming election to send them packing. It is not complicated. Mr. Speaker, when amounts of money are invested in non-profit corporations or co-ops, it is clear that after 25, 30, 40 or 50 years, they will say: "So what! In 30 years, the hon. member for Hochelaga will not be here any longer". It is true he will no longer be here. As a matter of fact, it is quite certain. But today, he is here. He is here to pave the way, like his hon. colleagues. That is what we are going to do, Mr. Speaker.
And you will see that all the figures which the opposition can produce are wrong, because we will invest in housing; after 30, 35 or 50 years non-profit corporations can make no profit whatsoever, and they will continue collecting rents which, after all, only represent contributions by the active member in the corporation. Then one-third of this amount can be paid to the city of Montreal and another third to the province of Quebec-and if they ever decide to separate and still want to co-operate, well, they will get a third of it-and the other third, of course, will go to the federal government. Then everybody will realize that housing, neighborhood improvement and other programs will pay for themselves. But first, of course, we have to invest. If we do not invest, the situation will clearly keep on deteriorating. That is for sure, Mr. Speaker, but I will have more to say about non-profit corporations.
The government has been very active in recent years. Let's take for example the old Montreal area with its harbour and grain elevators; the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) made a statement last year about it and work is already under way. No sooner said than done. Work has already started. Montrealers will be able to get close to the port, walk through the Vieux Montreal section, and see what is going on there. The federal government has invested plenty of money in that area. Members of the opposition may have forgotten that. I hope not but in any case, I am reminding them. Now, let us go back to last april. In my riding, there is what we call Place Frontenac, a complex consisting of three high rise 15-storey buildings. My office is now located in one of them. Of course, that was in 1971. At that time, I may not have been a member of the same party but today I am on the right side and all is going fine.

March 1, 1979
Housing
An hon. Mlember: You have learned.


Jacques Lavoie: You are right; I have learned. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I said that Place Frontenac was not an asset for the people of the Elochelaga-Maisonneuve neighbourhood. Over the years, there were many problems and it was nevertheless the Minister of Urban Affairs who had to bear the burden.
Last May, the minister announced a special policy for Place Frontenac so that senior citizens could at last get housing according to their income. I was pleased with the decision at that time. Now, that is a few weeks ago, Place Frontenac became the property of the tenants of those three 15-floor high rises, that is a non-profit corporation, which should certainly enable them to pay reasonable rents with the new policy of the government. Of course, Mr. Speaker, our constituents talk about low-rental housing. Of course, to them, low rental housing means extremely low rents. Building costs being what they are today, the situation has changed considerably. Anyway, I read in La Presse this week that the minister said the shelter allowance will cost between $450 million and $1 billion a year.
It is obvious that the provincial government was supposed to go along. In fact, last year, I met the minister's assistant in Montreal. Mind you, he did not want to see me. But when I told him: If you do not, the press will know about it, I do not know if he was scared but he said: Yes, I shall meet you. I discussed with him and at some point he simply said that it was the policy of his department to establish a shelter allowance. Fine. But he added: It is not the government's policy. So you immediately see the image projected by this government which does not want to co-operate and leaves old people in ghettos, which does not want to help us help them and also leaves families in ghettos. Again last night, Mr. Speaker, when I arrived at my constituency office I had lots of people and it lasted until 11.30 p.m. There again 1 had housing problems, people coming to me for help. They go and see their alderman who says: Go and see your member of parliament, he is going to fix all that. I understand perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that Brother Andre was performing miracles but I am Brother Jack who just rings the morning bells.
Mr. Speaker, we met a few times with the Montreal mayors conference which is now in session. We talked about urban transport because that falls under urban affairs. Well, obviously, if we want to improve the economic situation in eastern Montreal-I think, of course, that I asked the question and the answer was extremely logical and I understood it as an intelligent man-we will have to follow the situation closely to determine sooner or later, as I put it to the Minister of Transport some time ago, whether it would be possible to continue the Mirabel line as far as the Angus shops. There is a big vacant lot where 8,000 housing units could be built. There is a project by Marathon, a subsidiary of Canadian Pacific, under which those units could be offered to nonprofit corporations and we could also have one of the biggest

shopping centres in Canada, and that shopping centre would operate on a co-operative basis.
Right now, according to the latest news, I am told they decided to make an industrial park out of the Angus shops and put up houses along the east-west expressway. So they are against it. I do not know if the whole world has turned topsy-turvy, but it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that such a project with respect to the Angus plant would be very beneficial to building in the city of Montreal which is almost at a standstill. Jobs could be created in the building trades, and after the project is completed some 4,000 permanent new jobs could also be created, of which 3,000 at least do not require any special skill.
I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to keep this in mind. Of course, this does not depend only on the federal government. I put this question before to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). He agrees on this project. However, there is still the provincial government as well as the municipal government which controls zoning. Let us wait and see. Anyway, since we will meet with the Montreal executive council next Monday, I shall certainly raise the matter. So, I am referring to this in the House in the hope that the message will be relayed to the Quebec authorities, and as for Montreal, I will make sure to broach the subject next Monday. I usually make no bones about raising such matters.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a point I mentioned rather briefly earlier. The rehabilitation or building of homes requires electricity, of course. Therefore I hope nobody will ever tell me some day that there is a shortage of electricity because I will start asking questions, namely whether there is still water running in the rivers. On the other hand, if we are successful, Mr. Speaker, we will have found a way of conserving energy. There is much talk about oil or other shortages. Well, if houses are electrically heated, we may then keep on using oil for other purposes as we do now and we will no longer have to worry about oil.
Mr. Speaker, people live in old houses that are not necessarily shacks. Everyone knows how much it costs to heat a home. Many families heat their homes with oil or natural gas besides electricity. Of course, this is costly! Obviously, in a constituency like the one I represent, when we consider that nearly half of the population is idle-and I hasten to add through no fault of theirs, Mr. Speaker-people have problems. In my area, we have suffered the consequences of the actions of some people, members of parliament like myself and my colleagues, who were there before us, especially in the Quebec government. We have seen nearly all the buildings on Notre-Dame Street being demolished, many businesses go bankrupt on Sainte-Catherine Street and many companies disappear. The poor guy who has lost his job and only has grade seven or eight is too old to go back to work after he has collected his unemployment insurance benefits and has to go on welfare. Imagine his problems when he finds himself in another tenement.
March 1, 1979

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is very important to be positive. Therefore I hope that if the opposition has certain amendments to suggest, they will do so now. This would be the time to do it while we are sitting in this House. We must not be content to criticize. For my part, I could criticize a lot of things if I wished, just like the opposition wants to do. I could criticize the minister and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This is why I am here. But what is important is to suggest solutions. For my part, I have some to suggest and I hope that I will have the time to submit them before my time is up.
It is quite obvious that socially and economically, the amendments to this act concerning an increase in the number of non-profit organizations will be very useful. I hope that the city of Montreal and CMHC will "thaw out" as winter is almost over and we hope that the weather will be warm enough to "thaw them out". Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few suggestions. It is rather strange, but it has always been like that in my riding. An end should come to that farce one of these days.
Mr. Speaker, when you look after your house, you tell yourself that you will make it more congenial, more comfortable. Of course, whatever happens is not to be blamed on the federal government but rather on the municipal government. They come by and raise their property taxes. I could even mention something that occurred recently in my riding where a co-operative was set up. Last summer, those who had repaired their houses, put up lovely flower boxes, had their rent increased. They are really discouraged and ready to give up.
I make this suggestion which I will repeat next Monday before the executive committee of the city of Montreal. I make it here before parliament as the federal government might participate in this project. I think that in such cases, the municipality should, when a taxpayer wants to effect improvements to his house, whether it is in Montreal or in any other municipality in this country, grant him a tax rebate to encourage him to keep his older house, and also to promote a good neighbourhood spirit.
Besides, municipalities should raise their tax rates for those who do not want to upgrade their houses for one reason: in Montreal East, the majority of shabby and dilapidated houses are owned by trusts, multimillionaires, who will have nothing to do with our working poor or senior citizens. In the meantime, their taxes are next to nothing. But the small home owner who wants to join a co-op, do something, help, get involved in the life of his community what do we do to him? We tax him. So, I feel this would first prevent speculation, and second, it would force those big corporations to do something, because we know they hate losing a buck. They would rather sell at a discount than lose money. So this could be suggested to local authorities, and the Canadian government could contribute.
To enlighten the opposition, work out the figures correctly. They are not that high. This means that if those people pay less property tax, I mean the people who improve their houses,
Housing
and if the others pay more, it will even up. The Canadian government could contribute, and even the provincial government if they wanted to. So in the end this would not be that much more expensive. It is an investment, no more, no less, and whole urban areas would be saved.
Any way this sounds quite sensible to me, and I hope the suggestion will work its way through. The opposition may also bring other suggestions.
Mr. Speaker, there is another point I would like to make: We have non-profit corporations or co-operative housing corporations. For quite some time people going to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have been given a huge pile of papers. There is a table there, the references to two months or two months and a half. A time frame is provided. You do that voluntarily, you realize that? This is voluntary. But you are given a schedule, and it takes six months before you can consider renovating a house. Think how many houses will be built at that rate! This is not in the act, it is in the regulations put out by CMHC officials. I set up another non-profit corporation in my constituency, Hochelaga. I went to the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation and I said: We are asking for starter funds; not me personally, I only sponsor the project since, as a member of parliament I am obviously not entitled to subsidies. So I said to them: Gentlemen, we are given only $500 to start; we are given instructions, so much for this, for that and for that. I said: Gentlemen, you are way off the ball. This makes no sense whatsoever. All I ask is that you apply the National Housing Act. It is there as clear as can be.
This makes me laugh, Mr. Speaker, because all these experiences are worth relating. This makes me laugh because you submit plans which you have to be redone over and over again. And this is an expensive process. I remember the first nonprofit corporation I created in Hochelaga. A building contractor kindly offered to lend a hand. He had to redo the plans a great many times. Imagine what that would have cost us, if he had charged each time, besides the shortfall of $50,000 at 8 per cent interest per annum. It was no piece of cake, Mr. Speaker. But there is another suggestion I would like to make. I have already suggested this to CHMC. We know that non-profit corporations hire building contractors or someone to oversee the whole project, award sub-contracts, etc.; these people pocket 20 per cent of the profits. I think that we could grant by means of the National Housing Act and its regulations a certain amount of money which would go to a person who would be called the project co-ordinator and who would manage the repairs and later find a responsible person who could hire subcontractors, and it could well cost 10 per cent instead of 20 per cent. Immediately, at that very moment, costs would be reduced, because it is important, Mr. Speaker, to be cautious. You must keep in mind that even though I say those things in relation to the administration of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and its regulations I cannot entirely blame them, because they have to be careful and I will tell you why. I think that in this House I have a right to say certain things and it is my privilege to do it. I will

March 1, 1979
Housing
not mention any names. I will simply say that some people belonging to the organization of the Progressive Conservative party, who were part of my own organization at that time, did try to entice me into a gimmick involving $10,000 in pay-offs in connection with non-profit housing, and that I never accepted such offers. But it would seem that somebody got these $10,000. I even asked the RCMP to investigate but nothing could be done in that case. So I certainly hope that public interest will still be protected, but there should also be more flexibility and it should be possible, Mr. Speaker, to get housing to move faster because it is much too slow now. It is a never ending process.
What is happening now is that people working on a voluntary basis are discouraged by these procedures and stop working. The law is there to provide for everything needed, but appropriate formulas have to be found in co-operation with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make housing procedures easier and faster. There is also an important point, probably one of the last, Mr. Speaker, about which I am very happy. It is obvious that the bill before the House is aimed at increasing the participation of the private sector, that is credit unions and banks, by allowing mortgages on non-profit housing.
Of course, through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the federal government will guarantee these loans up to 100 per cent. I intended to put a question to the minister, and I suppose that he expected it. I hope that with these guarantees the private sector will co-operate and will not have the nerve to turn down non-profit corporations. Certainly, it could say no to a corporation which is not serious, because the authorization of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would still be needed. There are obviously many people working for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is not necessarily because of that that the process takes so much time. It is because when you go there with a document, it has to go through the hands of about eight people. They must obviously have enough time to examine it. But it seems to me it is possible to speed things up.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge the parties of the opposition to support this bill. Naturally, the government is open to any amendment to the bill; that is why we are here, to find solutions to problems. But, above all else I hope we will think of the old, of those among us who are less fortunate, who are in need of housing.
If, at some point, we could considerably increase the number of non-profitable corporations, if every hon. member in this House could set up that type of committee, in his riding, specifically to increase the number of housing corporations or co-operatives, I feel we could help one another speed up the construction of houses. Indeed, when you live in a house where you are cold, where you have to pay twice as much as others for heating, especially this year when winter has been rather severe, life is not easy for people.
I trust that the first goal of hon. members in this House is, first and foremost, to put the interest of all Canadians ahead

of party or personal interests. That is the wish I express for the benefit of all hon. members trusting they will do the same.
\ English]


Mr. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to intervene in this debate on Bill C-29. I might say that when I read the bill I was not surprised at the contents. Everyone who has been on the receiving end of the government's policies over the past seven or eight years is well aware of the difficulty the government has had, first, in shaping its policies and, second, in implementing them.
Essentially, the bill does three things. First, it disentangles the mess which the government has created in housing at both provincial and municipal levels over the last seven years; second, it cuts out the government's financial commitment to housing and urban affairs and, third, it winds down the Ministry of Urban Affairs after its death was announced in 1978. That is really what the bill does on behalf of the government. It disentangles, it cuts losses, and it winds down the ministry. That is what most people thought would be the case.
I was surprised, though, to hear the minister speaking in defence of the bill. Despite what the legislation was saying, he seemed to approach the subject with no sense of humility about what has happened in the last seven years. I read his speech again to make sure that I had fully understood it. This was not a minister trying to explain why things had gone wrong. It was not a speech in which he sought to indicate there were other ways in which things could be done. Here was a minister trying to shine up the unshineable and to polish up the unpolishable. It was unbelievable.
In attempting to draw a rosy picture of unsullied success in the last seven years, in order to put some flesh on these bones, what did the minister do? He took credit for making sure we had hot and cold running water. That is to be found in black and white on page 3544 of Hansard. As recorded on the same page, the minister took credit for stabilizing the price of housing. It is true he only picks out one year-1977-and it is correct to say that prices went up only 3 per cent in that year. But would he dare tell us by how much the price had gone up since 1968 when this government took over, or since 1970 when this ministry was established?
Every Canadian knows that the price of housing has doubled in ten years, and more than doubled in some areas. It is appalling that the minister should try to polish up the handle of the big brass door by saying it went up 3 per cent in 1977.
I think it is important that what this legislation says is put into perspective. What does it say to the people of this country? First let us talk about the things it says to people who live in substandard housing. That is a concern of the minister. He said he was worried about that. In 1973 a good philosophy was introduced. A good program, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, was introduced. I recall being here in a committee of this House in 1973 and urging the policy on the then minister. It was a good concept and a good philoso-
March 1, 1979

phy. Basically what it said was that increasingly in the older areas in the cities of this country-


Stan Darling: And towns and villages.


David Edward Crombie: -and towns and villages as well, including Burks Falls, there was housing stock which needed to be rehabilitated. At the outset there were certain restrictions placed on RRAP. First, it was available only to people who earned less than $ 11,000. Second, it was available only in certain designated areas in those cities, towns and villages, primarily areas which were known later as neighbourhood improvement areas for non-profit and co-op housing projects, and therefore usually older areas.
Those two restrictions were very important. The first one, the $11,000 income cut-off level was cut out, I think, in 1975. I am not sure of the year, but it was a couple of years ago. However, the money was still confined to designated neighbourhood improvement areas. There was one small difficulty with that designation, and that is that there were some areas, some streets and some housing just outside those NIP areas which also should have received some of the money. So there needed to be written into the legislation some small amount of flexibility. What the minister did about that small need was unbelievable. On December 12 of 1978 he announced that from then on in, the rehabilitation program would not be confined to NIP areas. RRAP was going to be universal. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will remember that. A universal program for RRAP was announced on December 12, 1978.
The minister was cautioned by CMHC officials. Hon. members may recall the letter written on January 3 by a very worried president of CMHC, Mr. Hession, to the minister. The first paragraph says, and I quote:
I am writing in regard to the availability of funds under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. Since the announcement of December 12, 1978 about the proposed removal of statutory area constraints on the program, we have been receiving calls from the media and members of the public at large on this subject, and it is important that we know how best to respond.
You bet! Poor old CMHC had to take all the calls from people across Canada saying they would like to have their RRAP money because the minister said it was universal. Poor old CMHC had to say it did not have the amount of money required. In fact on January 3 the president of CMHC pointed out to the minister, and I quote:
The 1979 capital budget is $56 million. We will need $37 million to maintain activity in the existing designated areas where work has already begun. A further $3 million will be needed to deal with areas already designated but where work has not started. This leaves $16 million of the 1979 budget for new initiatives. However, 68 areas have already submitted final applications for designation under the 1978 rules. After the new law comes into effect, they will not need order in council designation, but they will warrant some priority attention ... Thus, only $9 million for some 2,250 units remains for work under the terms of the new program criteria once the bill is passed.
The president of CMHC also told the minister the following:
This is a fairly modest amount and we should avoid raising expectations which we cannot satisfy.
Housing
What does the president of CMHC propose once this bill is passed?
I would like simply to note that it would appear virtually impossible to establish a system which does not involve the selection of areas for priority action, even though accommodation can be made for scattered site applications too.
Well, son of a gun! We are right back to designated areas again. In fact, so concerned is Mr. Hession-not was, but is- that he was pleased to offer the minister a backgrounder so that the minister would at least get some grasp of what he was saying. He sent the minister a backgrounder, a ten-year plan to modernize and rehabilitate Canada's housing stock. He wanted the minister at least to look at it. I will not go through the four pages. I will just read the last part. It says, and I quote:
What it means in the briefest terms is that while a considerable number of people can take action in the near future, because their areas and homes are in bad shape, others will need to wait for a while. It also means that the rehabilitation effort will continue to be concentrated in specified action areas as in the past-
That could not be any plainer. There is a reason why CMHC has to do that. It does not have the money to have a universal program. That did not stop the minister, by the way. He said in December that it is a universal program. The president of CMHC wrote him a letter and said, in effect, "Please don't do that, sir; we don't have the money, and you are just going to raise expectations and disappoint people." Yesterday when the minister spoke in the House he did not use the word "universal". He went further, if one can go further than universal. He said that it is a program, and I quote, "available to all of Canada." He said that in the face of the letter he received from the president of CMHC.
The reason I dwell on that is because in so much of the housing and urban affairs policy of this government since 1970 it has not been policy which has dominated. It has been public relations which have dominated and motivated pronouncements, announcements, and ultimately retractions, because of the way this government has proceeded with respect to urban Canada. That has hurt people. Many people say that a certain program is good and that because the minister says they can get money they would like to fix up their houses. The fact is that there is no money. Public relations are not policy. People who are interested in rehabilitating their homes do not trust the policy of this government.
What does this legislation say to the neighbourhoods and communities of this country which want to improve themselves? I speak now of the so-called community services grants program. The community services grants program is really a merging of three previous programs. The first is the Neighbourhood Improvement Program which expired last March. It was a very good program since its inception in 1973. In fact, since 1975, $200 million has been involved. I give fair marks to the government on a very good program. That was the first program. The second program is the Municipal Incentives Grants Program which was to offer incentives with respect to the medium-density, low-cost housing in municipalities in this country. That expired last December. The third is the Municipal Infrastructure Program. Although the minister took credit

March 1, 1979
Housing
for it, it began in 1961. If I recall history-and of course the Minister of Agriculture can correct me-I think we had a Conservative government at that time. Since 1961 $1.5 billion has been coming from that program in the last 17 years to the municipalities of this country.
The minister could have taken credit for these three things. Those are things that have really happened and that have helped people and helped neighbourhoods. In fact, there was some thought about taking the three programs and merging them into a community services grant program, block funding, and using those funds as well for rinks, community halls and community centres. In fact, block funding was recommended to the ministry in the standing committee in 1973. I know because I made the recommendation myself. So I am glad to see the principle of block funding finally there six years later. But again, what is the way to deal with the problem? Offer the policy, implement it, and try to be known by your good works alone? Not this government. Here is the press release of May, 1978, put out by the minister on this matter. The bill was only brought here in March of 1979, but in May of 1978 the press release from the minister stated the following:
Quietly, without a lot of fanfare, the hon. Andre Ouellet has moved with his provincial counterparts to decisively alter the relationships between the federal and provincial governments in the housing and community services fields.
By the way, that is not new, that came out in the press release last May. What happened since last May? Knock on the door of any municipality in this country right now, or telephone them, and they will tell you that in the last 18 months or almost two years there has been nothing but delay, anxiety, and confusion in the municipalities as to what the heck this government intends to do and when they will do it. They do not know what assistance is available under the community services program. They do not know what assistance has been withdrawn and they do not know anything about the implementation dates of any assistance that might still be there. If you do not believe that, call the municipalities in your own riding, because essentially what the government did do was to paralyse the ability of the municipalities to plan both in terms of land use and in terms of their capital budgets, because you cannot plan if you do not know how much money you will get for sewage, for medium density low cost housing, or for NIP. So every municipality in this country which has those programs available to them has been unable to implement them for what amounts to two fiscal years.
Interestingly enough, as most people know, capital budget time for municipalities come just about now. Most municipalities have already prepared their budgets, so it will not help them this year. What the government has given the municipalities is delay and confusion with regard to the community services program. In fact, when you read the fine print, you find that at least the old Neighbourhood Improvement Program gave 25 per cent in front end money, that is to say, you have 25 cents on the dollar early on so you can use the money to plan with it. That is cut out now. We are back to the old urban renewal idea of the municipality doing it, charging it,

and then recovering the money. That is not great, but it is okay for a city like Montreal or Toronto, it may be all right for Winnipeg or Calgary, but it is not very good for medium-sized or small-sized municipalities. They cannot put the money in the budget. That is why NIP provided them with an opportunity to do their planning early. Read this bill and you will find that such a provision is not contained in it. That is why you will not need much money for the NIP portion of the municipality services program because people have not been able to plan for it.
What does this mean? The government brought this program to a standstill. The municipalities are not using it. Do you know what that means, particularly when you deal with NIP in any neighbourhood? You have to put together an organization of people and you have to keep them going and interested in their work. The only way they keep on being interested is when they have the bucks to do the job. Nobody likes to continue talking forever and have nothing done. If you get to a situation, as is the case in Toronto, in Montreal, and in all major cities as well as in medium-sized cities-there is a mayor or two across the way who knows from previous times the point I am making-where you want to keep up interest in neighbourhood improvement, you must make sure the money is flowing. I am telling you, it is not flowing now. Telephone any municipality in your own riding. The hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) can phone City Hall in Toronto and find that out right now. In fact she can phone Paul Ringer and find out.


Mrs. Appolloni:: Call the province of Ontario.


David Edward Crombie: Third, what is this legislation saying to the people who pay more than they should out of the income they have for the housing they get? These people pay more than is reasonable, according to home economists, more than they should be paying for housing, given the size of their income. We are advised that there are 438,000 people in this country who pay more than 30 per cent of their income, and there are 800,000-it does not seem like much if you say it fast but it is a lot if you say it slowly-800,000 households paying more than 25 per cent. What do you say about that? What does the bill say about it, and what does the minister say about it? At page 3546 of Hansard of February 23 the minister is reported to have said the following:
But in their case, and I say it again, theirs is not so much a problem of housing as one of income.
How do you like that? I know the Minister of Agriculture would agree that if prices of food went up 300 per cent, he could use the same argument, that the problem is not one of food but one of income. If there were a 1,000 per cent increase in the cost of furniture, it would not be a furniture problem but an income problem.
The minister went on to say the following, and this is the best part:
For them, as hon. members know, I announced earlier this week, in a speech I made in Toronto, that there was another solution to their problem,
March 1, 1979

So he announced a solution. He is the minister responsible, he is not a backbencher like myself, he is not like the Minister of Agriculture, so as the minister responsible in this area, can he go and say, "Well, this seems like a reasonable idea to me. I will do a little wool gathering, I do not have to promise anything, I do not have to do anything about it. What I can do is try to stop people from worrying"? What was so galling about that was that he announced this solution as though he was struck on the road to Damascus, as though he had never heard about it before, as though he uncovered something new for people. In 1972 the department received a series of recommendations in a wonderful book called "Programs in Search of a Policy". It is a title at which the government should look. It is a book on low income housing in Canada written by Michael Dennis and Susan Fish. At page 354 of that report there is a section called "Shelter Allowances". That is what the minister was talking about the other day. I cannot read the entire section because it is approximately ten pages in length.
The first sentence indicates the difficulties of making a building subsidy program work. This leads the authors to recommend a shelter allowance program as the only workable alternative. Also it is indicated that there are many variations in the form such assistance could take. It could be a rent certificate, a rent rebate, a generalized allowance. It could be made payable in the case of tenancy or ownership. It could be payable to an individual or his landlord. It might be payable only to families with children, the elderly, the disabled, or it could be paid to all households. It might depend upon living in adequate housing. It might vary with income, size of family or size of community. These are some of the variations to which the co-authors referred. Then it goes on to offer comments on the experience in Germany, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Italy and a few other countries.
Shelter allowances which the minister talked about in Toronto are not new. In fact shelter allowances were recommended to the government six years ago. For the minister to suggest that it is somehow an alternative which he thought up for the election, is something for which he will have to answer. By the way, if I had not read from that publication, I could have offered another one. The Canadian Council on Social Development came out with a report on the matter a couple of months ago. They made the same argument as Michael Dennis and Susan Fish six years ago. It has been around a long time, and I might add that it is a good policy. The idea of a home shelter allowance is a good one. It has certain advantages. Essentially it would assist people rather than buildings. That is the basic philosophical difference between it and home subsidy. It would assist people rather than buildings.
Housing


An hon. Member:: What are the advantages?


David Edward Crombie: The advantages are many. It would cut out waiting lists. There would be no more waiting lists, no more interviews, no more walking around and waiting for someone else to decide where one can live. It would offer an increase in choice. One could live in a number of places. It diminishes the consequences. It broadens the choice. It diminishes socio-economic ghettos. Also it diminishes the stigma of assisted housing which unfortunately still exists. It is more cheaply done. There are studies to show that. If the costs are added up, all the ones which can be seen and all the ones which cannot be seen in terms of subsidizing buildings, it will be found that subsidizing people is cheaper. I might add that it reaches more people in need.
There are difficulties as well. It is with considerable regret that I indicate the government did not spend time studying all alternatives available respecting shelter allowances in the last six years. Approximately six years after the government received the recommendation, airily the minister said that it is a germ of a good idea. We could have been on to a program of home shelter allowances previously. There are a number which have been established partially in the country. I think the minister should have started some years ago by saying, "Let us begin with senior citizens".
There is a program in British Columbia which other hon. members have mentioned already, Safer. Not only is there a program in place, but the government had studies available to tell it how well the program was doing. It is a very good program. The minister could have studied that program. In fact the minister could have monitored that program over the last three years, and he could have brought in one by 1979. The program could have dealt with senior citizens as well as people below the poverty line. We have shown that subsidizing buildings for people below the poverty line is not the way to go. The way to go is with home shelter allowances. The speech of the minister in Toronto typified the manner in which municipal affairs, urban affairs and housing generally are treated by the government.
The government is interested in public relations. It has no policies. What does it say to tenants in the country? Nothing. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) has mentioned that already. One can go through the bill. What does it say to tenants anywhere in the country? Absolutely nothing. There is no shelter allowance program. The minister had six years to bring in such a program. There is no shelter allowance program for tenants. There is no longer an assisted rental program. Most hon. members are not aware of the fact that there is no ARP any more. The vacancy rate in the city of Toronto is .9 per cent. In the rest of Ontario it is somewhere between 1.5 per cent and 2 per cent. Major cities are closer to the Toronto percentage of .9. I am not aware of the figures in other parts of the country. I can dwell only on Ontario figures. The only way to relieve the low vacancy rate, and therefore be able to contribute something toward reducing the price of
3746

March 1, 1979
Housing
rental housing, is to produce more. Thus, tenants would have cheaper rents. There is no allowance. There is no ARP. There is nothing for tenants in this bill.
What does it say to home owners? It says nothing to tenants, and what it says to home owners is worse than nothing. The single most important thing which happened to home owners as a consequence of this bill is that the Assisted Home Ownership Program has been knocked out and the Graduated Mortgage Payment Program put in. AHOP out, GMP in. I think some hon. members have dealt already with the Graduated Mortgage Payment program. I should like to put one or two thoughts forward. One economist said the following:
Administered by the CMHC, GMP's are designed to give a house buyer one of the major advantages already provided by AHOP: during the first five years of a graduated payment mortgage, monthly payments are much lower than a conventional mortgage would allow. From then on, payments are stepped up gradually until after the tenth year, when they reach a plateau.
Of course this allows the person to get in earlier with a low downpayment.
The economist continued with the part the government does not want to mention. He said the following:
But the unpleasant, less obvious fact is that over the life of the debt, the GMP will cost the borrower $9,324 more than the standard mortgage would- $105,024, compared with $95,700.
He borrows $35,000 and he will pay back $105,024. Bad farming, bad farming.


Walter David Baker: That comment is for you, Eugene.


David Edward Crombie: In fact it is so bad that Peter Carter, the past chairman of the mortgage committee on Canadian banking calls it "permadebt". That is pretty chilly. It is like stagflation. Permadebt applies to the individual; stagflation apparently applies to society. It is no more or less than an economic bondage, that is what it means. It is economic bondage. Hon. members should think of themselves being involved in it. It is all right to talk about other people, but how would hon. members like to be in it? There was a time up until approximately seven or eight years ago when people regarded buying a home, particularly first time buyers, as a way of getting ahead in the country. With permadebt, the government's mortgage answer, it is becoming a way to get behind. That is what has been done to housing. It is not how people see it in terms of getting ahead, it is how one puts oneself behind. Not only that, but the banks will have difficulty because it does not make any economic sense. The government comes along and says what it is going to do is pay off all the debts after 90 days. Nobody likes to be in debt. Even the banks do not like to be in debt.
What this bill means to home owners is that they will be in bondage. Secondly, it perverts the principles of good banking in order to cover this government's act. Thirdly, and perhaps I should mention this as I have not heard anyone else refer to it, the graduated payment mortgage plan also has built into it,

depending on taxes and fuel, a five per cent to seven per cent inflation factor. How is that for wrestling inflation to the ground? The government is building inflation into its own mortgage plan. This is what it does for home owners.
What does it do for the construction industry? There is no AHOP program left so the industry can not use it. There is no assisted home ownership plan left at all, and there is no assisted rental program, so you cannot take advantage of that. This means, of course, there will be no multi-dwelling projects constructed.
There is the suggestion that somehow the market is already supplying enough. As someone has pointed out, we have the wrong kind of housing in the wrong places and we do not have the right kind of houses in the right places. What this essentially means to the construction industry, and let that industry here this loud and clear, is that there will be no construction and no jobs. The unemployment level in the construction industry, certainly in Ontario, is at a record high since the depression. What this bill says to the construction industry is that there will be no development, no construction, and no jobs.
When listening to members speak, particularly those of the other two parties, I heard them repeatedly say they are universally against the mortgage interest and property tax deductibility policy. I took that phrase from the minister, but these people have spoken in condemnation of that program. Indeed, one day the minister had a little fun with me when he referred to my statement that it required some further thought. Indeed, I did say it required some further thought. It requires some further thought, in my view, in relation to the shelter allowance. It seemed to me, and still does, that a shelter allowance, particularly for senior citizens and those living below the poverty line, is a policy worthy of any government.
When one member after another stood and talked about the mortgage interest and property tax deductibility program as a bad thing, I concluded they had not read it and did not care to read it. At least this program offers something to the home owners and to the people who want to own homes and want their children to own homes. Indeed, knock on the doors of senior citizens and I suggest they will tell you they would like to see their grandchildren own homes. If you ask them, I expect the answer you would get is yes. At least this policy offers something to home owners and those who would like to be home owners. It will not put them into economic bondage. What it does is offer the hope of home ownership in this country. The program does offer something to those who pay too much of their income for housing. This bill does absolutely nothing in this regard, and the government has said nothing about this, with the exception of that fly-by-night speech of the minister last week.
What our program suggests is that it will be cheaper to own a home, that it will reduce the amount of income the people have to pay to own homes, and that this will make home ownership more affordable. There is absolutely nothing in this
March 1, 1979

bill in that regard. Not only does it offer nothing to home owners, it offers nothing to everyone who pays more of their income than they should for housing.
I would like my colleagues in the NDP to think of this. Our proposal will benefit the construction industry. After removing the anxiety in respect of the oversupply in the market in those areas where units have been built in the wrong places, our policy will stimulate construction, which in turn will create more jobs in that industry, and in other areas such as furniture manufacturing, appliance manufacturing, textiles, the needle trades and so on. These sectors need the jobs which will only follow stimulation in construction activity.
What does this bill do in respect of co-operatives and the non-profit organizations? I have been very impressed by the new love affair people are having in respect of service clubs, labour councils, cultural groups and religious institutions now engaged in non-profit housing. I have been involved for 12 or 13 years with non-profit housing and co-ops, indeed at a time when people did not talk about them in polite society. I do not think I have to offer my credentials, or point out the significance of non-profit corporations and co-ops in large cities and neighbourhoods.
The minister says this is the best part of the bill, and the non-profit organizations and co-ops want this legislation. They really do want it. Their tongues are hanging out for it because they have been held up in some cases for almost two years waiting for the minister to bring this into the house. That is why they want it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: I do not agree because it is rubbish anyway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate will be quite limited. I have been concerned, as have other members of my party and of the government, about the insistence by hon. members in the opposition, and I do not refer to the NDP, on the value of the mortgage interest and real estate deductibility program in having a stimulative effect on the housing industry, and in achieving the great American dream, as the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) is often wont to call it, of owning your own home. I do not suggest that because 1 think their hearts are not in the right place, but because I believe that, on serious examination of the type we have conducted on this side of the House, they will see the program is not one that will achieve those objectives.
Housing
It is reasonable to presume that we in Canada would not even be considering such a plan or program were it not to exist in the United States and not to have been popularized, if you like, by our American neighbour to the south. Because of that I welcomed the opportunity to visit Washington several weeks ago in a bipartisan parliamentary group consisting of, from our side of the House, the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley); from the other side of the House the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae). We had the opportunity of examining in depth with a very wide cross-section of American officials who are responsible for the administration of this particular law and, of course, all other fiscal laws. For example there was the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the policy division of the Department of the Treasury, the Congressional Budget Committee, the Joint Committee on Taxation, as well as independent economists from the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, and various other experts in the field.
This was done in the spirit of objective examination to determine whether or not the deductibility of mortgage interest and real estate taxes is a valuable device in achieving the objectives that have been put forward by the opposition for examination, namely, home ownership, stimulation of the economy, and perhaps some fiscal relief to create more tax neutrality in the income tax system.
I think that I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the opinion of all informed observers in the United States is to the effect that mortgage interest deductibility and real estate tax deductibility does not accomplish any of those objectives and that those objectives can be better achieved by other techniques. Going further than that, I believe it is important for us in Canada to understand why interest in the United States is deductible in computing income and why real estate taxes are deductible. I would like very briefly to provide this House with some of the background of the American experience.
Beginning with the Internal Revenue Code of 1913 it was recognized that interest in general, not just interest on mortgages, all interest, should be deductible, as well as local taxes. Hence it was built into the very structure of the American income tax system from the outset. That, to begin with, is to be contrasted dramatically with the situation in Canada where local taxes are not deductible. So, it is apparent to even the most unsophisticated observer that rendering real estate taxes deductible, for example, would automatically at the local level create a shift of local taxation into real estate taxes.
It seems to me that nothing could be more obvious, and it was pointed out to us by our American observers that such would inevitably be the case.
But over the years, because of these deductions, our U.S. neighbours have designed standard deductions across the board applicable to U.S. taxpayers. I believe that at the

March 1, 1979
Housing
present time in 1978 or 1979-I may be speaking in 1978 figures, I am not certain-a single taxpayer in the United States is entitled to a basic $2,300 deduction, and a married couple is entitled to a $3,400 deduction. That deduction absorbs this wide variety of local taxes and interest which they would otherwise have to itemize and, hence, 75 per cent of U.S. taxpayers who file returns in the United States file them on the basis of unitemized returns taking that basic deduction. On the other hand, 25 per cent of the returns that are filed are filed on the so-called long itemized return.
We were advised by the internal revenue authorities that in such cases the returns are necessary because of these specific deductions, that the deductions for mortgage interest and real estate taxes push people into such high deductions that it is worth their while to claim these deductions on the long form. In fact were it not for these specific deductions the entire U.S. tax system could be considerably simplified. I might add that the cost to the U.S. treasury in 1978 for this specific deduction was estimated to be $12.8 billion.
Before dealing with some of the specific problems which are inherent in the scheme, I think it is very important to underline the fact that in the United States 63 per cent of housing is owner occupied and 37 per cent is rented. The figures, of course, vary from area to area. For example, in New York state the rental percentage is higher and the ownership percentage is lower. It struck all of us in the group, interestingly enough, that those figures corresponded indentically with the numbers that have been furnished to us by Statistics Canada 1976, namely, 63 per cent of the housing in this country is owner occupied and 37 per cent is rented. Again there are variations from region to region, and in my particular province the percentages are almost 50-50. As a matter of fact, I believe the figures are 49 and 51.
It is interesting to note that notwithstanding the existence of this so-called benefit of mortgage interest deductibility over all these years, owner occupied housing in this country has kept pace with that in the United States, and we were further advised, although I have not verified these numbers, but I intend to do so, that upon their analysis in the United States the lower income groups in Canada had a higher percentage of home ownership than in their country, and the reverse was true, of course, in higher income groups. All of this speaks well for the experience that Canadians have had in housing people in this country and in providing that great American dream which the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton refers to, namely, home ownership.
I for one subscribe to the value of home ownership and I think that most of us do. It is not something which can be defined. Again, in the course of discussions with economists and others who had conducted an analysis in this area, it was felt that there was no demonstrable evidence that home ownership per se had inherent value. Nevertheless, my own feeling is that home ownership is a good thing. I think that a stake in our country and our communities, an asset of that kind, is bound to create and encourage stability and responsibility.

Let us assume that members on all sides of this House are in agreement that home ownership is a desirable objective. As I have said, I certainly endorse that principle, as do, I am sure, all members of my party. But how can it best be achieved? That is the question to which we must address ourselves. I have noticed that in most of the comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton in the press she has stated on many occasions, and I think sincerely and basically with the best of good will, that home ownership is desirable and that this plan is designed to achieve home ownership. Let us look at the plan for a moment and let us determine whether it really does accomplish its purpose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps this is a good time to intervene, because I could only allow the hon. member a few seconds more. It being ten o'clock, we must proceed with the adjournment debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday 16 I pursued yet another time the question of jet air service into western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan. I directed my question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He was kind enough to indicate that he realizes that improved air service is needed. This was on the basis of the warm reception he received when he was in Brandon for the opening of the Winter Games some two weeks ago. He said, finally, that he did not understand why the people of Brandon should want to leave such a fine centre quickly. Unfortunately, I was not able to ask a supplementary. Had I had that privilege I would have responded that it was not a case of leaving the city of Brandon or the area of western Manitoba, but rather, as the old adage says, all wise men come from the east, and the wiser they are the faster they come! It is because there is a great demand to get into this part of the country that we need the jet service for ingress and egress.
The problem simply is that we have in place at the moment-and I suppose it was put in place so that the government would be able to say there was air service available for the Winter Games-and, incidentally, as everyone knows, the community of Brandon, which is the smallest ever to have staged the games, did the best job that has ever been done in this respect-we have in place a commuter air service provided by Perimeter Aviation Ltd. This does not operate from the main air terminal in Winnipeg. Passengers are bussed to the back of the airport where they climb on board a small aircraft. It is almost necessary to get into the aircraft on hands
March 1, 1979

and knees. On the occasions that I have tried it, senior citizens have not been able to get in, and it would be absolutely impossible for handicapped people to use the aircraft.
This service will only be successful, as was demonstrated when we had a commuter service before, if it is linked into the direct air service in the excellent, brand new terminal facilities at the western Manitoba airport directly south of the city of Brandon. We cannot make it economically viable if we are merely a satellite of the international air terminal that services the city of Winnipeg.
The irony of the situation is that all major airlines fly over this lovely new terminal facility. Pacific Western, Air Canada and CPA have regular flights daily over the airport. If we had a sky hook that would hook on at 30,000 feet, we could use the facilities.
I have examined the timetables of these airlines, Mr. Speaker. Air Canada flies out of Ottawa, Toronto, London and into Winnipeg, directly over the city of Brandon. I have taken the flight on many occasions to see how great is the passenger load. Passengers are not available for that flight in any greater numbers than would be provided by the 200,000 citizens who live in the western Manitoba area.
I flew Pacific Western out of Yellowknife recently. It picked up passengers at Yellowknife in a 737, to go to High River, Pine Point and on to Edmonton. Those communities are much smaller than the 200,000 population that is available for jet service in the western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan area.
I am interested in the CPA schedule. It at least recognizes that there is a city of Brandon because it links it with Winnipeg. Neither PWA nor Air Canada acknowledges that there is even such a community as Brandon. During the Winter Games it was necessary to bring in some 3,000 amateur athletes from all parts of Canada by charter aircraft. It was amazing to see the efficiency with which those airlines of all types flew into Brandon and were handled by the fully equipped airport. The manpower is there and the terminals facilities are there. All we need is the aircraft.
It was certainly demonstrated during the Winter Games that this airport is fully equipped to provide the best level of service that is available. It should also handle charter flights. The Sunflight business in the winter is a tremendously profitable activity. This service could easily be handled with our large parking area.
The international terminal at Winnipeg requires expansion. No longer can the parking facilities there meet the demand of the large number of passengers using that airport. The Government of Canada has invested in the terminal. It is there. All we ask is a service similar to that offered to the community of Dryden. I have looked at the new Nordair schedule of service. They fly in and out of Dryden at least twice a day, even though it is a much smaller community and has a much smaller population than the 200,000 in the western Manitoba area.
Adjournment Debate
I discussed this matter with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, now the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid), who represents a community in a position similar to the western Manitoba area. He is sympathetic.
Now that it has been demonstrated that there is a real need and that the facilities are available, I hope that at long last the government will discharge the promise it made during the 1974 election and that western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan, including Yorkton which has no air service, will be provided with service on the scale promised in 1974.


Mr. Raymond Dupont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), suggests that during the electoral campaign of 1974, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised a regular jet service to western Manitoba. I think he is referring to the speech the Prime Minister made in Winnipeg on May 23, 1974. I would like to quote part of that speech to show that the government has kept its electoral promises. The Prime Minister said:
Now, I would like to talk about another sector of the air service, about the air policy, about industrial development and job creation. Indeed, I would like to announce that the government has approved in principle the establishment of an air service between Winnipeg, Brandon, Dauphin, Yorkton and Saskatoon in order to try out new policies for third level air services. Air services will be established between these centres of Western Canada.
The Prime Minister certainly did not suggest a jet service, but rather a local carrier or third level carrier type of service which never uses jet aircraft. Although nobody on the electoral campaign trail promised a jet service for Brandon, my hon. colleague knows full well that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has done his utmost to try and get such a service for that community. In 1977 the minister announced that the government was prepared to grant financial assistance up to $1.1 million for the operation of a jet service between Brandon, Toronto and Regina. He asked interested carriers to file an application with the Canadian Transport Commission. Unfortunately, his offer did not meet with the expected response.
Despite the position taken by carriers on this matter in 1977, once again late last fall the minister tried to obtain a jet service for Brandon. As the minister himself explained, he has had repeated disucssions with airline representatives to encourage them to file an application for an east-west jet service. He also stated that he was ready to give all necessary assistance to ensure that such application would be granted. Yet no carrier took heed. At present, Brandon has an excellent air service, operated twice a day by Perimeter Airlines, which receives financial assistance from the government.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SUGGESTION OVERSEAS ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL RECEIVE FREE MAILING PRIVILEGES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 21, I put a question to the Minister of National

March 1, 1979
Adjournment Debate
Defence (Mr. Danson) having to do with the free mailing privilege which some of our armed forces personnel engaged in United Nations peacekeeping operations receive. I was making inquiries into the possibility of this privilege being extended to all Canadian servicemen overseas.
The minister told the House he was not aware that any of our armed forces personnel were receiving those privileges. I did not have an opportunity to get back to him with a supplementary question assuring him that my information was correct, but the minister rose on a point of order on February 23 to clarify the matter, stating that though, as he had indicated, the Canadian government and the Department of National Defence do not accord free mail privileges to service personnel, the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East does benefit from free mailing privileges provided by the United Nations.
Recently, I was in the Middle East along with five other members of this chamber. We had the privilege of touring the various posts at which Canadian forces are stationed and we found this question of mail facilities was a bone of contention among those to whom free mailing privileges had not been extended. I raised this matter so that the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) could give consideration to extending free mailing privileges to all members of our armed forces who do such a commendable job as a peacekeeping force. When these men are absent abroad for tours of six months, communication with their homes is essential if they are to keep in touch with their families. In view of the fact that the dollar has fallen considerably in value, and since responsibility for this decline must fall squarely on the shoulders of members opposite, it seems fair something should be done to minimize its effect upon them. Our armed forces are doing a superb job in the Middle East and I would ask ministers seriously to consider offering free mailing privileges to our armed forces personnel posted overseas.
[ Translation]


Raymond Dupont: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the men and women of the Canadian armed forces now offer their expertise and leadership abroad. In this unique field of international responsibility, and this is a well known fact, Canada continues to receive praise and encouragement, and I have come to understand why through my work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson). This is reflected in the pride of each member of the Canadian armed forces.
Those among us who have had the opportunity to see them in action can understand the pride felt by Canadians when they travel in Europe and can note for themselves the excellent reputation that Canada has gained through the peacetime efforts of our armed forces. This is something we cannot and would not want to forget. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a comment concerning the thousands of men and women in the Canadian armed forces, many of them with their

families, who serve Canada abroad. Many of these Canadians are members of our NATO forces and they are treated in the same way as any other Canadian citizen abroad.
We are aware of the fact that inflation affects Canadians serving in Europe and that our service people are no exception to this rule. I must however note with great satisfaction that our military personnel is very well paid, at a level equivalent to the employees of the public service of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that the interest he has shown as well as other very important things- that we consider continuing in our efforts to ensure that our servicemen in this country will keep on getting the benefits they deserve in addition to what they earn. My colleague mentioned in this House on February 23 last, when he raised a question of privilege that UN Forces in the Middle East get free mailing privileges for their members for up to five letters a week not exceeding one ounce per letter, under a special arrangement. Such letters are mailed free under arrangements entered upon by the UN Emergency Forces and postage is paid by them.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague that according to the minister each force had its own procedural rules. However, he will follow up on this thing and find out whether other UN forces could be allowed the same privileges. I can assure the hon. member that this is going through the appropriate channels to see what might be done to arrange that. As the hon. member probably knows, our Canadian servicemen have served with distinction and pride as UN members engaged in peace-keeping operations ever since our former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, showed leadership in creating the United Nations Peace Force. For this excellent work which everyone can look upon with pride, the Nobel peace prize-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member. The time allotted to him has now expired.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-GOVERNMENT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO CANADIAN DELEGATION AT BELGRADE CONFERENCE
Mr. Yuri Shymko (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) to answer a very simple question. I wanted the minister to tell parliament and the people of Canada if it was true that our Canadian delegation in Belgrade, reviewing the Helsinki Accords, was instructed not to protest the violations of the accords by specifically naming the violating states and the victims of their violations. The minister could easily have answered yes or no. He could easily have explained. The minister has acquired a reputation for his agility and ability as an excellent speaker in the House. He is quite capable of manoeuvring his way out of the toughest questions. Yet there was no answer. There was only silence, the silence of excuses,
March 1, 1979

of insecurity and doubt, the same silence that dominated the negotiations at Belgrade. It was the silence of hesitancy and fear to stand up boldly and speak out. It was the eternal silence of cocktail diplomacy, fearing to stand firm on one's principles and convictions with the courage to speak the truth from the heart and from the soul because it may insult the violator. Violators are not insulted, and we must confront them with truth, for it is they who insult the humanity and the honesty of men of good will who trusted and believed that agreements would be respected.
So, equally, our silence is an insult to Canada, whose people do not want to be partners in lies and deceit. Canada has contributed in a major way to the struggle for human rights. It was this country which provided leadership in formulating and including the humanitarian clauses of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1975.
Our country, and its government, more than any other of the western democratic states which signed the accords, have moral responsibility for the fate of those human beings who genuinely and honestly believed, as we did, that what was signed in Helsinki was to be implemented and respected. Yet for those human beings incarcerated today in Poland, Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R. and other countries, Helsinki became a trap in which they were caught because they had faith and confidence that the world would lend them some legal protection when they, as members of public organizations, sought to do what the accords themselves demanded of them and promised they could do.
What irony, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of the deliberations of this parliament of free men, a parliamentarian such as I can only find seven minutes to decry the plight of human beings serving a total of approximately 150 years of incarceration, human beings who have risked their lives to entrench fundamental human rights and civil liberties for their peoples, the principles of brotherhood, of justice and of peace, in their countries, and who are now serving prison terms of up to 15 years! I refer to all the arrested members of the Helsinki Public Monitoring Groups in Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Armenia, Georgia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries: To name only a few, they are: Victoras Petkus, Gajaus-kas Palys, Mykola Rudenko, Oleksa Tykhyj, Myroslav Marynovych, Mykola Matusevych, Levko Lukianenko, Petro Vins, Yuri Orlov, Anatoly Shcharansky, Alexander Ginsburg, Zviad Gomsakhurdia, Merad Kostava, among many others.
Among the proposals jointly submitted by our Canadian delegation and 14 other states in Belgrade, the participating states recognized the right of individuals and organizations to point out to their governments instances of non-implementation of the accords. If this was indeed our proposal, then it is our duty to ensure that, prior to the Madrid conference, such individuals as I have mentioned are granted legal protection to monitor the implementation of the Helsinki accords, in freedom, without persecution, and that those who have been arrested be released. If that is not done, the final act itself will
Adjournment Debate
be a mere circus, and all credibility in detente will be destroyed, not only among the participatory states but, above all, among the citizens of every country, among them the citizens of Canada.
Canada's position prior to and at the Madrid conference must change drastically so as to expose, protest, and condemn openly and without shame and hesitation, to stand firmly on our principles in our protest against those regimes for whom diplomacy, unfortunately, is but a game of lies and deceit in pursuit of their political and international interests.
I should like to point out that very often this demands a sacrifice on the part of Canadian citizens, the sacrifice perhaps of our economic expediency. When I see that the Canadian Export Development Corporation has extended to the Soviet Union over $500 million in credit, or that $9.3 million worth of Canadian oil equipment is being sold to the Soviet Union, I conclude that there might be some economic expediency in our silence. I must remind the House that President Carter placed an embargo on the sale of computers. He demanded that the sale of oil equipment should be granted a presidential veto when Shcharansky was arrested. He took a drastic and open stand with regard to the arrests of these individuals who were incarcerated and caged because they believe in Helsinki. We have a moral responsibility toward them. It will demand a sacrifice, and there is no question that serious decisions will have to be made, but if political and economic expediency becomes the base and foundation in our diplomatic relations with human beings and countries, we will be moving in the direction of the Orwellian world of 1984 where human beings became mere robots, mere machines dependent on the fickle will of the state. Such is the trend in many regimes.
I appeal to this parliament of free men to emphasize before the government and before our citizens that a drastic change must be made. There is no question that the Madrid conference will be held at the same time as the Moscow Olympics. The Soviet government is faced with the decision either to arrest these people en masse or to free them en masse. Our stand can save them, and can release the incarcerated.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to throw some light on the instructions given to the Canadian delegation which will represent Canada at an international conference on the Helsinki Accords to be held in Madrid. I would, by the same token, reply to a question raised in the House yesterday by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Shymko).
The Canadian delegation to the Belgrade conference had received instructions reflecting the particular importance the Canadian government and the Canadian people attach to the provisions of the Final Act of the Helsinki Accords concerning human rights and other humane matters. We did not give specific instructions urging our delegation to avoid mentioning the names of victims and violators in cases such as those

March 1, 1979
Adjournment Debate
involving members of the Helsinki Accords monitoring groups in the Soviet Union. We did ask the delegation, however, to frame its interventions in objective and impartial terms and to endeavour to maintain a climate in which a dialogue would remain possible without controversy or confrontation.
Past experience has taught us that discreet representations usually give better results than forceful statements. Of course, we are tempted to make party politics with those matters, Mr. Speaker, but any person who is aware of his responsibilities and who has a minimum of experience in international matters and diplomacy knows full well that vociferous statements are not very fruitful as a rule. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the hon. member will agree that both the victims and those who made such violations could not ignore the position of Canada on those matters.
Besides, if the hon. member read the statements of the Canadian delegation, and in particular that of October 31, 1977, as reproduced in the brochure Canada At Belgrade which was published after the conference, he will realize-I am pleased to see that he has already read it-that Canada has never concealed its positions. With regard to individual cases implicating the Soviet Union, special instructions were given to our delegation: it was asked to underline to the Soviet delegation the concern of both our government and the Canadian people, and to present our proposals for solving those unfortunate cases.


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

Friday, March 2, 1979