1979-12-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the Progressive Conservative government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) decided, according to his press release dated June 8, to order the promulgation of the last clauses of Bill C-14 on unemployment insurance so that they would be implemented on July 1, 1979, clauses which have an especially adverse effect on seasonal workers in northwest New Brunswick, contrary to what had been expected, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration refrain from politicking at the expense of poor workers especially in the economic region of Madawaska, that he immediately take the required steps of which he is well aware to correct that serious social unfairness and grant to those workers the same advantages as those of the neighbouring constituency of Restigouche or Kent, for example, and in future when answering in the House that he state the whole truth in its real context, in accordance with his oath of office and with a view to living up to the principle of ministerial responsibility towards Parliament and the Canadian workers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion under Standing Order 43 to which I feel the government simply cannot say no. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House urges the Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce this week, without fail, his promised legislation to amend the statutes relating to veterans, their families and their survivors, in the knowledge that this House is prepared to deal with such legislation without delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Canadian-owned car rental companies are already discriminated against by the tendering policies of Transport Canada in favour of international franchises, and in view of the fact that the department has just awarded a contract to one of these foreign-based franchises, even though their bid was opened a full two hours after the official closing date and after all the other tenders were made public, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Phillips):
That the Minister of Transport reject this mockery of government tendering procedures and proceed to award the car rental contract at the Winnipeg airport to a Canadian-owned franchise, Holiday Rent-A-Car Ltd., which made the best offer under the terms of the tender procedure.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 4, 1979
5.0.	43


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Whereas the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, the Saskatchewan government and the federal government all agreed in 1977 to a formula for settling outstanding land entitlement claims under treaty, and whereas on November 27 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp) unilaterally declared that he no longer recognized the said formula-which has shocked and dismayed the Saskatchewan Indians-I move:
That this House condemn the minister for his statement in question period on November 27 and ask him to reconsider the answer that he gave on that occasion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House expresses its stunned disbelief that the provincial premiers have insisted on having the subject "Employment Problems of Women" dropped from the agenda of the December 17-18 first ministers' conference and, in the spirit of its own tireless dedication to women's issues, calls upon the provincial premiers to reverse their decision and join the federal government in devoting at least a small portion of time to employment issues affecting women at the forthcoming first ministers' meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House before such a motion can be presented for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Robin Richardson (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

In view of the serious situation in Iran and the plight of the U.S. hostages and the concern which 1 am sure we all feel about the momentous decisions facing President Carter, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
Thai this House call upon the people of Canada to pray for Divine Guidance for President Carter and the people of the United States in this hour of their need, and that as a symbol of our support of the American people in their determination not to yield to blackmail and in their demands for the safe return of the hostages, that this House authorize the ringing of the bells in the Peace Tower at twelve noon each and every day until the U.S. hostages in Iran are released.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House, I know, will recognize an ingredient here involving spiritual guidance for Canadians. I would express very grave reservations about the use of this particular Standing Order to enter this area, and I am not prepared to put the motion at this time.
If the House wishes to seek an occasion to argue the case that I ought to extend the limits of Standing Order 43 for this purpose, I am prepared to entertain it. At the moment, however, I cannot say that a motion to enter into a spiritual area of this sort is in keeping with our previous practice.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the terms of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering the quotation in this morning's The Globe and Mail attributed to the Secretary of State, cum Minister of Communications, cum inner cabinet social policy czar, that he is not only the minister of two departments but also the leader of a revolution, 1 move seconded by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc):
That this Flouse lend support to the revolution, whatever and whenever, if it will at least return to Canadians the principles and levels of social security that have steadily eroded since this prematurely grey government took office.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FINANCE


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the difficulty caused low income people by the chartered banks' policy of not cashing federal government cheques, including prisoner of war pension cheques, if the individual does not have a bank account, 1
December 4, 1979

move, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier):
That the government order the Inspector General of Banks to request the Canadian chartered banks to honour Government of Canada cheques without the condition that the person has a bank account, so long as reasonable identification is provided.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on an urgent and important matter.
Considering the many lay-offs made by Davie Shipbuilding in Lauzon over the past few months, and considering that the federal government's total indifference toward this shipyard may lead to many more lay-offs among the 800 workers still employed by Davie Shipbuilding, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier):
That the House condemn the government for its lack of responsiveness to the fate of these workers and order it to take the necessary action so that Davie Shipbuilding receive a fair share of contracts given by the federal government to the various shipyards in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43. such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, today-which, by the way, is the anniversary of six months of non-government in Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I have a question for the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: And two weeks of no leader.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In view of the very clear message of dissatisfaction which was conveyed to him by the Gallup poll, 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will now reconsider the decision, or position expressed by the Minister of Finance on tax cuts; and will the Prime Minister undertake to implement in the next budget the promise which he made to the people of Canada in Toronto, that the Progressive Conservatives would cut personal income taxes by at least $2 billion a year?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to the hon. member that he will have to await our budget to know its contents. But I should indicate to him, also-as he knows-that after inheriting the legacy of 11 years of government by hon. members opposite, the fiscal flexibility of this new government is severely limited.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON APPROPRIATE VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister obviously has not got the message, because the people of Canada are not buying the proposition that his inaction is due to the legacy inherited from the former government.
May 1 try him out on another aspect of economic policy? This is a policy opinion which he expressed on March 27 of this year, just as he was gearing up to get into the election and when he was fresh with firm ideas. When asked what he thought the appropriate value of the Canadian dollar ought to be, he said it should be somewhere between 88 cents to 92 cents, U.S.


An hon. Member:: It is getting there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That was on March 27, 1979. 1 ask the Prime Minister, has he abandoned this policy opinion? If not, what steps is he now taking to achieve the 88-cent to 92-cent dollar?

December 4, 1979
Ora/ Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we believe that to be an appropriate range for the value of the Canadian dollar. The steps we are taking to achieve that are to avoid accepting the advice which comes from members of the Liberal party to take actions which would earn a reputation of fiscal irresponsibility for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POLICY ON LEVEL OF INTEREST RATES
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join in marking the anniversary of non-government which the opposition House leader mentioned today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls that when he was Leader of the Opposition, he spoke in Montreal on March 2 and promised that it would be the policy of a Progressive Conservative government to gradually bring interest rates down-not from current high levels, either, but from what they were at that time. What happened to that promise? Why has he abandoned it and why did he, instead, agree to have Canadian interest rates rise to record high levels?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, our policy is to gradually bring interest rates down. Our problem is that we inherited government in this country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and after 11 years of government by the other side, of which, if I recall, the hon. member was a minister, although 1 am not absolutely sure about that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -we inherited a record which created such concern-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has frequently been heard to say that it has the right to receive answers. I think it is also the obligation of the House to listen to answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We inherited a situation where it was the view of the governor of the Bank of Canada, concurred in by this government, that the only responsible action open to Canada at this time was to accept, in the immediate term, an increase in interest rates that would put Canada in a position where we could move the nation toward lower interest rates. That is our position. It remains our policy.
[Mr. MacEachen.J


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have recognized there are a lot of things the Prime Minister is not sure of. 1 want to ask the Prime Minister if he has forgotten that before the election, as leader of the opposition, he suggested a number of alternate courses of action to the "blind, follow the leader" interest rate policy that he is agreeing to and accepting. Five weeks ago he said that he would take out these alternatives and look at them again. Has he discussed them with his advisers? Why has he not brought them forward? Is he, in effect, admitting that they were just more pre-election "bafflegab"?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member, as well as reading my old speeches, will be reading some of his, which would be rather interesting. In light of what he, the former minister of finance and others are saying now, what I said explicitly at the time quoted by the hon. member was that there was a range of matters which should be considered. I am sure he will agree that was the nature of my remarks at that time. We believed then that they should have been considered. We have now considered them. As a result of that consideration, we believe the policy proposed by the governor of the Bank of Canada, and concurred in by this government, is the appropriate policy.


APPLICATION OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX
Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Prime Minister. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said in Vancouver:
-we have decided that publicly-traded shares of Canadian-controlled companies will be exempt from the capital gains tax. That is a commitment that I make this evening on behalf of my party.
When does the Prime Minister plan to fulfil that commitment to take money out of Canadian socks and put it into Canadian stocks?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me, first of all, commend the hon. member on his alliteration, Mr. Speaker. Let me, secondly, tell him to await the budget.


ALLEGED PRICE-GOUGING BY OIL MULTINATIONALS-ACTION TO PREVENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Out of the blue this morning, Imperial Oil Company of Canada announced a 2.4 cents a gallon increase which went into effect yesterday for non-leaded gasoline across Canada, and a substantial increase in the price of home heating fuel.
Since these increases would simply add additional profits to Imperial Oil, whose profits have already gone up some 48 per cent this year, and since they will force up the cost of living right across Canada, will the Prime Minister consider contacting the president of Imperial Oil immediately and make it
sp

December 4, 1979

clear to him that price-gouging of this kind is unacceptable to the Government of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, either the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or myself will get in touch with the president of Imperial Oil, although we will not use language as inflammatory as that of the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are not interested simply in discussions on this matter: at long last they want some action from the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Since the other oil companies, Shell, Texaco and others, almost as night follows day increase their prices following the so-called price leadership of Imperial Oil, with the net effect of costing Canadian consumers in 1980, in additional costs from these increases alone, some $200 million, will the Prime Minister undertake, not simply to have a meeting with the president of Imperial Oil but to take steps to order rollbacks in these price increases?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Leader of the New Democratic Party, in his first question, was not proposing action; he was proposing an insult to the president of Imperial Oil, and 1 do not propose to engage in that kind of action as leader of the government.
We are certainly not at this moment contemplating rollbacks, nor do I think we will be. 1 might say to the Leader of the NDP that if he wants action which will lead to energy security and controllable costs in this country, what he should do is support the proposals put forward by this government to move Canada toward energy self-sufficiency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister is saying, if I understand him correctly, that the oil companies in this country, unlike even those in the United States now, can go on charging consumers whatever the market will bear. When is he going to start acting as a prime minister and stand up for Canadian consumers, instead of acting as a house-boy for the oil companies?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Leader of the NDP is always at his best as a rational man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: His party applauds that recollection of a dim past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have given the House and the Leader of the NDP the undertaking that we shall meet with officials of Imperial Oil to discuss the conditions that led to that increase and, if it is appropriate after that discussion, indicate to the
Oral Questions
representatives of Imperial Oil that that was not an appropriate action. We shall do that if the discussions indicate that it is appropriate. However, we shall not, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party appears to be proposing, go into the discussion determined to insult the officials of that company.
As regards the interest of Canadian consumers, which appears to be of concern to the hon. member, I say to him that the best way to serve the consumers of this country is to guarantee that they have access, on a secure basis, to supplies produced in Canada and to end, now, a policy initiated by the former government-and supported, apparently, by the New Democratic Party-of increasing dependence of Canadian consumers upon unstable sources of foreign oil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL UNITY
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister based on a promise he made on March 27 of this year, and 1 quote him:
There will be a new bill, a referendum bill, which would incorporate the amendments now standing in my name on the order paper of the House of Commons. It would be in our intention to have a weapon or a tool-


An hon. Member:: Read the whole thing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think you are pretty silly in asking me to read the whole speech of that day. I am quoting the Prime Minister:
It would be in our intention to have a weapon or a tool that the federal government could have to deal with the PQ referendum if necessary.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister why he has changed his policy on that. He wants to blame a situation inherited from the previous government for his flip-flops. Can he explain why this particular flip-flop took place? Has he cause to know of something in Quebec or elsewhere which brought him to change his mind?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Leader of the Opposition will recall that the amendments standing in my name would have dramatically changed the bill he introduced, a bill which could be seen widely in the province of Quebec as a menace, as a threat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is difficult to speak into this wave of shouting from the Liberal benches. It was seen in Quebec as being such a threat that, in our judgment, its result would have been to help the cause of separatism. Therefore, we indicated at that time that we were going to take away the offensive portions of the bill and, if we kept anything at all, maintain the capacity of the Government of Canada to deal simply with a referendum bill. That is something which can be done very quickly if the need arises.
1982

December 4, 1979
Oral Questions
It is our judgment that with a new national government which has succeeded in bringing some calm and some reason to the relations between Ottawa and Quebec, there will not be the need for the Government of Canada to fall back into defensive ball and to have in our armament a referendum bill.


PETRO-CANADA POLICY RESPECTING STATUS OF CORPORATION
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the right hon. Prime Minister that the threat was seen as so great that the people of Quebec voted 62 per cent for the Liberals and elected 67 Liberal members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The policy of the present government was so little supported that it had its lowest vote in history in the province of Quebec. My question is addressed to the Prime Minister, who for the past four years had pledged to destroy or undermine Petro-Canada. Last April 6, in Winnipeg, he went so far as to call the national oil company a turkey.
On this great anniversary of non-government providing nonanswers, would the Prime Minister make a pledge to this House to leave Petro-Canada alone and to meet the desires of 75 per cent of the Canadian people, who like Petro-Canada just the way it is, that is, owned by all Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are few members in this House who are more eloquent defenders of things just as they were than the hon. member for Outremont. He had been the architect of a constitutional policy which saw the separatist movement in Quebec move from a splinter to a majority government in that province.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: In relation to the particular question, the hon. member is asking that we retain a situation where the state had control of a Canadian oil company, and his interest in that is because it is part of the past. Our view is that we want, instead, a situation where the citizens of Canada have control of a Canadian oil company because that is in the interests of the Canadian future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF EXPORTING SURPLUS OIL TO JAPAN
Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. Last January, on his world tour and while he was in Japan, the Prime Minister indicated that the government might be interested in exporting surplus oil to Japan in return for Japanese investments in Canada. Can the Prime Minister say whether he has followed through on this idea and, indeed, whether he has found that there is a surplus of oil in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 assume that is a serious question and I will certainly deal with it seriously. First of all, we believe that once we bring into place in this country a policy of energy self-sufficiency, such as was ignored by the former government but which we are moving toward actively, we will in fact move into a significant energy surplus position as a nation concerning a variety of forms of energy. Indeed, one of the great opportunities for this nation in an energy-poor world is that we are unique among nations in being an energy-rich nation, if we have the courage to follow the policies this government is proposing.
Second, the hon. member is interested in trading relations with Japan. After a decade of neglect by the former government, this government is turning priority attention to the trade and commercial possibilities which exist in Canada for Japan. A conference is being organized in the home city of the hon. member, by a distinguished Canadian, Pat Carney, having to do with the exploration of trading and commercial opportunities for Canada in the Pacific Rim.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Equal time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I thank hon. members opposite for their endorsements.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You need them.


Lloyd Axworthy: In furthering this commemoration of the varied promises of the past, l would like to ask the Prime Minister about a statement he made in Napanee on May 5, 1979, in which he indicated that 4.5 million homemakers would be invited to join the Canada Pension Plan and enjoy the benefits and pay-outs of that pension plan. On this anniversary date, can the Prime Minister now give us a clear indication as to when he intends to provide that opportunity

December 4, 1979

for 4.5 million homemakers to join the plan and receive those kinds of benefits?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I gather we are following some kind of informal equal time provision in the distribution of questions among the Liberal challengers. As his most successful step on the road toward leadership, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his discovery of Napanee.


An hon. Member:: Very funny for 28 per cent, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have recognized that action such as that mentioned by the hon. member is particularly essential, since the plight of those Canadians was ignored for 11 years by the government which the hon. member supported, and the party of which he is now a part. We intend to move on giving effect to that policy just as soon as economic conditions in the country allow.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister received and read the letter sent to him on November 28 by the president of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, in which the president says he was shocked and dismayed to hear the minister's comments in the House of Commons on November 27 rejecting the Saskatchewan formula for treaty land entitlements, when this formula had been negotiated and agreed to approximately two years ago by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, the Saskatchewan government and the federal government?
Would the minister make clear whether he was misunderstood and whether he has truly rejected that formula even for Saskatchewan land entitlement, when this formula has already been used by him and by the previous government for setting aside land?


Hon. Jake  F.pp@Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Mr. Speaker, i will indicate to the hon. member that I have not rejected the formula, nor did I do it in the answer which I gave on November 27. 1 indicated at that time that I had asked whether that formula, known as the Saskatchewan formula, was acceptable to ministers of the other two prairie provinces in terms of fulfilling treaty entitlements. That was the point which was made. I have not rejected the Saskatchewan formula. In fact, with respect to the letter from the president of the FSI of November 28, 1 replied to him by telex reaffirming just what I have indicated to the hon. member.


William Warren Allmand: Does the minister intend, therefore, to continue land selection under the Saskatchewan formula for Indians
Oral Questions
in Saskatchewan while he is negotiating with Alberta and Manitoba, or is this another example of the hypocrisy of the government in saying one thing and doing another?


An hon. Member:: You are the expert on that.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can use whatever words he wants. If he wants to identify with those, that is his choice; but 1 indicate to him that, obviously, in the actions we have taken with the FSI and along with the interest of the government of Saskatchewan to fulfil treaty entitlement, we intend to move forward on the commitments which have been made, namely, the Saskatchewan formula.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the permanent absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, my question is for the Minister of State for International Trade. It concerns the Chrysler Corporation.
In view of the admission by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in committee the other day that Canada was not lobbying in any way the American Congress to protect Canadian interests in this important measure concerning the future of Chrysler Corporation, I would like to ask the Minister of State for International Trade what steps this government is taking to ensure that Canadian jobs are protected in the long run and that Canadian government aid is not simply being used by Chrysler Corporation as leverage in its negotiations with the American Congress.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the situation with Chrysler Canada is a situation which has to be looked at very carefully. This morning we met with Mr. Iacocca, the head of Chrysler Corporation in the United States, and discussed the situation as it relates to the negotiations they are having with the United States government, as well as the impact that that might have on the situation of Chrysler Canada.
The hon. member is quite correct in saying that we are very concerned with the long-term viability of Chrysler Canada Limited. We do not want to make a decision relating to any degree of support we might provide for Chrysler Canada until the decision in the United States is made, but we are assured by Mr. Iacocca that the decision will be made shortly. He is confident that the decision will be a favourable one. We did discuss with him the nature of the proposal that would be made in Canada, and I would be very happy to comment further on that if the House wishes.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the admission, at the same

December 4, 1979
Oral Questions
appearance-one of his rare appearances before a House committee-of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that Canada has no plan, and that his government had no plan, with respect to either changing the auto pact or putting forward specific proposals either to the auto companies or to the U.S. government, would the Prime Minister care to comment on the fact that our auto parts deficit is now running at $3.1 billion a year, and the fact that unless something is done by the government and unless specific proposals are made by the government, this very serious imbalance in our trade will continue? Would he care to comment on that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think the hon. member will recognize that the situation with the auto trade deficit this year is a problem related to the difference in the structure of the Canadian and U.S. markets. We have seen the impact of the energy crisis on the U.S. market, where they are not buying the cars which are currently being produced in Canada. This, together with the higher number of sales in the Canadian market, has caused that imbalance to widen considerably this year. We do not believe that that is a long-term problem; it is a problem that should be settled over the very near-term.


PLANS TO SERVE MIDDLE EAST MARKETS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the commitment he made in the House on April 13, 1978, designed to help Canadian companies serve Middle Eastern markets. At that time the Prime Minister said:
We would recognize in our national development policy the fact that in the Middle East alone countries are planning to invest more than $200 billion over the next decade in infrastructure-in schools, in communications, in transportation and in housing . . . We would get behind more Canadian companies that have the experience and expertise to serve these markets.
In view of the fact that the government has announced one initiative in this field, that of moving the embassy to Jerusalem, what other initiatives does he intend to take in this field?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me congratulate the hon. member and his colleagues for finally getting their research office working this far into this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We can bring you down without research.


Charles Joseph Clark: We believe that there are some significant and economic opportunities in the Middle East. We have some expectation that light will be cast upon the possibilities that exist for Canada in that region after the receipt of the final report of Mr. Stanfield, who is now again in that region discussing the state of relations between Canada and the Middle Eastern countries.


RAILWAYS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It has been reported to me that the Canadian railways have placed an embargo on shipments of products produced by the pulp and paper industry, an embargo on shipments to Mexico, placing in jeopardy a very important market there and putting certain Canadian companies in serious difficulty. Can the Minister of Transport tell the House if he is aware of this embargo and what the possible reasons could be for such a move by the Canadian railways?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the placing of such an embargo. However, I undertake to the hon. member that I will look into it and report back to him and to members of the House.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Away back in July, 1976, he discovered a part of south western Ontario when he said:
My party will be undertaking, in the fall, the development of a new national food policy for Canada.
Let me point out that 1977 has gone by, 1978 has gone by, and now we are in 1979. Has he found that he cannot improve upon the national food policy, and is that why he has not brought any improvement to the one that we had-because he recognized that we did have one-and can he tell the House what happened to his intention behind that startling statement that he made away back in 1976, that he was going to do these things-and that is a long time ago?


Charles Joseph Clark: There is no better epitaph for my colleagues opposite than that that was a long time ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Our problem with the national food policy referred to by the former minister was that when we became the government and began to look for that national food policy that he had been talking about so much, we could not find it. We looked in his files, we looked in the files of the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs. Having no guidance from that front, we moved ahead with the preparation, as the former minister will know, of the meat import law, we moved ahead with the planning of the first trip in Canadian history in terms of looking for new trade in the Pacific, headed by the Canadian Minister of Agriculture-which will be undertaken in January-and we moved forward on a number of other fronts to give to Canadian agriculture the high


December 4, 1979

priority that it never enjoyed in the years when lonely Gene spoke alone in the cabinet of the Liberal government.


FISHERIES
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns a statement he made in Courtenay, British Columbia, before the last election when he said this government would beef up search and rescue facilities on both coasts and provide a fleet of small patrol boats to operate within the present 200-mile fishing limit.
In view of the fact that the track record so far includes the deferral of a $14 million LOR AN station on the Atlantic coast, and in view of the fact that we have not seen the smallest dory or even a rowboat commissioned for this purpose other than what was commissioned by the previous administration, can the Prime Minister tell us what date he has set for breaking the first bottle of champagne on the first search and rescue vessel?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental differences between this government and our predecessors is that we will not be using champagne: we will be using Ontario wine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What's wrong with Ontario champagne?


Charles Joseph Clark: In the interests of transnational co-operation such as was shown by a Newfoundland member asking a B.C. question, when we christen vessels on that coast we will use British Columbia wine.
The engagement that I gave in British Columbia is one that we intend to honour. We are considering now the timetable that we will follow. I can assure the hon. member that we will move quickly on that question.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister on this not so happy anniversary of half a year of inactivity. On May 4 of this year, in Regina, the leader of the Conservative party said:
We will establish a legal framework so that any such extraordinary action by the security services of Canada must be approved in advance by a responsible minister of the Government of Canada.
May I ask the Prime Minsiter what implementation has occurred of this extraordinary commitment?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me welcome the new-found interest of the hon. member in this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: And let me tell him, as 1 have on seven or eight occasions in this House, that that legislation will be brought forward in the New Year, probably toward May or June.


An hon. Member:: Which year?


Charles Joseph Clark: The New Year will be 1980. I know that senility is a function of old age, and you fellows are growing long in the tooth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: As I have indicated frequently in the House to the hon. member and to others, we have not yet decided whether we will introduce that legislation before or after we have seen the report of the McDonald commission. But we do remain determined to have a situation which ends the state of affairs that existed under the former government, where there was no rule of law apparent in the activities of the security officers of the Canadian government. We intend to have a situation where the actions of the police in this country are covered by the rule of law.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs. It deals with a situation in the city of Calgary in which there is a large number of armed forces personnel, particularly non-commissioned officers and privates, and relates to wage and rent structures.
Has the minister now had a discussion with those organized groups in Calgary, and is he reaching some compromise between the wage structure and the rent structure as was agreed to even before our government came to office?


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a discussion other than with the officers in the garrison and with two of the MPs from Calgary who have been meeting on a regular basis with the unhappy kin of some of the servicemen. I believe the case involving the cost of married quarters has been well explained in the press and in the media, and to a lesser degree in this House.
We are having difficulty because Calgary is a very high-cost living or rental area. At present, rents are dictated by rules of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation which tries to

December 4, 1979
Oral Questions
make them the equivalent of those in local communities. 1 have asked that junior ranks have their rental increases capped at appropriate levels, and this is now in effect. I am trying to work up a system that will make equivalent rents chargeable for accommodation for equivalent ranks across the nation.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, rape crisis centres have provided a valuable service to Canadians in the past few years by giving counselling and support to victims of rape and sexual assault. My question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is, therefore, does the minister plan on reinstating federal funds in support of rape crisis centres, cut off by the previous government, and will he indicate to his provincial counterparts that the federal government is willing, under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan, to support initiatives on their part to strengthen and expand rape crisis centres in their respective provinces?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. member that at the present meeting in Toronto of provincial ministers of welfare and myself we discussed this matter, along with a number of others, in relation not only to the renegotiation of CAP, but in relation to demonstration funding. The matter will be brought to the agenda in January, in St. John's, when we begin renegotiation of the Canada Assistance Plan.


NARCOTICS
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, although my question has to do with the election promises made by the Prime Minister on the question of marijuana, I would like to direct it to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last September the minister announced that a bill dealing with marijuana would be introduced and debated in the House as early as November. Is the minister now ready to introduce this bill? Further, 1 should point out that we are already into December and that November is past and gone.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may recall that my statement both in the House and outside was that 1 would present a discussion paper in November with respect to the question of marijuana. That paper was to include, really, two things: the question of the impact of the use of marijuana, particularly the cumulative effects over time on individual

health and, secondly, the question of the relationship of marijuana to matters involving the Criminal Code. Those two aspects are included in the discussion paper. I had hoped to be able to have the discussion paper by the end of November, which was my commitment.
I might say there was a further commitment, and that was that before the paper was produced, I would have adequate consultation with some agencies which were involved in the problem of drug abuse, particularly in two major metropolitan areas of this country. The paper is out for consultation, and when it comes back 1 will be able to produce it. I know it is of great concern to the hon. member and, indeed, to all Canadians.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask the Minister of Agricultural to recall that on March 15 of this year he indicated it would be his intention, and the intention of a Conservative government, to immediately implement surcharges on imported agricultural products. He further indicated that a Tory government would "bargain vigorously and successfully to restore equity in our tariff rates".
Can the hon. minister indicate to this House, now, what steps he is taking to implement that policy direction? 1 would remind him that in fact the implementation of GATT was the implementation of a policy put into place by the previous government, so he really cannot provide that as an answer.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, he should realize that subsequent to the May 22 election the result of the multilateral trade negotiations were known. With reference to his first question, it has already been done.


PROMISED REDUCTION IN CHEESE IMPORTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In his answer to a previous question, he mentioned that he would rather celebrate something with Ontario wine than with champagne. 1 would say that the district I represent would rather celebrate with milk than anything else.
In view of the promises he made during the May 22 election campaign, that he would in fact reduce cheese imports by 10 million to 15 million pounds, would the Prime Minister tell this House very clearly that in fact he did mislead the Canadian public during the last election campaign?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to that question because it rests squarely within my jurisdiction. The hon. member should be aware of the fact that one of the terms of the MTN was, in fact, that
December 4, 1979

the cheese import level at 45 million pounds would, indeed, remain in place. The MTN agreement indicated that the present level of 45 million pounds would have to remain in place. We recognize the importance of the MTN agreement, and we recognize as well that we have to abide by it. But there is an up side-


An hon. Member:: That's not what Joe said.


John Wise: That is what I have said, and I am sure the Prime Minister has said the same thing. There is an up side in that, and that is that we will have available to us in the EEC, primarily in the U.K., a market opportunity to the extent of 6.1 million pounds.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, it seems we are celebrating a special event today. Therefore 1 should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether, when reviewing the policy of his department he intends to hand over to the agriculture department the administration of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, better known as PFRA.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague that we hope to have a subcommittee of the Committee on Regional Development look into various aspects of the PFRA with a view to strengthening it and seeing how it can be improved. Implicit in the terms of reference may be a consideration of the particular proposition the hon. member puts forward. I can honestly say at this point that this has not been decided, and it has not really been seriously considered as yet.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, now that we are celebrating the sixth month in office of the new government, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister who is responsible for medicare. Naturally, in that regard, his election promises were really very meagre, and he gave us a foretaste of his manner of governing by intermediaries, committees, studies, subcommittees, and so on, by promising, on April 30, a national health conference on medicare to which representatives of the provincial and federal govern-
Oral Questions
ments and the medical profession would be invited. When does the Prime Minister intend to hold that conference?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 very much appreciate the question of the former minister. As the hon. member already knows, the provincial health ministers have already had a meeting with the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare to discuss medicare. That is what 1 was speaking about in the words the hon. member quoted. I believe a conference will be held later to deal with health insurance matters.



HALL COMMISSION-INQUIRY AS TO BUDGET AND COMPOSITION OF STAFF

Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, to spare the right hon. Prime Minister further embarrassment, my supplementary will be addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The right hon. Prime Minister mentioned the mini-meeting, somewhat akin to an afternoon cocktail party that was held in September with the provincial health minister and which gave birth to the so-called Hall Commission on Health. Can the minister tell us the budget of the commission, and how many staff it has?
[ English \


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I can provide for the hon. member the actual figures of the budget which has been laid out for the review. The staffing is being done by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, in consultation with our department. We have provided Mr. Justice Hall with some staff under secondment from our own complement and he is providing some of his own staff. I can provide the hon. member with the actual figures and numbers.



FISHERIES


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Today, the minister and some of his provincial counterparts met on the question of the future of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Recently, the government of Manitoba proposed that agencies other than the FFMC be permitted to participate in the export market for freshwater fish. Is the federal government in agreement with this proposition which would have serious economic and social consequences for the communities serviced by the corporation?
Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr, Speaker, I had a very useful meeting this morning with the provincial ministers responsible for fisheries, from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and a representative of the territorial government of the Northwest Terri-

December 4, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
tories. We agreed that there is a continuing role for the FFMC to play and that there is a central marketing role for the corporation. However, there are details with respect to a consensus which have to be worked out. To this end, wc have set up a committee to tie together the loose ends coming from the meeting, and agreed that we will meet again in Winnipeg before April, at which time a policy decision will be announced.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, on the intended structure to which the minister has referred, could he indicate whether the federal government unilaterally will initiate these changes, or will the participating provinces each change the structure in accordance with their own perceived needs or goals; or will these changes be initiated only with the consensus of all the participating provinces and territories?


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member, we are well on our way toward consensus. No decision has yet been taken. The decision will not be taken unilaterally. As I said before, we have agreed that it would be useful for us to meet again, and that meeting will take place in Winnipeg some time in April. At that time, a final decision will be announced.



PRIVILEGE


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege which arises from answers given to me by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) in response to my questions earlier today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: If hon. members on the other side would listen for a minute, they will have a chance to reply. In my first question to the Prime Minister I made reference to a pricing practice of Imperial Oil Corporation. I used the term "price-gouging". It seems to me that that is the only term which the Prime Minister could have had in mind when he misrepresented what I raised in my question. In reply the Prime Minister stated that I was using abusive or insulting language.
When raising a question of privilege, I think that the facts and figures are certainly relevant. In my view I was not using such language. In fact, it could be described as descriptive language. It was shown four years ago in civil proceedings that Imperial Oil had set up a dummy company in Bermuda to avoid paying Canadian taxes, that it overcharged Nova Scotia consumers by not passing on price reductions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) gave notice of his intention to raise this matter by way of a question of privilege. I have a dual difficulty here. It seems to me that not only was the hon.

member for Oshawa entitled to say what he said, but so was the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) during the course of the question period. The right hon. Prime Minister may have described the language used by the hon. member for Oshawa as insulting, but that is his right during the question period or at any other time during the proceedings. There is nothing unparliamentary there.
Similarly, the hon. member for Oshawa said that the particular company to which he made reference during the course of the question period was price-gouging. The hon. member is entitled to justify those remarks with an argument, I am sure, but the fact is he does not have to justify his remarks because neither do they constitute unparliamentary language.
For me to permit the hon. member for Oshawa to defend himself now would be to invite the Prime minister to defend himself, neither of whom need a defence because they both used, it seems to me, language to which I cannot take any objection on behalf of the House. I do not think that it would be appropriate to enter into a discussion now in defence of either one of the interventions of the two hon. members here this afternoon. 1 will check the record, and if I am wrong in my estimation of the situation, the hon. member shall have leave to raise a question on the matter tomorrow.


Charles Joseph Clark: Nice try, Ed.



MR. BALDWIN-OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT-IMPLEMENTATION OF STANDING ORDER 43 MOTION

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to raise a question of privilege, of which I gave you notice last Thursday. I am glad to do so on this day because it is the sixth anniversary in terms of months that this government has held office. My question of privilege deals with the question of openness and the Official Secrets Act. This government has moved further and faster toward openness and honesty than any other government in the last 50 years. But I want to go even further and even faster, and it is for this reason that I raise this particular issue.
On October 18 I moved in the House a motion under Standing Order 43 which the House was good enough to accept. It reads:
That this House recommends that a parliamentary standing or select committee be forthwith given an order of reference to review the terms of the present act, including a study of such recent cases as that of Dr. Peter Treu and The Toronto Sun and to report proposals for suitable changes to the Official Secrets Act, and that no claim of Crown privilege be allowed to limit the extent of inquiry by the committee.
Of course, I refer to the Official Secrets Act. When I raised the point of order last Thursday, it appeared that there was some difficulty between myself and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) as to the terms of the motion which would be brought into this House to implement this particular motion under Standing Order 43.
As 1 understand it, and I think that my hon. friend will accept this, there is some question in the mind of the government as to whether or not this House is competent to pass a
December 4, 1979

motion purporting to authorize one of its committees to make inquiries under any subject matter without regard to the limitations of Crown privilege. Having said that, I make it quite plain that this House and all the members in this House and in the other place are bound by statute law.
It has been suggested in the form advice given to my honourable friend, I believe, that there still exists an indefinable and vague, but possibly still a very strong, practice coming from the days of the royal prerogative that, apart from statutes, members of the government under the bureaucracy may raise on their own initiative without any foundation in statute a question of Crown privilege and can say, "We will not have to give evidence on this issue; we will not have to produce these particular documents". That is the issue. It is a narrow issue but I suggest a very fundamental and important one.
I think it does well to have this House deal with the issue because this government-and I give the government credit for this-is moving toward a situation where the work of this House will be developed to a greater extent through the agency of committees. I think we should know what power those committees will have.
Crown privilege has been defined as the original right in the Crown in ancient days when the king could not be sued to refuse production of documents or discovery of witnesses. It was later extended to members of the Privy Council in the 17th century in order to protect them from charges by giving immunity through non-disclosure of information about their activities. That right has lingered to the present day.
My quarrel with the proposition is that there still exists a non-statutory, superior and royal power in the ranks of the bureaucracy, acting through the ministry, to inhibit a committee of this House from pursuing its inquiries, and that even a unanimous motion of this House is not enough to override this particular principle.
A very good illustration of this is the fact that the House has been debating a motion proposed by the President of the Privy Council which deals with cost overruns. During the course of the investigations by that committee it will probably be essential for members of the committee to ask questions of members of the public service about the ways and means by which these cost overruns were developed. If the proposition of the principle of Crown privilege is to be sustained and put into effect, then I can see that in many instances many members of the public service will say, "We don't intend to answer this question; it may deal with a question of policy or it may deal with a question where the public interest is involved and we don't intend to answer it."
There have been some pretty clear illustrations of this. When the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) was prime minister, he made it perfectly clear that he would not allow the Clerk of the Privy Council to be questioned before a committee. That is an illustration of the use of Crown privilege.
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
In another situation, Mr. Speaker, several years ago the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works was examining Mr. Donald Macdonald who was then minister of energy, mines and resources and whose name is not unknown at the present time. The question arose as to whether certain witnesses who had appeared with Mr. Macdonald could be examined and, if so, the extent of the examination. Mr. Macdonald said, as reported at page 24:32 of the committee proceedings for December 18, 1973, as follows:
This has been a longstanding procedure in the Canadian public service and in the House of Commons that it is a minister who ultimately assumes his responsibility and not individual advisers; I think my position is well founded constitutionally.
On page 24:33 of the proceedings there appears the following exchange between myself and the minister:


Gerald William Baldwin: ... I had the honour to serve as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for several years, and deputy ministers appeared there by themselves-not under the skirts of the minister. They answered a lot of questions, as did their advisers. When you come to a question of policy, absolutely, a deputy minister or an adviser must defer to the minister; but on questions of fact, deputy ministers and advisers are compellable witnesses to appear here ...


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: I am sorry, that is too much. The minister is responsible; if he chooses to have his deputy minister appear without his being present, that is the minister's choice. But ultimately, it is the minister's responsibility as to who shall appear.


Gerald William Baldwin: You do not want us to ...


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: This has been a long-standing parliamentary principle...


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister is wrong. The minister is challenging responsible government, the responsible right of the House of Commons ...


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: 1 must say that responsible government means that a minister is responsible for his portfolio to the House of Commons, not individual public servants.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister would not recognize responsible government if it got into bed with him, that is all I can say.
I suppose that last comment was somewhat improper, Mr. Speaker. These assertions have been made, however. I am glad that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has indicated that he would have no objection to allowing the Clerk of the Privy Council to appear before a committee. I suggest, however, that it should be as a matter of right, and not a matter of grace. That is the right of this House and this committee, if it sees fit by appropriate action in the House or by direction to its committees.
There has been a lot of discussion on this issue and challenges have been raised in the House and in committee about the subject of judicial decisions. I am not going to take too much of the time of the House because this is a highly academic subject and, more than that, it is a tremendously important one to us. I will, however, touch on the highlights.
The issue was brought up for consideration in the parliament of Australia. In 1975, what was called-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but while I think I understand the nature of his argument, I do not understand the nature of the problem. The House passed the resolution to which he has made reference and which reads as follows:

December 4, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
That this House recommends that a parliamentary standing or select committee be forthwith given an order of reference to review the terms of the present act, including a study of such recent cases as that of Dr. Peter Treu and The Toronto Sun and to report proposals for suitable changes to the Official Secrets Act, and that no claim of Crown privilege be allowed to limit the extent of inquiry by the committee.
The only basis upon which the hon. member could have a question of privilege, which he is now arguing, is that the House has perhaps disregarded that motion. The motion is not an order. The result of that motion is a resolution recommending "that a parliamentary standing or select committee be forthwith given an order of reference". If the hon. member's complaint is that the House has not moved to give that order of reference, that is an argument that I might want to entertain. He is now saying, however, that there is a difficulty which goes beyond that, but I have not heard it yet from the government.
Perhaps the hon. member could direct his attention to the problem of whether it has been a reasonable time, whether there should be an order and what the terms of the order ought to be. I have not yet heard him say that the House is in default of that order. I would guess that the drafting of the order might be somewhat complex. Perhaps the hon. member could turn his attention to that aspect of the matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, when you said the "House," I think you meant the government has not complied with that. 1 think that is where the difficulty lies. As I understand it, the government feels that the terms of the order of reference to be given must omit any claim Crown privilege. That is what I take exception to and it is what I think is a question of privilege. I may be wrong in that and if I am 1 will gladly stop now. Maybe my friend the President of the Privy Council has something to say.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 would want to reserve the right of the hon. member to meet this point. I am not trying to interrupt him to prejudice his argument in any way. He was about to move to establish that part of his argument. It may be appropriate to hear from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) and see whether this argument can be met.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully at the time the hon. member made his motion. Within a day or so after that, 1 sent him a draft of a proposed term of reference with respect to this matter, indicating my own wishes becuse of the emphasis we were placing at that time on freedom of information.
After a reasonable period of time 1 heard from the hon. member that the form of the order was not satisfactory. He also raised the question of Crown privilege. In the meantime, I had received an opinion from the legal officer of the House of Commons that there was some question about the propriety of the matter of Crown privilege.
I then took the unusual step, not just of informing my friend of that, but of sending him a copy of the opinion and asking for his comments on it. I received a letter from him, I believe it
was yesterday, indicating that that was not acceptable to him.
I have not had a chance to reply yet but I can reply now, Mr. Speaker. I am considering the argument he put to me and I think we should comply to the extent that we can within the law.
My concern, Mr. Speaker, is not with respect to the hon. member putting a non-statutory prerogative in the bureaucracy; my problem is with respect to the matter raised by the legal officer of the House of Commons with respect to non-statutory prerogatives in the law.
I think our exchange has been a good one. It was quite a healthy exchange and reasonably expeditious when the exchange finally started. I can undertake to you, sir, to the House and certainly to the hon. member that there is no question of delaying it. I would have no objection whatsoever, having raised the question of privilege today, even though a motion has not been put down and these discussions are continuing, if the matter could be reserved until my law officers look at the material submitted by the hon. member. I undertake to do that quickly. I think the hon. member and the House know that. I will do it quickly and put the reference down. When the reference is down there may be a question of privilege at that point with respect to the terms of the reference.


Mr. Speaker:: That appears to be satisfactory to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
Something occurs to me as well that both hon. members may want to think about, and that is that the resolution that has been adopted by the House recommends that a parliamentary committee be given an order of reference. The concluding sentence is that "no claim of Crown privilege be allowed to limit the extent of inquiry by the committee".
It may be, and 1 would want the hon. members to reflect on this, that the only time a question of privilege can arise then is if during the committee's deliberations that matter of Crown privilege is permitted to limit the extent of the inquiry. I know that the hon. member may want a House order to obviate that possibility, but it may be that an order of reference will in fact comply with all that has been resolved by the House on October 18 and that no offence against that resolution can be considered to have taken place except when the claim of crown privilege is used in the inquiry to limit it. I do not attempt to resolve that point at this time, simply to leave it to the hon. members to consider. Perhaps we can await with dispatch the undertaking of the President of the Privy Council to produce a motion and then see whether or not there is a question of privilege to be taken at that time or at a later time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, it may be resolved even more rapidly than that; Your Honour makes quite good sense with that comment. It may well be that your order of reference might go as the President of the Privy Council had originally contemplated, but he might at this time consider giving contemporaneously an undertaking that the government will not

December 4, 1979

raise at the time of the committee hearings any non-statutory, government questions of Crown privilege, and we might well then proceed quite expeditiously with the issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the matter can be reserved until the President of the Privy Council is prepared to present a motion, and the subject may be argued again at that time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 have listened to the discussion with considerable interest because it is a matter of great concern. However, 1 am somewhat disabled in following the discussion because I have not had the opportunity to study the correspondence which has been exchanged between the hon. members opposite.
May I suggest to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) that he would be doing the House a service if he made available to us the correspondence and that of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) so that we may be able to conciliate between these two warring giants on the other side of the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no objection to my own correspondence being made available and the hon. member for Peace River is indicating that he has no objection with respect to his.
May I just say in order to bring the matter to a head one way or the other that I will be considering the last suggestion which the hon. member for Peace River made in respect of putting a motion down. It is an interesting point.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to have my letter produced, along with a simple explanation.
[ Translation]



MR. ETHIER-RECEIVABILITY OF QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, last November 5 I rose on a question of privilege to advise the House of a problem I have been faced with following a decision by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). You indicated on that occasion that you would seek the advice of a number of hon. members before deciding whether mine is indeed a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, this occurred on November 5. 1 thought that mine was a legitimate question of privilege. If it is not legitimate, i should like to withdraw it, following your decision, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Following the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) there was some indication that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) wanted to make an intervention at a time that might be convenient for both members. 1 do not know if this is that moment, but if not, perhaps the minister could give the House notice. Then when both members are present we could hear the final aspect of both interventions and then I would be able to decide.
Order Paper Questions


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I noticed only as 1 was leaving the House that the hon. member was making an intervention involving myself. I would ask permission of the House to reserve my right to make a final decision until I have an opportunity tomorrow to read the hon. member's intervention in Hansard and then give an indication at that time.


Denis Éthier: Mr. Speaker, this occurred on November 5. I think the minister has had ample time to give an answer. I would like him to tell us when he will make that representation so I will be in the House, because 1 reserved time in the hospital three weeks ago for my annual check up. I am not sure how much longer I can delay it. 1 would like to know what the minister has to say on this.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 will decide tomorrow.


Denis Éthier: Thank you.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I now table in both official languages the budget-related paper entitled "The New Expenditure Management System" which outlines the system for allocating and controlling expenditures of the Government of Canada. 1 hope this will be educational for hon. gentlemen opposite who did not have such a system. This is normally a budget document, but we want to give hon. members opposite the information now so that they will have it before the budget is brought down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 86. 236, 297 and 626.
1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

December 4, 1979
Order Paper Questions
[ Text]


Mr. Allard: 1.	Since 1968, did the Department of the Environment finance projects in the constituency of Rimouski and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: 1.	Yes (a) Study on stabilizing and waterproofing Pointe-au-Pere lighthouse
(b)	(i) $5,986 (ii) $5,986
(c)	Pointe-au-Pere.
2.	Yes (a) For the year 1980-81 a budget of $225 has been set aside for the stabilization and waterproofing of Pointe-au-Pere lighthouse.
(b) Pointe-au-Pere.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): To the knowledge of the government, did private industry invest capital funds in the mining sector (a) in 1978 (b) during the first nine months of 1979 and, if so, by province, what was the amount in each case?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: (a)	1978-Yes
(b)	1979-Yes
1978P	1979f
Province or Region	($'000,000)	
Atlantic Region	81.0	107.6Quebec	223.1	228.1Ontario	219.5	288.8Prairie Region	291.7	276.5British Columbia	177.1	239.8Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories	52.0	43.9
Notes: (1) Disaggregated data unavailable for Atlantic and Prairie regions; (2) Partial-year data for 1979 unavailable; and (3) Data shown for 1979 results from survey of company investment intentions and thus may differ significantly from actual data.
Source: Statistics Canada, Catalogue 61-206.
pPreliminary estimate; intentions reported in midyear survey by Statistics Canada.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What market quota for milk producers was allocated to each province (a) last year (b) this year?
2.	For the same periods, was there any appreciable difference between production and quota?


John Wise: 1 and 2. See list below.
Market Sharing Quota	Production	Quota1978/79	1978/79	1979/80*(16 Month Period)	1/4/78-31/3/79	1/4/79-31/7/79	Total	1/4/78-31/7/79	1/8/79-31/7/8012 months	4 months	16 months	16 months	12 monthsmil lbs. b.f.	mil lbs. b.f.	mil lbs. b.f.	mil lbs. b.f.	mil lbs. b.f.P.E.I.	6.825	2.990	9.815	8.049	7.019N.S.	4.388	1.751	6.139	6.413	4.517N.B.	4.815	2.139	6.954	4.185	4.954QUE	173.996	74.870	248.866	244.977	179.030ONT	113.649	46.468	160.117	153.212	116.940MAN	14.150	5.858	20.008	19.467	14.561SASK	9.435	4.006	13.441	11.853	9.709ALTA	24.343	9.861	34.204	29.994	25.050B.C.	11.234	4.271	15.505	14.864	11.559CANADA	362.835	152.214	515.0490	493.014	373.3390
N.B. The production for 1979/80 is not available.
* Exceptionally, the quota period of 1978/79 was for 16 months; consequently, the periods of 12 months differ for the years 1978/79 and 1979/80, as you will note on the above chart.
0) Includes the export quota of 10.5 million pounds of butterfat and a margin of 5 per cent.
[Mr. Kilgour.l
December 4, 1979


Mr. Mitges: 1.	How many cases of animal rabies were diagnosed in Canada in 1978?
2.	How many cases were diagnosed in (a) cats (b) dogs (c) bovines (d) equines (e) skunks (0 foxes (g) other (i) domestic (ii) wild animals?


John Wise: 1.	1641
(a)	63	(g) (0	16	sheep(b)	77	4	swine(c)	237	11	goats(d)	35	(e)	345	(ii)	24	bats(0	809	11	wolves5	coyottes3	racoons1	caribou


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, in the last session of the last Parliament the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) put a whole series of questions on the order paper dealing with the revenue and earnings of many Crown corporations. Among this list of Crown corporations are three presently listed for sale. Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board announced the formation of a special advisory board. He said in his release that the privatization unit's work of his own department is well advanced and it is now ready to brief a new advisory board.
In view of the fact that I now assume the information on these Crown corporations is available to the government, and bearing in mind that, because I thought these questions were worth while being answered in public, 1 placed this series of 25 questions on the order paper on October 9, about eight weeks ago, questions Nos. 115 to 139, these queries have now been in the hands of the department for some seven or eight months. I would ask the parliamentary secretary whether he could give to us the information which must be in the hands of the President of the Treasury Board at the present time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mortgage Tax Credit



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 28, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that Bill C-20, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favor of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I agreed to pair with the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) who is away at the United Nations.


Mr. Beattie:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in view of the numerous remarks which have been made by hon. members in the opposition today commemorating the milestone of six months in office of this government-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On Clause 1-


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, while looking at this bill in committee, there are still some comments that should be made on the way in which the government has approached the introduction of this bill on second reading. We hope to get clarification from the government on whether it intends to change its unacceptable and unpleasant behaviour in committee. During the course of debate on this bill so far, we have been treated to some very highly contradictory and confusing statements to the point where it has prevented and almost obliterated the willingness of the parties in opposition to co-operate with the government. The government has increasingly created provocation through their unwillingness to abide by the normal rules and procedures of this House and to take any initiative to provide for the inclusion of any proper recommendations or amendments.
It is well known that many members of this House have some very serious reservations about this bill. I will not take the time to go over them, but it was indicated very clearly during the course of the debate that one of the major failings with the bill was the fact that it precludes the economic activity of the government in future years through the four-year commitment of the bill.
It was also very clear from the debate we have had so far that there is sound reason and good cause for providing benefits to all kinds of residents in this country no matter what their accommodation is, not simply for those home owners with mortgages. While the government tried to insist that it was being the Christmas fairy by handing out goodies to the Canadian people, it became very clear that it was handing out goodies to its own people. A serious omission is that there is no attempt to assist home owners and renters who face the same kind of pressures with regard to housing budgets as do home owners who have mortgages.
We attempted to get clarification from the government on several occasions as to whether it intended to provide support through some kind of a subsidy or other means for those who have really serious housing needs. Frankly, what we received
December 4, 1979

were total contradictions. The Minister of Finance said that he was not concerned about renters but, on the other hand, the Prime Minister said that they were prepared to consider a shelter allowance. Who is right? Is the Prime Minister right or is the Minister of Finance right? It is very necessary that we quickly clear up the confusion on this issue.
Is the government prepared either in its budget or in the very near future to provide some form of assistance to renters in the form of a shelter allowance? It is a very important condition which was raised by my party, and it involves our eventual support for this bill. There was nothing forthcoming, however, other than this total contradiction in statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. That confusion was exaggerated further in the contributions by other members of the Conservative party in debating this bill. Many of them said that they were not concerned about the renters, that they had already received far too much assistance and that it was the home owners who needed help. 1 believe it was the hon. member for Edmonton West who said that there is in fact a problem with regard to renters and that they do need assistance. We would like the government to decide whether they intend to follow a consistent and coherent policy on this matter. Is the government prepared to provide support for a broader range of Canadians who are feeling the same kind of housing pressures as Canadians who have mortgages?
We listened in debate to the argument that it was the middle class home owner who is the fall guy in the Canadian economy. 1 believe that the Minister of National Revenue and the hon. member for Dauphin said the same thing. We have produced evidence to show that while the middle class home owners are undeniably facing housing pressures, they are certainly not the only ones, nor are they the ones receiving the most severe pressure.
I would repeat for the information of the Minister of Finance, because he may have been out of the House at the time or may not have had an opportunity to read the debates, that if he looks at the criterion of need and measures it according to the percentage of budget going toward housing, in every major city across Canada renters face far more severe pressures in their housing budgets than do home owners. For example, in the city of Edmonton 40 per cent of the renters pay over 30 per cent of their budget on rental accommodation as compared to only 17 per cent of home owners. That same ratio is true throughout the country.
We would like the government to clarify its position. We would like to know whether it is the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister who is right, or are they simply intending to exist within the confines of that confusion and not trying to resolve it? Commitments have been made. I believe it was last Thursday that the Prime Minister said in the House that they were looking at shelter allowances and might be prepared to introduce that feature. The Minister of Finance said they would have nothing to do with shelter allowances. It is time for either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance to indicate which leg they intend to stand on.
Mortgage Tax Credit
Is the government prepared to accept amendments? The Minister of National Revenue on Wednesday said that it is not prepared to accept any amendments, that the government had already printed the forms and undertaken the initiative and that it did not really care what the opposition or Parliament thought. The government had printed the forms, they were going into the mail and the devil could take the hindmost. On Thursday the Prime Minister again contradicted the Minister of National Revenue and said the government was prepared to accept reasonable amendments.
Who is speaking for the government on this matter, and which position is right? What does it intend to do? It would certainly speed up the time we spend in this session if we knew whether we were simply going through a sham exercise, as the Minister of National Revenue suggests, or whether this government will behave like a government should and show proper respect and courtesy to Parliament. Is the Minister of National Revenue's get tough authoritarian position the one which will prevail, or is the Prime Minister suggesting that they are prepared to accept the recommendations? Is that the guideline within which they will operate? I think that the Minister of Finance owes it to this committee to explain what he intends to do. Is he prepared honestly and objectively to accept amendments which, after all, are designed to improve this legislation, or is he simply intending to stand in total and complete indifference to any attempt by members of Parliament to improve this piece of legislation? In terms of opposition members in this committee, that is a very important issue.
Our objection to this bill rests both on the substance of it and on the attitude of the government. They have not shown during the debate on this bill any co-operation and openness, which opposes the promise that they made while in opposition that they would make Parliament a place of respect and proper courtesy. They have obviously forgotten all those fine promises, just as we discovered in the question period that they had quickly forgotten all the promises they made prior to becoming the government.
We believe that there are some very specific ways in which this legislation could be improved. It is only proper that the recommendations made by the Minister of State (Treasury Board) with regard to putting a sunset law on this legislation be considered. Surely, if a minister within the cabinet-he is not in the cabinet, but on the outer fringe-suggests that he is bringing in legislation which would require that a sunset law be applicable to the mortgage tax bill, then why can it not be included in this legislation?
His statement that it would be proper for the opposition to do the same is on the record. It would be only good economic sense for the government to recognize that it should not commit itself to a $3 billion expenditure for the next four years without bringing the matter back to Parliament for review on an annual basis to determine if the money is available and if economic conditions require the stimulus that this kind of bill

December 4, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
aims to bring about. The Minister of State (Treasury Board) has said that he thinks it is a good idea and that he intends to introduce such legislation. We, on the other hand, think it should be an integral part of the legislation before us that we be given the opportunity to review the situation on an annual basis. In that way Parliament could exercise some degree of fiscal control over government expenditures.
I find it hard to believe that hon. members opposite would reject such a proposal. They have been great advocates of fiscal management, claiming that government spending is out of whack and that there has been a great deal of waste. On their own arguments they should accept the suggestion that the legislation be reviewed on an annual basis to see whether it is fiscally responsible to proceed to the next phase. In this way we could exercise the kind of control that hon. members opposite have proposed so vehemently time and time again.
Parts of the bill should be examined to determine their practicality, Mr. Chairman. For instance, the limit of $5,000 on renovations is really a subterfuge. It would mean that most of the renovations carried out in this country would not qualify for credit under this legislation. We will put forward an amendment to reduce that limit from $5,000 to $2,000 so that people contemplating normal renovations are given some incentive.


An hon. Member:: Give an example.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 will give the hon. member an example. The average cost of renovations under the CMHC RRAP program and CHIP program is substantially under $5,000. They usually average between $2,000 and $3,000, so this seems to me a legitimate reason to consider lowering the ceiling on renovation expenditures. We are trying to do what other members have urged in their speeches. The hon. member for Edmonton East made a very strong case about the demand on the housing market in future, pointing out that it will increasingly mean recycling older homes. It seems to me that we should give taxpayers an incentive to do this instead of discriminating against them, as is the case in this legislation.
Older people often find that they cannot take advantage of the RRAP program, simply because they cannot afford the $5,000 loan portion of it but can only use up to the $2,000 grant portion. Older homes, which are largely occupied by the elderly or people whose incomes are not growing as fast as the younger income-producing generation, would be more likely to be renovated if the $5,000 provision were reduced to $2,000.
I do not think such an amendment would go against the intent of the bill. It is not against Tory principles either. The objective is clearly set out. What we hope to suggest is that we discuss whether the limits set in the bill are the most practical and realistic. This comes back to the question of whether the minister intends to stand on ceremony regarding his previous statements or whether he is prepared to accept such amendments.
Within the confines of this bill we should explore other ways of providing tax credits to a broader range of the population. The disappointing aspect of the minister's presentation was

that he did not outline the other options. If the basic objective of this legislation is to provide some relief, then the form the government chose is not the only one available.
A very creative and ingenious proposal was made during the debate by the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas about making the $1,000 tax deduction now available for investment income also available for interest payments, or to renters for that matter. This is a reasonable proposal w'hich would relieve some of the pressure being felt by many people.
A number of amendments like this could and should be introduced to improve the bill. Unfortunately, even with these amendments the bill is still a bad piece of legislation. If anything became clear during the debate in the last ten days, it was that the Minister of Finance has introduced a very bad fiscal instrument, one that he will be sorry about-providing he remains in that portfolio. He is committing the government to an expenditure of $3 billion, whether the money is available or not. He is doing that in spite of all the evidence to show that the economic impact in terms of stimulating the economy and providing for additional housing units will not, in fact, be achieved because of the present high interest rates. He is spending money without creating any impact. He is creating a big buck and not getting much of a bang for it. That is not good economics by any criteria.
This is a very inequitable bill, Mr. Speaker. It leaves out 5.5 million Canadians.


Mr. Thacker:: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I stand before you as a new member of this House seeking a ruling. The hon. member opposite has referred to points of policy, to comments made earlier, and to the debate on second reading, which is the matter of principle. I would refer the Chair to Standing Order 55(2), which states as follows:
Speeches in Committees of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Not just relevant, Mr. Chairman, but strictly relevant. We are dealing with clause 1 of Bill C-20, which refers to section 120(4) of the Income Tax Act. 1 have not heard one comment from the hon. member opposite with respect to section 120(4) and 1 seek your ruling on whether he is in breach of the requirement of Standing Order 55(2) to be "strictly relevant".


The Chairman:: Order, please. Maybe the hon. member is correct about the procedure in Committee of the Whole in general, but I must remind him that the citation he used refers to all clauses in Committee of the Whole except clause 1. It has been the practice in Committee of the Whole to have an open debate on the subject matter of a bill under clause 1, and debate has never been limited to the consideration of that clause in particular, whatever it contains. The practice is very clear on this.


Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1 am glad you were able to clarify for the hon. member the rights and privileges that the opposition are allowed. This government has obviously forgotten them over the last two weeks in this debate.
December 4, 1979


Mr. Forrestail:: You mean the rights and privileges of members of Parliament.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will be glad to amend my remarks to say the rights and privileges of members of Parliament because the government has forgotten them over the past two weeks, and that includes members of their own back benches who have been denied the opportunity to present amendments.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I must say on that last point in particular raised by the hon. member that he is out of order. This comment does not relate to the bill.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I was simply responding to the fact that as we are in committee trying to set the terms of reference by which we are going to discuss this bill the government in debate in this House raised very odious sets of conditions determining the opportunities of opposition. In this debate on clause 1 we have put very straightforward questions to the Minister of Finance to clear up what were obviously contradictions in statements between himself and the first minister and between the Minister of National Revenue and the first minister. They took diametrically opposed positions as to how they would proceed with this bill. It was only proper, before we got into looking at the specifics, that those contradictions be resolved and we simply do not go through a sham exercise. I do not think there is anything improper about establishing those guidelines. It is the government and its ministers who have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this bill, not other members, and we are simply trying to clarify exactly where they stand.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. gentleman finished? Does he want some clarification?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Minister of Finance will have plenty of opportunity in committee to give all the clarification he needs.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Maybe it is time for me to inform the hon. member that his allotted 20 minutes has expired. I am allowing him an additional two minutes. One of those two minutes has already gone, so I will allow an extra minute for the hon. member to conclude and then I will recognize another speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, we are very sure what bill it is. I just hope that the government knows what bill it is. We would simply repeat the kinds of questions we put, both on procedure and on statements made by ministers opposite concerning what is obviously an attempt by them to limit the debate and limit the normal processes in this House. Are they prepared or not to accept reasonable amendments from members of Parliament so that this bill can be improved?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I intend to approach my task in the spirit of sweet reasonableness, as hon. gentlemen will have noticed 1 always do.
Mortgage Tax Credit
There is no contradiction between the Prime Minister and myself. If there were, the Prime Minister would be right, naturally. That is the system. But there is no contradiction. The hon. gentleman is strained to find a contradiction where none exists. He is really straining to swallow an ant or a newt when there is not an ant or newt to strain against. There is no difference. We are ready to accept reasonable amendments that can be accepted within the framework of the conditions that we had to bring this bill before the House.
In order to bring some relief in 1980 to the Canadian home owner, and make it possible for that to be the case, we had to go to the printers at the end of September with the tax forms. That was not because we wanted to do it or because we asked to do it that way; it was because the Department of National Revenue told us that this is what we had to do. In order to have the tax credit provided for in the federal income tax returns for 1980, we had to go to the printers. That is why the provision was not held to be included in the budget. Why the provisions had to be made public last September-I think it was September 18-was because we could not take the risk of sending the forms to the printers and having a possible leak that we were going to be bringing forth this credit. That part of it, Mr. Chairman, was out of our hands.
If hon. gentlemen propose some amendments-hon. members, I am sorry. I apologize to the most attractive ladies that we have present in this chamber. More and more of them are getting elected and I welcome that; I do not want to be sexist. We welcome members of both sexes in this House.
If there are amendments that we cannot accept now because of the simple fact that these forms had to be prepared, but yet they seem to be good amendments, I am quite prepared to recommend that we have a look at them for next year and bring them in for the next phase. As the hon. gentleman mentioned, this scheme is coming in in four phases. The first phase starts in 1979. That will restrict what amendments we can find reasonable at this time because we cannot accept amendments that will make the income tax forms which have to be sent out by the end of the year invalid. But if there is a reasonable amendment, we are certainly prepared to consider it now or recommend it be considered for next year.
The hon. member said that we are not concerned about renters. Of course, that is completely untrue. This legislation does not deal with the problems of renters. Yes, renters do have problems. Yes, lower income people-


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would like to refer-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes.


An hon. Member:: That is debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: I refer to the point raised by the Minister of National Revenue that the government is not prepared to

December 4, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
accept any amendments whatsoever, and the Minister of Finance has said he will accept amendments.


An hon. Member:: Listen.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are listening to him. We want the point cleared up. He said they would not accept any amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, 1 am going to continue to be sweetly reasonable. 1 have just explained to the hon. gentleman what amendments we can find reasonable and why we can only find certain amendments reasonable. If there are some other amendments put forward that we consider to be reasonable but which we cannot accept because of the dictates of the tax form and so on, we would consider them next year when the next phase comes in. That is always possible. What could be more of an explanation than that, Mr. Chairman?
It was stated that we are not concerned about renters. We are concerned about renters, but not in this legislation. We are concerned about everybody who lives in Canada, but this legislation is to assist home owners or people who want to become home owners if they are federal taxpayers. It is to assist renters who would prefer to be home owners. Doubtless there are renters who are low income people. Doubtless there are renters who could do with a greater income. Doubtless there are renters who could do with shelter allowances. But we are not in the financial position at the present time to deal with them. We did not make them any campaign promises that we would deal with their concerns immediately. We made the home owners of Canada, a very substantial number of people, aware that we are concerned about their problems and about the problems of those who want to become home owners and we have brought forth the legislation that we promised.
We are concerned about renters. We are concerned and care about all of the people in Canada. Whether or not we can bring forward a shelter allowance program in the future will depend upon our finances. We had to operate with a financial situation left to us by others-the crowd that left us the $11 billion deficit and the like. That is the crowd that left us in the position of scraping the bottom of the barrel. That is the situation we are dealing with now. We are giving a stimulus to the housing industry and to home owners through the legislation now before the House.
The hon. gentleman suggested that renters are under more pressure than home owners. What kind of a silly statement is that? There are home owners, people who live in their own homes and have high mortgages, who are in just as bad straits as, if not worse than, renters. There are no two separate categories of people, namely, that home owners are automatically having no problems and renters are. There are hundreds of thousands of home owners and taxpayers in this country having a very difficult time making ends meet. That is why we are proposing this relief for them. That is why this legislation is before the House. There are hundreds of thousands of them with very high mortgages.

We have heard the welcome ring in this House with talk of high interest rates. One would have thought if hon. members were generally concerned about the effects of high interest rates that we would have had this legislation through the House weeks ago. We could have had a two or three-day debate on second reading and a couple of days in Committee of the Whole and the bill would have been through the House. But we had nothing but obstruction because members are not generally concerned about interest rates and the effect of these interest rates on people. Instead they are concerned about scoring political points, not helping the people who are suffering the high interest rates now.


An hon. Member:: You have 28 per cent popularity.


John Carnell Crosbie: We will see about popularity. I noticed today that we survived a certain test in this House. If hon. gentlemen are so cocksure about themselves as they want to pretend, we would be out on the hustings tomorrow, but they are not. I am ready to test the Gallup poll at any time with the hon. gentlemen opposite. As long as we are the government and responsible for what the government does, the government is going to carry out our policy, not the policy of the group opposite who were defeated but will not accept it, who think they are automatically going to roll back into power and have to do nothing more.


Mr. Pepin:: What about your sweet course?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, I must gel back to my sweet course. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry made the threat that if we do not do what he wants us to do or what his side of the House wants us to do, there is an implied threat about the operations of the committee. We are simply not accepting threats. We are prepared to be reasonable. I am not quaking in my shoes because the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry threatens that he is going to make it hard in the committee. The committee should do its business in whatever way that takes us.
What else did the hon. gentleman say? He really did not say very much. Let me give some figures here to point out why some of the amendments suggested will not be reasonable. One of the complaints about this bill is that the credit is not refundable. In other words, if you are a home owner who is not a taxpayer, you do not get any benefit from the bill. The only people who benefit from this bill are home owners in Canada who pay federal taxes, and this bill will save them on their federal taxes.
To make the present legislation refundable would have a first year cost of $100 million and in the fourth year of the program $450 million. At the present time we cannot see our way clear to be in the position to afford those additional costs. Perhaps in a year or two down the road, or three or four as our economic regime takes effect and this country starts on the road back again, we will be able to afford those increased amounts.
December 4, 1979

Hon. gentlemen opposite who did not do so themselves when they were in power for the past 16 years have suggested that we should extend this provision to renters. There are all kinds of options for extending benefits to renters. I will just look at two. We could extend the $250 tax credit to renters. In other words, every renter in Canada would be allowed a $250 tax credit, every renter household the same as every home owner household. The cost of that non-refundable, just that simple proposition, would be $175 million for the first year, going up to $675 million in the fourth year. If it was made refundable it would be $275 million for the first year and $1,100 million in the fourth year. If we just extend the property tax credit to every renting household, we have those kinds of additional costs. If it is made refundable, there is a major increase in cost.
Another option would be to allow renters a 25 per cent credit for half of their rent subject to a maximum credit of $1,250. There are all kinds of options. These examples are just to give some idea of costs. If that were done on a non-refundable basis, for the first year it would cost $200 million and in the fourth year $750 million. If it was made refundable, it would be $250 million in the first year and $1 billion in the fourth year. On and on it goes. You have these vastly increased costs.
These are reasons why we cannot accept amendments, and amendments will not be reasonable that suggest we extend this scheme, which is for home owners, to renters. My learned colleague the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is hoping to develop and is working on developing some shelter allowance scheme that might apply to renters, or renters in certain years, and so on. These options are all being looked at. We are just as anxious to help the elderly, the renter or anyone else as hon. gentlemen opposite. In fact, because we are in a minority situation, if we were to proceed in the usual way that hon. gentlemen opposite have always proceeded, if power was our only aim and nothing else, we would be bringing in this kind of thing. We would not care about the economic situation. We would not care about the deficit. We would ignore all that. We would bring in all kinds of goodies knowing that we are a minority and that in the next six months or year we might be going to the polls. We are not doing that. Our be all and end all and whole aim in life is not just to get into power and to get our nose into the trough here in Ottawa; there are other things in life.
When we get in to power in Ottawa, we are trying to help the country recover from the 16 years of prodigality and profligacy of hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. Member:: There is nothing in the trough.


John Carnell Crosbie: As one hon. member just said, there is nothing in the trough even to get a sniff at after 16 years.


An hon. Member:: Tory times are hard times.


John Carnell Crosbie: If Tory times are hard times it is because they follow Liberal times and the Liberals have left nothing. That is
Mortgage Tax Credit
why Tory times are hard times. After a year or two, Tory times are great times. They are beneficial times, wait and see.
This legislation is designed to encourage people to become home owners. Therefore, to include any provision in it to assist renters would be directly contrary to the object of the legislation, which is to assist people who are now home owners to continue to be home owners and to assist people who want to become home owners become home owners. The bill is not designed to help renters and discourage them from becoming home owners. Therefore, amendments that are contrary to these positions are, of course, not reasonable in consideration of this particular piece of legislation.
There are 9.4 million households in total in Canada. Some 3.8 million of those households that are owner-occupied pay tax to the federal government and have mortgages or are subject to property tax, so they are going to be beneficiaries under this legislation. There are 1.1 million non-taxable home owners. They do not pay federal tax so they would not get a benefit unless it was made refundable. There are 4.5 million renters, students or households of that nature. There are 166,885 mobile homes, all of which will be assisted by this legislation.
The position, then, is that the only way we could give the home owners of Canada a benefit for the 1979 tax year is to take the action we have taken. We can only consider amendments that make it possible to meet that objective. The benefit for 1979 is $575 million. Next year, 1980, it will be $1.2 billion. That will be the stimulant. We have heard the welcome ring across the aisle to the cry of "stimulus, what about the stimulus?" This is the stimulus. You would think this bill would have passed the House long ago. This is the stimulus they keep crying about.
There was some silly question to the Prime Minister today asking about the $2 billion tax cut. This is a $2 billion tax cut. It is far more than that. It is $575 million this year, $1.2 billion next year, up to $2.9 billion in 1982. How inconsistent can the hon. gentlemen be? They have no consistency whatsoever.


Mr. Murphy:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps referring to the "hon. gentlemen opposite". I would remind him that this House is a bit more modern than his bill.


Mr. Kempiing:: What a great contribution that was!


John Carnell Crosbie: I know why the hon. gentleman is so conscious of the fact that we have hon. women and hon. gentlemen here. It is because they dominate the NDP in the caucus and in the House, and I congratulate them for that.
The reason the official opposition is never consistent is that their leader stated that it is more important to be right than it is to be consistent. If that is sauce for the goose, it is also sauce for the gander. It is more important to be right than to be consistent. In that statement the former prime minister was right. Of course, they are adopting his policy every day because the inconsistencies we have heard from them have been really remarkable.

December 4, 1979
Adjournment Motion
If we want to discuss this clause, Mr. Chairman, it is strictly a technical amendment. All we are doing in this clause is this. The effect of this amendment and this clause is to ensure that the new credits do not in any way affect the calculation of the general federal tax deduction, the federal surtax on income not attributable to any province and a special Quebec abatement. That is really all that this amendment does.
If hon. gentlemen want to have the debate on second reading all over again, that is their privilege. We know that they can hamstring the House. We know they can still stop this bill going through by Christmas. We know they can stop it despite the fact the bill has been approved in principle by the House. But I hope they will take a more reasonable attitude. Any amendments that are good ones, that we can accept within the framework that I have mentioned, we are certainly prepared to consider.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 Welland (Mr. Parent)-Employment-Proposed cessation of job-creation program; the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy)-Northern Affairs-Settlement of native land claims; the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Caouette)-Research and Development-Inquiry whether grants will be increased.
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 public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, could we discuss Bill C-225 and could other bills be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary said C-225; I am sure he meant C-226. Might I be permitted, though, to advise the House that I am a little concerned about the way in which we are proceeding with the establishment of the order of work for private members' business.
I notice that in moving to Bill C-226 the House will be standing seven bills which are already printed and ready to proceed, and will also be standing 11 other bills which are not printed. I am informed that even members whose bills have not been printed have been requested to supply information on their bills to the legal counsel of the House. After a brief inquiry I find that some of these members still had the bills in their offices and did not know they had to submit them-they were waiting for someone to counsel them. I wonder whether the Privy Council office could not go to the trouble of appointing someone to telephone all members concerned and press them to supply information, even though the bill might not be ready to be printed. What is the use of having a draw at the beginning of a session to establish a priority list if we are going to proceed as we are at present?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, 1 am led to believe that with respect to every one of the bills published prior to this one an inquiry has been made and the member involved is not able, willing or whatever, to proceed today. You mentioned the ones that have not been printed. I will certainly take your advice and try to speed up the process, but it should be clear to all members that we have made every attempt to get each bill seriatim that is available for debate, and if there is any fault I do not think it can be attributed to any partisanship on the government side. But if you wish, Mr. Speaker, I will take what you say under advisement.


Harold Thomas Herbert: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the problem for many of us is that the bills not being printed, we do not have any record in our office of what the content is to be. Also, when we look at the order of business we can only assume at the moment, because we have no other information to go on, that, as you have said, some 20 items are being passed over. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary when he reports back to the House on this matter could let us know which bills have not been printed. Maybe we could tidy up the order paper by getting rid of some items that members might not wish to proceed with at this time. We could then have at least some idea amongst ourselves as to what is likely to come up for debate.

December 4, 1979


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 want to assure the hon. member that 1 did not intend to reflect on him or on the people helping him in his job, but I wonder whether we do not need to put pressure on some members who do not go to the trouble of having their bills prepared. Perhaps we do not insist enough. 1 spoke to one member-he is in the House now-who had his bill ready on this desk; he said he was waiting for someone to call him. So 1 think we should pursue the matter. In any case, I am ready now to ask whether there is consent to stand all the bills that precede Bill C-226 and proceed with Bill C-226 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: that Bill C-226, to amend the Canada Labour Code (Safety of Employees), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the private member's bill I am presenting today speaks to one of the most important issues presently facing Canadians and Canadian governments. We have often been led to believe that the most serious question facing labour today is that of collective bargaining and industrial disputes. With all due respect, that is not the most serious question. The most serious issue facing Canadian labour today and, in effect, facing governments at all levels, is the whole question of occupational health and safety in the work place. That is the most burning issue for Canadian labour today.
I am sure members opposite me and those beside me will admit there is a crisis in occupational health and safety. It seems to me that whenever we talk about labour in this country we hear a lot of scapegoating-the Tories are great at that, like the Liberals before them. They start trotting out figures about the number of days lost in strikes, they compare them with figures from Italy, West Germany, Britain, Uganda and every other country in the world. But we never hear much talk about the number of days lost due to accidents on the job or diseases incurred as a result of conditions in the work place, or indeed the whole question of a comparison between days lost and the economic impact on Canada when we consider that the number of days lost due to occupational health problems or accidents on the job was seven times more than days lost through industrial disputes. One can compute the loss in terms of dollars to the Canadian economy.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the previous Liberal government attempted to come to grips with giving the federal government some leadership on the whole question of occupational health and safety when it brought in an amendment to
Canada Labour Code
the Canada Labour Code, Bill C-8, which amended part IV of the Canada Labour Code. In spite of the fact that that was the first amendment to the Canada Labour Code in ten years, it is to the credit of the previous Liberal government that it gave workers the right to refuse work which is unsafe-but only if the danger is imminent, which is hardly adequate since we know that some cancers develop over as long a period as 20 years. That is hardly encouraging when, according to a recent American study, at least 20 per cent of all cancers in the United States are job-related.
The previous Liberal government gave workers the right to health and safety committees, but they were not made mandatory and, in particular, in those areas where there is no collective in the work place there are no health and safety committees. Indeed, the minister has not exercised his right to establish those health and safety committees in those particular situations. He has not exercised his authority to date.
I have here some facts which ought to be put on the record. The federal Department of Labour estimates that 1,071,484 Canadians were injured on the job in 1978. In Ontario alone nearly 1,500 workers died from job-related accidents and illnesses over the last five years. According to a study related to work accidents by Dr. Paul Rohan, a Montreal occupational health and safety specialist, a Canadian worker was disabled on the job every 16 seconds of every day over the past ten years. Another fact I think we should keep in mind is that the frequency of injuries is rising. Over the past ten years the number of employees disabled each year has increased by one-third, and 46 per cent of those who had accidents in 1978 were either temporarily or permanently disabled. Those are the human costs.
There are, of course, monetary costs. Compensation payments for work injuries in 1978 reached $967 million. Those were just compensation payments alone. Counting indirect costs such as production losses, hiring and training of new employees, higher employer insurance costs, overtime and hospital care, the total combined costs arising from work injuries, illnesses and fatalities could be as high as $4 billion a year. Last year, for example, in Ontario alone the workmen's compensation board paid $382,207,000 in compensation awards.
Aside from the fact that the improvements which were made through Bill C-8 to the Canada Labour Code were long overdue, there were some obvious ones which were not made to the Canada Labour Code. We tried to amend Bill C-8. The Liberals would not accept any amendments. Indeed, their concern about this problem is evidenced by the fact that there are only three of them sitting in the House this afternoon. Not one of the previous ministers of labour was prepared to accept changes to the Canada Labour Code which would have corrected the glaring inadequacy of part IV of the Canada Labour Code with which Bill C-226 comes to grips.
The change we wanted and which is in Bill C-226 which we are debating this afternoon is that the provisions of part IV of the Canada Labour Code be extended to those workers under federal jurisdiction who are not already covered under part IV.

December 4, 1979
Canada Labour Code
Part IV makes a neat little exception in eliminating from coverage those who work on trains, boats and planes. When they are on the ground, they are covered by part IV of the code; but once they are on the job in the air, on the running boards of trains or on ships, God help them because there is no coverage whatsoever under part IV of the Canada Labour Code.


An hon. Member:: How many people are we talking about?


John R. Rodriguez: That is a good question from the Liberal benches. How many are we talking about? There are approximately 500,000 employees who are presently under federal jurisdiction and covered by the Canada Labour Code. Two hundred thousand of them are excluded from coverage under part IV of the code which deals with occupational health and safety.


An hon. Member:: Louder.


John R. Rodriguez: If the hon. member wants to make a speech, he can get up and make it, but he does not care. He is probably one of those who does not have a collective in his business. There are 200,000 people not covered under part IV of the code.
I want to give some specifics. Some railway workers are covered by this part of the Canada Labour Code but, as I said, once they step on to the running boards of trains they are not covered. They are covered under the Railway Act, and the Railway Act provides no occupational health and safety section. So, for example, those workers who were running that CPR train in Mississauga had no coverage whatsoever with respect to the rights which are in part IV of the Canada Labour Code regarding health and safety. They were not covered at all.
With regard to those people who work on our aeroplanes, once a plane is in the air, stewardesses, pilots, stewards and all the other airline attendants on the plane are not covered. The passengers on the plane are covered under the Aeronautics Act, but the Aeronautics Act refers only to the safety of the passengers. It does not relate to the safety of the workers on the plane. The next time hon. members get on a DC-9, they should take a look at the fold down seat which is located at the back of the plane and in the middle aisle. If a tail cone was to fly off, the workers occupying those places would be sucked right out the back. There is no coverage under the Aeronautics Act with respect to health and safety. The same thing goes for those who work on ships.
The unions representing workers in these areas have been after governments for over ten years, and they have always listened. There have been labour ministers galore. They have listened. No one can accuse them of not listening, but they do not act. The present minister is not listening. He is busy carrying on his own private little conversation. He is Mr. Nice Guy. He wants to be somebody. Well, he can be somebody if he will start acting to bring these workers under the aegis-


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was paying attention to the hon. member with all I had, but all of a sudden I found that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) was sitting here, and there are certain priorities, so I was momentarily distracted, so to speak. Then I heard something about a nice guy, and 1 think the hon. member was referring to me. I do not want to take up his time. I know this is important and he has only 20 minutes, but if he would just repeat the part in which he was referring to me, I would be extremely grateful. 1 want him to know that I was paying strict attention. Would he just repeat that so I can get back on track?


John R. Rodriguez: 1 am glad that the minister said he was talking. 1 was referring to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander), and I am glad he was talking to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). At one point I thought the minister was in the outer cabinet and therefore had no influence at all. I am glad he has the ear of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), a former minister of labour, said when he was minister of labour that this was a good idea, but he did not do anything about it.
Then the former member for Scarborough East took over from the hon. member for Hamilton East. He did not do anything either, even though he said it was a good idea. I am not surprised at that because there is a great bureaucratic battle within government. Now the Minister of Labour says he wants to be a somebody. He tells Mary Trueman of The Globe and Mail that he thinks his department should do more. This is an opportunity for him to do more. He can act, and I hope hon. members on the government side will not attempt to talk out this bill. The Prime Minister has said the government wants to give members of Parliament an opportunity to accomplish more than just sitting on back benches and thumping desks. If this bill was allowed to go through, it would go to committee.
Surely the Minister of Labour recognizes the seriousness of this problem. This is no time to be having little arguments with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) as to whether workers should come under the Aeronautics Act or the Canada Labour Code. There is only one overriding matter of importance, and that is the health and safety of those who work in this country. The new Minister of Labour can give some leadership. He can, in effect, be somebody without having to go to Speedy Muffler. He can be somebody if he would allow the bill to go to committee. All he has to do is to call off his seals over there, tell them not to talk the bill out, and let the bill go through this afternoon so that we can deal with it in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Some hon. members over there are performing like seals. They probably do not recognize the importance of this bill. Perhaps 1 should not insult the seals. Instead of the Minister of Labour talking about a public interest disputes commission, here is a wonderful opportunity for him to put
December 4, 1979

himself four square in terms of leadership with respect to labour matters in this country.
When 1 asked him in committee the other day what is happening to the establishment of such a coverage for these workers under the Canada Labour Code, he said he was studying the problem. The matter has been studied to death, Mr. Speaker. There is no more time for study. Now is the time for clear-cut action on the part of the government. We are talking about 200,000 workers who must be covered under the federal labour code, part IV. 1 think this bill will do the trick since it is designed to extend the coverage in part IV of the labour code to those who are not at present covered but are accepted under the labour code.
Since I do not want to filibuster my own bill, f will conclude with an appeal to the government members. I say to them that instead of rising here to say that they agree with the bill and that it is a wonderful idea, which is a technique of talking it out, I urge them to let the bill go to committee. Let what the Prime Minister talked about with regard to the reform of Parliament be put into practice and let Parliament decide if the bureaucrats are going to be the ones to call the shots in Canada on this very important issue or members of Parliament.


Mr. Bill Wightman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the bill put forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) is of particular interest to me and he is to be commended for it because, inadvertently or not, it raises, among other things, an issue which is very close to the heart of this government. The issue 1 refer to is regulatory reform.
One effect of this bill would be to simplify and rationalize many of the regulations pursuant to occupational safety which are now to be found in a variety of pieces of legislation covering public employees, employees in both the public and private sectors in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, as well as all the people who are now covered by part IV of the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-226, as 1 said, would be a device whereby that legislation could be simplified, and to that extent it is consistent with the preoccupation of this government to clear away a good deal of the underbrush and to look very hard at the proliferation of regulations which are now in place.
During the course of this summer 1 had cause to have delivered to my office copies of the consolidated code of Canada, all 18 volumes. A law student ten or 12 years ago would not even be concerned about the consolidated regulations; they would have been encompassed in one small volume. But today they amount to some 18 volumes, and that is only regulations which have been codified; it does not speak to the plethora of regulations that come about as the result of quasi-judicial bodies of all sorts. So we should all be grateful that the hon. member for Nickel Belt has raised the issue in this fashion.
What is relevant on this matter of over-regulation is the cost to society of keeping these regulations in place. Bill C-226 could be one of the ways of moving toward less regulation,
Canada Labour Code
both as the regulations exist now or as they might come into place in the future.
Another approach to regulatory reform can be seen in the work that has been going on between the provincial and federal governments in terms of attempting to reduce the overlap of administration. Our government, and in particular, our Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), has been profoundly interested in this exercise and in support of it. We acknowledge the efforts of the previous administration to develop a socioeconomic impact analysis as a means of testing the efficacy of the particular new major health, safety and fairness regulations. We have supported that and we have added to the administrative guidelines to ensure that that type of program will become operative. 1 suggest that it is a pioneering step in the regulatory process, the importance of which we as a government hope will be fully recognized by Canadians.
As you know, sir, the notion is that each proposal for new social legislation, if its estimated cost is in the order of $10 million or more, must now be subjected to a formal cost-benefit analysis. The result of that is to be published in the Canada Gazette for the purpose of receiving comments 60 days before the regulation is to take effect. Anyone who could be potentially affected by those regulations is invited to comment to the sponsoring department. As I said, we feel that that is a pioneering step and I am grateful that the hon. member for Nickel Belt has today brought this to the attention of the House.
The hon. member has given an indication as to who would be affected by this proposal, and I think that perhaps for purposes of completeness of the debate we should take a look at precisely who would be affected. In the federal jurisdiction there are nine principal federal departments or agencies administering 16 separate acts which are concerned in varying degrees with occupational safety and health. They include the Department of Labour, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As 1 have said earlier, were we to proceed with the bill at hand, a good deal of these numbers would be reduced.
However, 1 am sure the hon. member did not intend to lead people to believe that people working on trains, ships and aircraft are totally unprotected, which of course is not the case. His words, I believe, were, "God help them when they step on the running boards of the trains".


John R. Rodriguez: Where is the health and safety part?


William Hannum Wightman: 1 am sure the hon. member would not want anyone to be misled into thinking that there are no safety regulations, as well as the protection of a complete body of case law and arbitration cases to protect these people.


John R. Rodriguez: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Wightman) does

December 4, 1979
Canada Labour Code
not want to leave the wrong impression with the House as to what 1 said. I said, God help them when they step on the running board of the trains because they are not covered under any health and safety section of the particular acts under which they are covered. I think that point is very clear. They have no right to refuse work, they have no right to information, and they have no right to have health and safety committees on the job under those particular acts. I hope he does not leave the wrong impression with the House in that regard.


William Hannum Wightman: Mr. Speaker, as 1 was pointing out, we have a whole body of arbitration case law, and at no time am I aware of a decision going against an employee who had a genuine apprehension of bodily harm or of injury and having refused to perform or carry out an assignment. Indeed, it goes beyond that, beyond an apprehension of injury to himself or to other workers or, indeed, if he was requested to do something that would be self-denigrating in any way. 1 know of no decision that has not gone with the employee.
Even in the absence of the protection that is offered by the various pieces of legislation covering these other employees who are not now embraced by part IV of the Canada Labour Code, I know of no such decision.
It might be useful for the purposes of this discussion to adumbrate the departments or agencies and the legislation which obtains in respect of employees of those departments and agencies. The Ministry of Transport employees come under the Aeronautics Act as well as the Canada Shipping Act. The Canadian Transport Commission comes under the Railway Act. The Atomic Energy Control Board comes under the Atomic Energy Control Act. Energy, Mines and Resources and Indian and Northern Affairs come under the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, and the National Energy Board comes under the National Energy Board Act. The Department of Labour, of course, comes under the Canada Labour Code.
There are a few points in respect of Bill C-226 that 1 would suggest should be considered here before any consideration be given to moving the bill onward to the committee. We should consider, for instance, the question of territorial exclusion. Since the bill would remove territorial exclusion, it seems to me we have to look at that rather seriously, because that exclusion which is provided for in subsection 81 of the Canada Labour Code would need to be retained if the member's bill were to go forward. To take that right to regulate works and undertakings or businesses of a local or private nature away from the governments of the Yukon Territory and of the Northwest Territories, would certainly be an unwarranted and regressive action in the development of territorial government. Perhaps Bill C-226 could be refined to that extent.
In respect of public service employees, it seems to me, with the Treasury Board acting as employer, the government in an August, 1968, directive affirmed a policy of applying the principles of the Canada Labour Safety Code and the regulations and standards adopted thereunder to the public service. The portion of the proposal that would make departmental corporations subject to the Canada Labour Code has merit,

but a case has not been fully developed at this time to suggest that employees in the federal public service do not have protection equivalent to that of workers covered by the Canada Labour Code, part IV.
Finally, sir, let me say a word regarding international treaties and obligations. Canada is respectful of its international treaties and obligations, if some countries are not, and we do have international laws and agreements relating to the operation of ships and aircraft. They, as well as the overriding concern for passenger safety, can take precedence over the safety of employee provisions in part IV of the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-226 would remove the order in council provision of section 80(2) which is required to prevent any conflict between our international treaty obligations and our own laws. I would not think the bill should go forward without that imperfection having been cured.


John R. Rodriguez: Do it in committee.


William Hannum Wightman: The hon. member suggests we do it in committee. I do not know why it could not come into the House in a rather more perfected fashion before going on to the committee.


John R. Rodriguez: This is a debate on the principle.


William Hannum Wightman: 1 think we must, on all sides of this House, and the hon. member has suggested this, agree on the importance of the issue he has attempted to address, that of lost time due to occupational health problems and accidents. We are conscious of this, not simply as to the economic implications but, most particularly, as to the human implications and the human suffering that are implied.
At the same time 1 think it is the hon. member who attempts to relate occupational safety and health problems with industrial disputes. The two are almost mutually exclusive; at least they are not comparable in terms of an indication as to the state of labour-management relations in Canada or the health of labour-management relations.
There are real distinctions between a work stoppage where everybody goes out on the same day or at the same time, and the type of lost time that is implied in accident or health problems. They do not normally all occur on the same day. In that sense those two reasons for lost time really do not bear comparison.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, 1 think we should be mindful of this reality. There are jobs performed by people which implicitly are dangerous. A policeman's job is dangerous, and a fireman's job is dangerous. The nature of that work is such that the public interest must and does come first. Of course those good people would have it no other way.
We have before us a proposal which 1 think draws this fact very much to our attention. Consider, sir, the responsibilities of flight crews and flight attendants vis-a-vis the passengers. Whether because of a malfunction of the aircraft, or because of some terrorist taking over the aircraft, the responsibility of those attendants and pilots, and their first concern, must be for
December 4, 1979

passenger safety, even though it is at the expense of those workers themselves.
I think of the recent disaster at Mississauga. Although the precise causes of the mishap are not known as yet, envisage a situation where a locomotive engineer sees an imminent problem and is capable of doing something about it, but in staying with the train he places himself in some jeopardy. I do not think we can have legislation which would suggest that, if it comes to a choice between his own safety and the safety of perhaps thousands of other passengers on that train, his responsibility is unclear.
One could easily conjure up any number of situations and occupations wherein the public interest and safety are of paramount concern. We should be grateful to the hon. member for introducing this bill in this way because, as I said, it does raise this important issue and exemplifies the problems there are in trying to solve all problems through legislation.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise for the first time in my parliamentary career.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: As is the tradition of the House, 1 would like to pay tribute to the people of my riding who have shown their confidence in me by sending me here. 1 welcome many of them to what is in fact a growing city. It has many occupational health problems which are in part related to finding accommodation, simply because it is growing so quickly. I would hope that in celebration of our six-month anniversary, which was mentioned in question period today, that we will remain the government long enough to help other parts of this country to establish their economic health and security so that we do not have quite so many people moving so quickly into our part of the nation. I would like to see more jobs come available in other parts of the country so that people could remain close to their families and their traditions.
1 rise on this bill because 1 am bothered by the way in which it is written. It exemplifies a conversation I had some weeks ago with the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). It has to do with the kinds of principles which the hon. member invites other members to address themselves to in dealing with the bill. I would suggest that if the hon. member finds my arguments persuasive, he might consider withdrawing the bill and redrafting it in a form that might include things about which we are motivated.


John R. Rodriguez: You can do that in committee.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am not so sure that in committee there is always good discussion or that they include the kinds of facts which will provide us with decent legislation. I think that in some instances in committee we are exposed to nothing but rhetoric. It is a waste of time for the members of the House, and a detriment to the people of Canada.
Canada Labour Code
I do not agree with the bill presented by the hon. member for Nickel Belt in part because of the first word, "notwithstanding". It goes on to read, "notwithstanding any other act or regulation, this part applies-". In other words, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, in the area of occupational safety for employees, would like us to throw out all those years in terms of tradition and development and in terms of other bills and regulations. Without examination we are being invited to buy a piece of legislation which supersedes any other acts passed by this House. For instance, I wonder whether there are provisions suggested in the amendment by the hon. member which might affect us in the House of Commons. Is there a House of Commons Act and does it take precedence over statements in this bill?
I wonder whether we have a shelter and safety committee in the House of Commons which might protect us from some of the gases that arise from the opposite side from time to time? It might be in the best interest of our mental health. As I read over this bill, I was reminded of the fact that 1 come from a faculty position in the school of social welfare and a career which is devoted to the care of other people.


Mrs. Mitchell:: You're kidding?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am not kidding. I teach, in a faculty of social welfare, social workers who are concerned with the mental health of others such as senior citizens.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Some social worker!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, some social worker. I hope that I represent what will become somewhat of a more modern tradition in social work, that we start with motivation and a desire to be helpful to others, move to an information base which gives the facts on the situation, and then to public policy which may in fact correct the situation. I have been sitting here for some weeks becoming increasingly bothered by the absence of information which flows from the other side of the House, under the guise of sincere motivation. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that members opposite have goals which are not dissimilar from my own.
The members opposite have brought up the issue of Petro-Can on more than one occasion. I support what I think I see as the goals of the opposite side, that we have a Canadian oil company that is a leader in increasing our security of supply and that we in fact use the profits from products which are sold to pay for that company. The translation of those goals by those opposite is in the form of a corporation called Petro-Canada. It should be put on the record that Petro-Canada has not contributed to the supply of oil in this country. In fact the annual report of 1978 suggests that PetroCan had less oil at the end of that year than it had at the beginning of the year.
The task force report tells us that this corporation, in the face of profits from other oil companies, lost $7.6 million in profits. 1 think that in the interest of public debate on policy issues we would be better served if we begin from a basis of fact and move together in the face of those situations which
2006

December 4, 1979
Canada Labour Code
concern all Canadians toward resolutions that will make Canada a better nation.


John R. Rodriguez: Workers get hurt.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, workers get hurt. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Wightman) dealt with some of the exclusions which the hon. member for Nickel Belt wishes to include in this bill. He talked specifically about ships, trains and airplanes. If we were to adopt the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, employees in those three industries would be subjected to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, part IV. I wonder if the hon. member would like to be present in an airplane in an emergency situation when an employee rejected an order given to him or her by the captain. Would the hon. member for Nickel Belt like to be on a ship where an employee in a moment of crisis could reject an order given to him or her by the captain of the ship?


John R. Rodriguez: Are you asking me the question?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: 1 would not mind giving the hon. member a chance to answer that question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Watch out; you will lose your place.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, 1 will lose my place. I believe that that is the issue which the hon. member for Scarborough West wanted to bring to our attention. If there are situations in this world where the health and safety of the public or of other employees are dependent upon a set of circumstances, then the guidelines should be specific and detailed to that situation. 1 believe that the three industries which are excluded from the present Canada Labour Code are important examples. We cannot have confusion on a ship, an airplane, or a train, in a time of emergency. It is important that employees-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. The hon. member should not leave the impression with this House that I have suggested that those who work on airplanes should not, in the course of their duty and in the event of a plane crash, be obligated to assist passengers. What we are talking about are those problems which are structural with respect to the job, which are correctible, and not part and parcel of what is expected of them in their duties as flight attendants, pilots, or sailors on a ship. I think there is a complete distinction here, and I think the hon. member is deliberately trying to give the wrong impression to this House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that at some appropriate time the hon. member opposite would withdraw the word "deliberate". I am not sure that it fits into the traditions of this House.
I think the hon. member confirms the major thesis that 1 was attempting to develop. He has an objective; he wants to protect the health of all employees on airplanes, on ships, and on railroads. He has to ask himself, however, whether the
amendment he proposes in this bill accomplishes that end. That is the relationship between motivation and fact.
I would ask the hon. member if there is not a way of addressing this problem that would be more specific to the problem and more appropriate to the problem, without confusing the universe. I suggest that the exclusions presently contained in the Canada Labour Code are there for specific reasons. The specific reasons in these three areas of human endeavour are the peculiarities of them. If hon. members on that side of the House really care about the health and safety of employees in those three industries, why do they not come forward with a private member's bill or an amendment in committee that would protect the health and safety of both members of the general public and employees at the same time? Instead, they try to bicycle through the kind of provision which does not allow for the attention to detail which should be relevant to a specific industry.
1 do not want to go on at length, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to make one last point. I believe it was the deliberate intent of previous legislators to exclude people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. What the hon. member proposes is another example of what we have seen too often in this country-the continuation of a kind of paternalism.
I believe that people who work in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have the right and the obligation to set forth labour codes and labour standards that cover their experience in the north which, too frequently, is not the same as that in the south. The north has 24-hour days and 24-hour nights. The legislation should be specific to their circumstances. Any attempt to bicycle this through on top of existing legislation should be defeated by the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, I could not let this go by without offering a few words. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) asked me to say some nice things about the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) because he is a little upset today. I am going to say some nice things about him. It is a pleasant task to participate in a debate initiated by the hon. member. The pleasure manifestly increases when the debate takes on the serious aspect that this one has. Over the years there has not been much dispute concerning the hon. member's character, the nature and quality of his contribution in this House, and his place in the world of socialism. His contribution to Parliament is very well known, of course. I think it is indisputable, however, that the hon. member is the self-proclaimed mouthpiece of the working man, and rightly so. He has done tremendous work in this House and in committee for the little man.
I do not have a lot of time, Mr. Speaker, but I have a poem which personifies the hon. member. It is as follows:
It matters not what work we do What post in life we are asked to fill,
We can be honest men and true Though lacking genius or skill.
The worker digging in the street

December 4, 1979

Scarce noticed by the passer-by May be too great to play the cheat Too big of soul to tell a lie.


John R. Rodriguez: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is an extremely serious bill being debated by the Elouse. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) has moved around the government benches, coaxing unwilling members to filibuster the bill. Now we have the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie) going on at great length to talk the bill out. This bill would have an effect on thousands and thousands of workers in this country, so I think this is despicable behaviour.


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, 1 really do not want to speak on the point of order raised by the hon. member, because it would take up the three or four minutes that are left, and I know that would upset him.
Certainly, as legislators we must always be concerned with how changes in legislation or, indeed, new legislation will affect the safety of those who have to carry out the policy. Therefore, there is much merit in a proposal like Bill C-226. The concern for the safety of employees is important and should never be neglected. The hon. member is well aware of that, and points it out at every opportunity. However, 1 feel that this amendment to the Canada Labour Code will create some legal problems or situations and, while it tries to solve others, on balance it will do little to clear up the whole situation.
As 1 said, the safety of employees working in the federal government, or indeed in the private sector, should not be taken lightly. I am surprised that the hon. member for Nickel Belt did not mention that the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is to be located in the great thriving metropolis of Hamilton. This centre can, and will, do much to look into problems of occupational safety and, in the long run, 1 am sure will do much to make the work place safer.
It is through activities co-ordinated at the national level that solutions will be found to problems which the hon. member for Nickel Belt obviously knows exist, and which are a potential danger to those workers not included in the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.
The workers excluded from part IV of the Canada Labour Code are protected by other federal statutes, as the hon. member knows. The question is not whether workers should be protected by federal statutes but, rather, by which statutes. I take this opportunity to speak on the matter with a real sense of commitment and concern, Mr. Speaker, the same commitment and concern with which 1 judge the hon. member and Bill C-226. The present situation is that these workers are protected by the Treasury Board. This protection is similar to the provisions of part IV of the Canada Labour Code and its regulations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, 1 do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
Mortgage Tax Credit


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-20-Mr. Crosbie-Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton) in the chair.
On clause 1 -
Bob Rae: Mr. Chairman, I could not let the minister's remark before five o'clock go without passing. He gave another one of his remarkable performances in which he said that while the government could afford the mortgage interest and property tax credit, it could not afford to make the credit universal to make it apply to tenants. Also it could not be made refundable and it could not be applied to people who did not have a taxable income.
The Minister of Finance is somewhat like a Santa Claus who sits in a department store and has four chocolates in his hand. The first kid who jumps up in his lap is a well dressed middle-class kid, and being well dressed and middle-class he is the first one in line and the first one to jump on Santa's lap. Santa asks him, "What do you want for Christmas?" The kid answers that he wants four pieces of chocolate. Santa replies "There you go, there are the four pieces of chocolate. 1 have given you what you wanted". But if it is a pensioner who comes limping up to Santa, and who is asked what he wants for Christmas, and the pensioner replies that he would like some chocolate too, Santa says, "I am sorry I cannot give you any chocolate, 1 have given it all away." That is exactly what this phony argument from the Minister of Finance amounts to. The Minister of Finance knows perfectly well-


An hon. Member:: You should have read the Journal today.


Bob Rae: -that if it were a question of affordability it would be perfectly possible to reduce the amount of mortgage tax credit and thereby make it universal, and it would be perfectly possible to make it refundable and at the same time make it affordable for the government if that were the only criterion, and the Minister of Finance knows that it is not. What we have been presented with is not a measure, it is a striptease.


William James Kempling: A striptease? From Santa Claus to a striptease?

December 4, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit


Bob Rae: The government's chief whip cannot understand how one can move from a Santa Claus to a striptease in two paragraphs.


An hon. Member:: Only you can do it.


Bob Rae: He is only demonstrating his lack of imagination, and demonstrating why he is on that side of the House and why he is not on this side of the House.
What the Minister of Finance has given us is a striptease whereby we are given one part of the government's program and told nothing of what is coming next week. How do we know what it can afford and what it cannot afford? It has not told us what it is cutting out and what else it is bringing in. We have not been told about tax expenditures. We do not know anything about the revenue side. We do not know anything about the expenditure side.
All we know about is the unbelievable hypocrisy of the Minister of Finance who comes here to say that he can afford to give something to the middle-class home owner but cannot afford to give anything to the pensioners of this country who would benefit from the refundable tax credit. That is the kind of selective morality of this government, the kind of selective affordability which applies to those people who can push the hardest and elbow their way to the front of the line. It does not apply to those people who cannot elbow their way forward, who are stuck at the back of the line and who are waiting for largesse from Santa Claus with his four chocolates who gave them to the first person who asked for them. It is an amazing performance on the part of the government.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Same old game.


Bob Rae: It is an extremely good example of this government's social philosophy that when it has something to give away, and it is only a limited amount, it makes very sure it goes to those people who need it the least and not to those people who need it the most.


An hon. Member:: Fat cats.


Bob Rae: There have been many statements made today by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry about the number of proposals that might or might not be made by the Liberal party. The minister knows perfectly well what amendments we are putting forward on this side of the House-


An hon. Member:: Twenty-five per cent on the nose.


Bob Rae: -because we have presented him with the amendments that we are putting forward.
For the benefit of those Liberals who are not so tied up with discussing their next leader that they might want to listen to the debate going on here this evening, 1 will let them know that our proposals include a property tax credit which would be extended to include tenants. In other words, it would be made universal. There is a principle whereby we would have a

refundable tax credit. There is a proposition that the tax credit which is given should be made progressive rather than static. In other words, it would get larger with the smaller incomes so that those most in need would get the most. Finally, we have certain positions with regard to the need of a sunset clause for this tax expenditure as with others.
We have had an amazing performance over the past week. It started with an extraordinary effort by the President of the Privy Council who was at his most lugubrious. We on this side call him Wizard of Ooze. He was attempting to establish at one and the same time that his government was the most reasonable and the most prepared to go along with whatever proposals came from this side of the House. At the same time he said that this did not mean they were going to accept any amendments that come from the NDP or Liberal party. No doubt there are some other fictitious amendments which he is prepared to accept. However, when confronted with the reality of substantive amendments which would make these proposals fair, he is not prepared to play ball.
Then we had the extraordinary admission on the part of the President of the Privy Council that it really did not matter what the opposition did because the forms had already been mailed out. Was it not in the genius of the government to call that measure in June if this measure was so important to them, and if they were aware of the need for printing forms? They could have called Parliament in June and let it meet during that month to discuss certain economic measures which they wanted in the budget, and which needed to have serious discussion. Parliament could have been allowed to adjourn later in June in order that the forms be printed as amended. Instead, we have a government which at one and the same time pretends to be interested in the reform of parliament.
However, there is a hidden agenda of this government. It is not the agenda of Parliament but the agenda of the government printers. This is the party that is fighting the bureaucracy. This is the party of the little man which went throughout Canada and said the Liberal party would be wiped out, that suddently there would be a renaissance of free enterprise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: I know the members cannot stand to hear the truth. That is the party that went to the Canadian people and said there would suddenly be a renaissance of the little man and a reflowering of Parliament. What are we left with? The weed presented to us by the President of the Privy Council! What was supposed to be the flower has turned out to be nothing but a weed. We have been reduced to the status of a rubber stamp because of the agenda of the government print shop.


An hon. Member:: Are you capable of much better?


Bob Rae: If you give me long enough I will come up with something much better. It is important that the government realize that they have revealed themselves to be what they have always been, a government as bureaucratic, authoritarian, and as arrogant as the party which preceded it in power.
December 4, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: There is no change. We did not need an election on May 22 to get the kind of lugubrious performance we had from the President of the Privy Council last week. We did not need an election to have that kind of intellectual thuggery presented to us by the Minister of Finance before five o'clock this afternoon, a statement reminiscent of the worst kind of authoritarianism.
The minister said they would decide what is and what is not reasonable. That is the position of the government. They will make it up. They will decide the agenda, together with the government printers. They will decide what Parliament will decide and when they will decide it.
The public should know that we as a party came here prepared to discuss amendments. We came here rejecting the philosophy of the government, the selective morality of the government, the selective generosity of the government which says to the whole of the Canadian public, "I'm sorry, the cupboard is empty.'' However, when they went home, they said to the middie-class owners, "Stay behind, there is really something here for you." They showed them a secret cupboard and said, "This is for you. We do not have anything for anybody else, but we have something for our special friends."


Mr. Blenkarn:: The home owner is a special friend.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Mississauga South says the home owner is a special friend. 1 would like him to tell that to tenants and those who have paid off their mortgages. Now we know why it is 28 per cent, and why it will be 20 per cent next month. We have the explanation. Those people are so wrapped up in their private ideologies that they are unable to recognize the viscerally unfair way in which this scheme is proceeding. It is viscerally unfair to the Canadian taxpayer.


Mr. Fulton:: It is the Tories in pursuit of the zero vote.


Bob Rae: We used to say the Tories had a capacity for self-destruction. If you look at the history of Canada throughout the past 15 years, you will see that is true. We thought there was a possibility with someone who was supposed to be as politically shrewd as the Prime Minister and as politically shrewd as the Minister of Finance that this self-destructive urge would be overcome. However, we have seen it resurrected again in the priorities they have chosen in this Parliament and the selective generosity they have chosen for this Parliament, as well as the people they have chosen to single out for tax benefits. We see a party which is once again determined to go down to defeat, a government pursuing a private ideology at the expense of the real health of the Canadian economy and a real fairness to Canadian taxpayers.
I want to say to the government that I am amazed at the hypocrisy the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Finance have demonstrated over the past week. I am amazed at the contradictions and the shallow weakness of the Prime Minister when he said to this House that they are considering a shelter allowance. When we asked if they were
Mortgage Tax Credit
considering one now, the answer was no. The Minister of Finance says this is a housing measure. It is not a housing measure, but a tax measure. This is an amendment to the Income Tax Act.
The first example of the government's generosity is to give a benefit to one group of taxpayers while telling the rest of the taxpayers, "There is no room in the inn for you." There is room in the inn for home owners but none for pensioners or for single parent families living in apartments and paying more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. That is the Christmas message which is coming from the Minister of Finance and 1 think it spells the doom of this government because, while riding what they thought was a wave of possessive individualism which would take them to power, they are flying in the face of ail that is most decent and generous in all Canadian taxpayers, that is, they do not want something for themselves which does not apply to somebody else. That has long been a principle of our party and of social democracy and I was delighted to be able to vote to express it-that which we wish for ourselves we also wish for others. It is in that sentiment we present amendments which are concrete, which are specific, which are positive, which are affordable, and which are perfectly reasonable, to the Minister of Finance.

Mr.Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House and 1 will say only a few words to give my views, especially after having heard the decision of the minister this afternoon. I was wondering what the minister found so urgent, as if he was afraid not to be ready for Christmas. Mr. Chairman, the consideration of the bill this evening has taken me quite by surprise on two counts. First, 1 am surprised to see that after second reading the bill is referred to the Committee of the Whole when we were ready and even pleased, to draft some amendments and refer the bill to the standing committee for a thorough discussion to see what is really the substance of that bill, because we do not know much about it. It has only two clauses.


An hon. Member:: You voted for the bill.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: We voted to refer it to the standing committee of the House for consideration. However, I was greatly surprised when I learned we were going to deal with it this evening in Committee of the Whole. Now, Mr. Chairman, the Liberals seem to be in a hurry yet 1 think they would have never introduced such a bill.


Some hon. Members:: Never.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: They would have been afraid to lose 50 per cent of the vote in Quebec.


An hon. Member:: We arc too intelligent to do that.


An hon. Member:: We are too fair.

December 4, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Besides referring the bill to the Committee of the Whole, the minister explained this afternoon why he was compelled to proceed so quickly. He told us that the bill had to be passed because the forms were being printed. He explained it this afternoon. He told us frankly in fine language that it was useless to introduce amendments because they would be delayed till next month or next year. In other words, Mr. Chairman, any amendment will be postponed-


An hon. Member:: For a year.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -possibly for a few months, but more probably for a year, in order to deal with the problem of construction of single family houses. That may be a good remedy for the future. However, for 1979 it will merely be a band-aid pending the final surgery, and for us this final surgery is the necessary reform for which we have been asking for years under various governments.


An hon. Member:: Why did you vote for it?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: We have been asking this for years from various governments and especially from the Liberals in the 17 years they have been in power. We have asked for the measure that was partially introduced today, that is, to give the same benefits to single family home owners as to owners of multiple rental units. The Liberals have always benefited big housebuilders by giving them every possible exemption, but never did they do anything for the small home owner. In the 17 years I have been in this House, this is the first time anyone has dared-I repeat, they dare-because as I said a moment ago this bill is far from satisfying, it is only an open door, but it is the first time in 20 years that anyone has dared open this door. If the minister really wants to encourage the construction of single family dwellings, he must allow small owners to deduct from their income tax 66 per cent not only of their mortgage interest but also of the interest on bank loans. Some will say that they have no mortgages. 1 am speaking of bank and private loans for the construction, renovation and maintenance of family dwellings. Today the minister has proposed-


An hon. Member:: Why did you vote for it?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: There is a big bearded guy on the other side who says: "Why did you vote for it." Precisely to give you the opportunity to study it tonight, at least to speak on it again. Your government never gave you the opportunity to speak on this topic because it never introduced such a measure.


An hon. Member:: Right on, Levesque!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Today the minister proposes Bill C-20-


An hon. Member:: Go, Rene, go!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -relating to tax on mortgage interest and property tax. It applies only to 1979 since this was one of the present government's electoral promises. It is a start, a small start, as 1 said during debate on second reading.

Of course, it is better than nothing. We have never had anything. It is better than nothing since we have been asking for such a reform for the past 20 years, and never has a previous government dared to do anything. All previous governments preferred to favour big business, those who helped them get elected-


An hon. Member:: Rene Levesque makes you say that.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: 1 can speak for myself. I have been speaking for myself for 17 years in the House and I can continue to do so. I am not a newcomer. Those who had-


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Chairman, I must regretfully interrupt the hon. member to suggest that he should normally, justly and reasonably address the Chair and avoid trying to impute motives to hon. members on this side. 1 am aware that the hon. member can hardly make himself heard, but he would perhaps be well advised to turn to the government side to ask hon. members there not to make so much noise.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, never have I heard such a ridiculous intervention. When the hon. member says that 1 am trying to influence the others, it is the others, his chums who are shouting at me. It is because they are being hurt. During an operation, a cut with a knife always hurts. I sympathize with them, but this is a necessary operation. Have patience, the operation will not last very long, but you must submit to it once and for all. We had to take it when you were in power, so now taste some of your own medicine.


An hon. Member:: We will do better next time.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: You cannot say anything about that tonight any more than we can; it is up to the people. You need not worry, the people will take care of it. Just wait. As for me, I am not worried about my people. In my riding, 1 have campaigned so often that 1 do not even make speeches any more. They just send me here; I tell them to go and vote, and they do. The Liberals spend anywhere from $40,000 to $50,000 in my riding and the next day they get trounced again.
The Liberals! Did they ever do anything for family heads, to allow them deductions for their property? Never, Mr. Chairman. May I repeat a bit of what 1 said the other day speaking of single unit dwellings. Some fathers have had to build their homes with borrowed money, money borrowed from large financial institutions, and had to pay four times their value to own their own homes after 30 years. That was what happened under the Liberals. That was the help, the protection the Liberals gave us. Tonight, I feel they should be ashamed of themselves; they should not speak at all and leave us alone. At least, we have our chance now.
This afternoon, when I saw myself in Committee of the Whole, I was quite anxious to hear the minister explain himself. I heard his statement. I had expected him at least to hear our deliberations. At least I would like to have the right
December 4, 1979

to move amendments. But now we will probably vote on those two clauses tonight and the rest will be postponed. So after hearing the minister I realized that we would get nothing more in 1979. This bill is a promise for the future; that is why I ask the minister, when he has given justice to the small borrowing owners, to think immediately, in future studies and before drafting another bill, to think of those who do not have mortgages, who build their homes with borrowed money, and grant them tax deductions for the interest they pay, or on the money they borrow to keep up their homes and to pay their taxes; to grant them full deduction of their school taxes, and that not only to home owners but also to tenants. That is the way, Mr. Chairman, the minister will really help tenants, and the old, by granting them a tax credit on their property taxes.
I want to say to the minister that in 1980 we would be happy if he would move-


An hon. Member:: That does not mean anything.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: You are always saying nothing, that does not mean anything. And you are right for once there.
We would be happy if he would move in the direction that we of the Social Credit Party of Canada have been pursuing for so many years.
Before the adjournment at six o'clock he gave us a lot of hope for the months and years to come, God willing, and provided the Liberals do not bring him down as early as next week. But he should remember that people do not feed only on promises, people want action. They have not seen any action for 17 years in housing and this year and next they are going to be following closely and they are going to be demanding. That is why we are encouraging the minister to go ahead.


An hon. Member:: You are looking for a job.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Somebody says again that 1 am looking for a job. I have had jobs for a long time and rest assured that 1 am not here because I need them to live. Simmer down. 1 do not need that. 1 am here for my pleasure, to make the Liberals suffer because they have been wanting the riding of Roberval for 17 years, and I have taken it away from them for 17 years.
Mr. Chairman, once again I urge the minister to come back before the House with another bill to really help the small owner who needs that help but never got it before this year. [English]


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments I would like to make on Bill C-20, and then a couple of brief questions for the minister.
There have been repeated references made all through the debate by the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party to try to give the distinct impression that there are absolutely no plans at all to assist renters federally or provincially, and absolutely no other pieces of legislation to assist home owners in any way at all. Of course, this is just absolute nonsense.
There has also been reference to the fact that tax forms are printed. I think there has hardly been a year go by in the seven
Mortgage Tax Credit
years 1 have been here that there have not been tax forms printed in advance of the passing of a piece of legislation, so 1 do not know what all the hullabaloo about that is for. There is nothing new about that at all.
I have just done some research on the number of housing assistance programs there are in Canada. 1 have done it for a couple of provinces and federally, and the number of programs there are to assist renters now is amazing. We have the federal government program, non-profit co-operatives, and in that particular piece of assistance there is a section dealing with renters which says:
Additionally, for income assisted units, assistance will be provided to reduce occupancy charges to levels as determined by the rent to income scale.
It goes into detail on how it assists renters.
Here is another one: provincial and municipal housing. In this particular assistance program there is a section on renting.
It says:
-encourage the application of provincial assistance in order to penetrate further down the income range and provide rental assistance to those individuals and families who need it most-
This particular program goes on. It has another section on rents and the assistance that groups are getting with regard to rent assistance now.
Then there is another one, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. It is to assist landlords in selected municipalities who agree to rent controls and non-profit corporations and co-operatives.
Then there is another one: insured loans for rental housing. It goes into a lot of detail on how it gives assistance to renters.
I find it very strange that this knowledgeable opposition has not read any of this into the record. Instead, we have their usual tricks of misleading the Canadian people that there are not any other programs at all to assist renters or home owners, federally or provincially.
Then we have the public assistance housing program which is in effect. It has a section on renters, rent supplements.
The provinces enter into agreements with non-profit housing corporations, housing co-operatives and private owners of rental properties to subsidize the rents of low-income tenants-
It goes on to explain. Then there is another one, private non-profit housing corporations, rental policy: .
Tenants will pay a reasonable portion of their income in rent up to the market rent.
Then it goes into detail on how another group is being assisted with rent assistance.
Then there is another one, graduated payment mortgages for new rental properties. It goes into detail to explain how that is helping renters. The legislation is all there. Why have the Liberals not told people about it, instead of trying to mislead them that there are no programs at all to assist anybody at all? Do hon. members think this is the first piece of housing legislation to assist home owners which has ever been brought into this country?

December 4, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
There are others. There is a summary of National Housing Act programs. It goes on and on into great detail about assistance to home owners, renters, and everybody else. Actually the renters have assistance now in one way, along with many others. It is because mortgage interest and property taxes are a deductible business expense for landlords, and renters are already receiving similar benefits. Also, Bill C-20 has some spinoff benefits for renters. As more Canadians, encouraged by our tax credits, move into their own homes, more rental accommodation will become available, thus taking pressure off those who choose to continue to rent.
It is impossible to meet the needs of all Canadians with one government program. 1 should like anybody in this House to get up and tell me of one piece of legislation that has been brought in that is going to assist the whole country, or every home owner or every renter. No such piece of legislation has ever been introduced in any country since day one.
I	do not have the statistics for all the ten provinces and two territories, but I have quite a bit for Manitoba and Ontario on the way they are assisting the renters. In Manitoba, recognizing that rising rents, coupled with fixed incomes, put terror into the hearts of Manitoba senior citizens, the provincial Conservative government has wisely designed a new rent subsidy program which will help 9,000 elderly for the relatively low price of $3.5 million.
There is another program. In Manitoba we have rent controls, and here are all the details on how they are protecting renters. There are about 12 different steps in the legislation that protects renters in Manitoba, and here is a list of just a few of the programs that are in place in Ontario designed for renters. There is the private assistance rental program, the general public housing assistance program, the public housing municipal sponsors, the public housing provincial sponsors, the federal-provincial senior citizens rural housing program, the federal and municipal non-profit housing program, and the rent supplement program. On and on it goes with programs to help people, and Bill C-20 is just another step to give more assistance. I do not know why there is so much objection to assisting another group.
Recently the Ontario government announced a $2 million project. Community agencies will propose projects which will be funded 50-50 by themselves and the provincial government. The agencies can raise money by fees, fund raising, or municipal support. Projects will be aimed at providing services which will allow senior citizens to remain in their own homes. There is also a program in Manitoba to assist senior citizens to stay in their own homes.
The total spending in Ontario for 1979 is $60 million, and in Toronto it is estimated that $1,055,000 will be spent on four major projects. The federal government shares in about $2,110,000 which is a joint program to assist home owners, renters and all the rest. Toronto has a neighbourhood development program costing $650,000, and the federal funding reaches $1,300,000. So we are certainly spending millions and

millions from the federal budget, along with Bill C-20. Also, Toronto has a downtown revitalization program totalling $12,300,000, and so does Winnipeg, and so does Montreal have a program to revitalize their older areas.
Here is further Manitoba support in housing, Mr. Chairman. The government provides more than 75 per cent of all senior citizens with relief from 100 per cent of school taxes on their homes, and 75 per cent of all pensioners or tenants receive property tax credits sufficient to offset a portion of their taxes contributable to school taxes under the new pensioner school taxes assistance program. There have been major improvements in the critical home repair program. Also, the Manitoba government has introduced the shelter allowance for elderly residents which provides subsidies directly for people in need. This year the Manitoba government will spend $120 million on financial assistance to senior citizens. I suppose that if the Liberals had not banged up the country, there would be more money to hand out. But we have to pay off the Liberals' debts first before we can introduce any more programs or expand on them.
1	have two brief questions for the minister, Mr. Chairman. I should like to ask him if the community services program has gone into effect. This is an additional program which, I understand, started in 1979 with a funding level of $150 million. As of January 1, 1980, it is supposed to increase to $250 million. 1 should like to ask the minister if contracts for that program have been signed and whether it is going into effect in 1980.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, may 1 say in answer to that question that an agreement was signed governing the operations of the neighbourhood improvement program and the municipal infrastructure program and the municipal incentive grant program which are now all consolidated in the community services program in 1979 and 1980. It has a funding level of $150.3 million for this year, and on January 1, 1980, it will increase to $250 million.
As the hon. member has pointed out, there are many other programs of assistance in housing, public housing, rural and native housing, home improvement loans, insured loans for rental housing, non-profit housing, non-profit co-operatives- the list goes on and on. This measure does not stand by itself. There are dozens of other measures to help tenants and home owners in Canada.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for that answer. Here is another example of a program that is going into effect, another $150 million which will be spent in 1980.
There is another area that concerns me, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry in his parliamentary report for December has one page on the interest rates and mortgage credit plan. In his "householder" he states that 65 per cent of the elderly own their own homes but only 6 per cent hold a mortgage on these homes and the remaining 59 per cent are therefore ineligible for a tax credit. As I understand Bill C-20, if a senior citizen is paying income tax and he owns
December 4, 1979

a home and his home is paid off, will he not still be eligible for part of the tax credit? That is the way I understand it. If that is the case, then this information that is going out to the residents of Winnipeg-Fort Garry is misleading. Would the minister be kind enough to clear that point up for me and the House?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry actually said that-and I doubt that he did, 1 doubt he would have that kind of inaccuracy in his "householder", 1 am sure the "honourable taxworthy" would not have that kind of inaccuracy in his householder-but if he did happen to say that, then he is certainly very mistaken because if 65 per cent of the elderly own their own homes, and if we assume that only 6 per cent have a mortgage on those homes, the remaining 59 per cent are eligible for a tax credit of $250 each in the fourth year with reference to their property taxes, and of $67.50 in the first year. So every one of those 65 per cent who own their own homes is eligible for that relief in connection with property taxes if they pay federal taxes.
1 do not think we can assume that all the elderly are penniless, that they do not have a bean, that they have nothing at all. Many of them pay federal taxes, so it is shocking news to hear the housing critic for the official opposition would be sending out to his constituents misleading information like that to scare the elderly, to suggest to the elderly they are not being treated like everyone else. 1 am sure he would not want to disturb the senior citizens in his riding, so I hope he will amend his bulletin and put in it accurate information stating that they will get relief from the property tax, and I hope he will not knowingly mislead the people. 1 am glad the hon. member is watching these things to make sure that hon. gentlemen opposite are accurate in what they send out to the public.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to add a few words to the remarks I made Wednesday afternoon when 1 said the bill was extravagant, irresponsible and unfair, and 1 still say so.

And 1 repeat it.
[ Translation]
And again this afternoon, during the vote on second reading, I noticed on the faces of government members a mocking smile because they probably believed because this side of the House voted against the bill, they could perhaps score some election points with that promise they have made. That is why tonight 1 would like to say why in the end we voted against Bill C-20.

I will speak slowly so everybody will understand what 1 say in French, and so it will give a chance to the translator and the Minister of Finance.
Mortgage Tax Credit

This is why I myself and most of the opposition members voted against this bill, against two basic principles included in this bill and with which we cannot agree. This bill promotes a certain segregation of a privileged class of Canadians. Basically, this bill aims at helping a minority of home owners who do not necessarily need this assistance, and 1 repeat that they do not necessarily need it. Some may need it, of course, but they are a minority. The bill does not concern those who have no mortgage, tenants, those who pay no income tax, and it certainly does not encourage home buying in view of the present situation. Mr. Chairman, I doubt that a grant of $62.50 for property taxes paid this year will really help those who need assistance from the government. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, when we voted against this bill this afternoon, 1 believe that we were not alone in our way of thinking. If we examine the editorials of the various media, as I said last Wednesday, including the Financial Times of Canada, the Ottawa Citizen, Le Devoir as well as the comments of highly regarded agencies whose credibility cannot be questioned, such as the C. D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy, the University of Toronto Economist and several others, we can see that all of them have opposed the basic principle of this bill just as we did this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand how a government can hang on so obstinately to a bill which involves an amount of $575 million this year and of nearly $3 billion in four years when these funds could be used much more appropriately to help the citizens who really need them.
Mr. Chairman, the second reason why we voted against this bill is precisely the reason that the Minister of Finance himself mentioned this afternoon when he said:

We are not in a financial situation to help renters or to bring in the shelter allowances.

1 ask the Minister of Finance whether economic conditions warrant this kind of measure helping a very privileged group of home owners, and I wonder at times if he is not somewhat cynical in his submissions.


An hon. Member:: Both cynical and comical.


Maurice Lamontagne: He stated recently:
These are times for austerity, sacrifice, self-discipline.
I wonder if in the circumstances the Minister of Finance ought not to "self-discipline" his budget, and instead of spending such huge amounts on this kind of project, to correct some current shortcomings in this country's economy. And I could name a few. Inflation is running at 9.3 per cent, and surely other means will be called for to abate it. Concerning the cost of energy, especially since this winter a great many citizens will have to pay an exorbitant price they can ill afford for
2014

December 4, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
heating fuel, 1 wonder if the Minister of Finance and the government should not have taken steps to cushion such an exorbitant cost increase. The Minister of National Elealth and Welfare talks of reviewing social programs, family allowances, old age security, help to the handicapped. He has been refusing since this session started to put forward the kind of bill that has been urged by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the special allowance to increase the pensions paid to our veterans' widows.
In the province of Quebec the unemployment rate is 9.5 per cent, which is more than in other provinces. The national average is 7.1 per cent to 7.4 per cent. The Minister of Finance talks of a deficit reduction, cost reductions in many departments, a 60,000 reduction in the size of the public service, and even elimination or curtailment of certain departmental services.
I wonder if, in order to act wisely and consistently, the government and the Minister of Finance should not have looked for fairer alternatives to help a much greater number of Canadians who are suffering under present economic conditions.
There is also a matter of principle 1 must raise for myself and some of my colleagues. I dealt with this last Wednesday, on pages 1812-1813 of Hansard, and I have no intention of repeating my remarks. However, this concerned regional disparities, and 1 would like to quote from that speech. Even if there is repetition I think this could help the minister:

Because the credit does not apply to those who have paid off their mortgages on the homes they own, as well as to renters, the benefits of the program are even more unevenly distributed. In Newfoundland, for example, 82 per cent of home owners do not have mortgages. In British Columbia the figure is 43 per cent. In Ontario it is 43 per cent, and in Quebec it is 41 per cent. We can therefore see that Newfoundlanders will be benefiting little while still sharing the cost.
The results are that the Atlantic region loses out because of the high percentage of people who own homes without mortgages, 70 per cent, and Quebec loses out because of the high percentage of renters, which is 49 per cent. Yet these are two of the areas which are in most need of housing assistance.
The mortgage interest tax credit program is so unevenly distibuted that of the four provinces we have examined, Ontario, which has 36 per cent of Canada's population and 37 per cent of the nation's home owners, will receive 45 per cent of the benefits of the program. British Columbia with 11 per cent of Canada's population and 12 per cent of the nation's home owners will receive 16 per cent of the benefits. Newfoundland with 2.4 per cent of Canada's population and 2.4 per cent of the country's home owners will receive only 1.2 per cent of the benefits. Quebec with fully 27 per cent of Canada's population and 22 per cent of Canada's home owners will receive only 19 per cent of the benefits.
We believe in the redistribution of wealth, but redistribution to alleviate disparity, not to add to it. The unfair redistribution of this tax credit will create more regional disparity.

The purpose and the object of the Canadian constitution are the elimination of regional disparities but, instead of eliminating them, this program increases them.


An hon. Member:: Patronage!


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, there is another question I wish to raise concerning this bill, that of alterations. As I said earlier, in normal circumstances, in an economy where we might afford a certain luxury, a bill like this one might be acceptable, but as the Minister of Finance said himself, our present financial situation does not allow us to help everybody. But I wish to say that the allocation of a tax credit in respect of a mortgage secured to finance alterations is perfectly unrealistic. You must make repairs costing not less than $5,000 to be eligible. The large majority of home owners undertake repairs that cost much less. 1 would ask the Minister of Finance, why not reduce that minimum to $1,000 or $2,000? Why not improve home rehabilitation programs and allocate them more funds? That money would be used for much more useful purposes.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, will not encourage a general rehabilitation of homes and will not allow most people to improve their present home instead of being forced to buy another one. If the minister agreed to reduce the minimum from $5,000 to $1,000, maybe he could at least take credit for a bill which would stimulate urban renovation in some areas and that would obviously help people who really need it rather than those who have to make repairs costing at least $5,000.

Throughout the seventies, Mr. Chairman, the Liberal government promoted the supply aspect of housing. In many areas there is now even an oversupply of housing. As well as affordability, quality is one of the important concerns for the 1980s. Renovation and rehabilitation are needed in many homes, not only to improve the quality of housing but to increase the energy efficiency of our accommodation across the land. This means an emphasis on social housing programs and an improvement of substandard units.
I would have much preferred a bill which included and covered the quality of the neighbourhood communities, provided more resources to improve our existing programs, residential rehabilitation assistance, neighbourhood improvement, older home insulation assistance and assistance for the development of co-operative, non-profit and public housing. We must improve housing codes and standards across Canada. We must help Canadians who have acute housing problems-the elderly, the single parent families, the underprivileged, and our native people.
To realize these objectives this tax credit proposal is not an appropriate tool. Anyone who believes that it will do anything concrete to help people to buy homes, when the government creates an economic atmosphere in which purchasing a house is a bad investment, is dreaming. I have given the reasons why I voted against this bill, and I think that they are pretty damned good ones.
December 4, 1979

[ Translation]
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to recall that the Minister of Finance might have accused us at one point or another of filibustering the bill. After the reasons we gave last Wednesday, after the speeches we made, I should like to remind the Minister of Finance that we asked for a vote on Wednesday and that was denied. To anybody who would accuse us of filibustering the bill, I would reply by asking why the bill was not introduced in the House one or two months after the election. Why wait five months before recalling Parliament? Why was the bill not introduced if it was such an important electoral promise? Why was it not put before the House at the beginning of the session? Mr. Chairman, we voted against the bill for basic and serious reasons and not strictly to delay the bill. 1 shall have other opportunities of commenting upon particular aspects of the bill and in the meantime I should like to hear the Minister of Finance say what he thinks of some of the proposals I made.


Mr. Clarke:: Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to my colleague from Langelier and 1 think he is wrong. I went to Quebec City last weekend with 30 other members of Parliament and we listened to the people of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Oh yes!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: 1 know very well-and if the hon. member for Langelier lends an ear to his constituents-


An hon. Member:: That is how he got re-elected.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -I know also that the people of Quebec realize how advantageous the program is for all Canadians.

1 was a member of the all-party task force of this House which went to Washington to study the effects of a similar program which has been in effect in the United States of America since 1913. 1 think 1 can say that this program will be of benefit to all Canadians in spite of what we hear from the opposition. It will be of help to the young, the elderly, and the owners without mortgages, to which my friend from Broad-view-Greenwood always refers. It will be of benefit to the renters, the poor and the unemployed.


An hon. Member:: Come on!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The opposition says, "Come on!" Let us have a look at all the people who will benefit from this program. It has long been established that the young of this country want to own homes. This is going to help them buy their homes. It will reduce the income level required for young Canadians who want to buy a home, and it will ease the burden once they have reached that goal.
Mortgage Tax Credit
I am sure hon. members opposite have elderly people as well as young people in their ridings and I would ask them to remember that. This is going to help the elderly remain in their homes. Unfortunately, sometimes the elderly are forced to leave their homes because of high property taxes, but this will help ease that burden.
The benefit to middle-class Canadians will be relief from the ever-rising costs, whether or not they have mortgages. Renters will benefit because the program will make it easier for them to buy homes, and this in turn will ease pressure on the rental market. In the area of Vancouver which I represent, the vacancy rate for rental property is less than one per cent. This has come about largely as a result of the policies of the former government which discouraged investment in rental housing. While I do not think this program will lower rents, it will help stabilize them for people who wish to continue as tenants.
The program will also have benefits for the poor, Mr. Speaker. Any clever tax adviser in this country could counsel people with any means at all, so that all of the interest paid on a mortgage is tax deductible. This program will allow the so-called poor in the country the same benefit of deducting mortgage interest that has been enjoyed for so many years by those who are well off. Members of the NDP want to know how that can come about. 1 do not know whether, in their ridings, there are not any young people who are having trouble with mortgages, or any poor people having trouble hanging on to their homes. The program will help the people the NDP claims to champion, by putting them on the same basis as that enjoyed for many years by people with means.
The program will also help the unemployed as it will create a lot of jobs in the housing sector. The minister covered that area quite extensively when he spoke.
The opposition has objected that there is no assistance to renters in the program. Mr. Chairman, all Canadians are renters or home owners, so the obvious, implied, suggestion of the opposition is that taxpayers should be given an over-all tax cut. It is equally obvious that the government is in no position to make an over-all tax cut to all Canadians. Earlier the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood said that this was not a housing measure, but a taxation measure. Mr. Chairman, the government has never claimed that it is anything but an economic measure. If it were a social measure we would bring in a general tax cut or help the poor in some other way. This, Mr. Chairman, is a stimulative measure. It will allow those who can afford to stimulate the economy to do so, with a little help from the government. It was never intended as a social measure. It is an economic measure designed to stimulate the housing industry. It will solve the problem of something like 17 per cent unemployment in the housing industry. It is also a very effective way to assist the housing industry.
I would ask hon. members to compare the experience in this country with that of the United States. I had occasion to visit the United States, in company with the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood and the hon. member for Westmount, to examine the myriad of programs for aid to housing that

December 4, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
exist there. We found that housing administrators were the greatest fans of their own programs. Officials in Washington readily admitted that the so-called middle class was unable to afford the very type of housing that they were being taxed to provide, a kind of first-class housing for the so-called poor. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the cost of those housing programs was so high, taxation was so high, and the result was such that those paying the bulk of the taxes to provide this type of housing in the United States could not afford that very housing themselves.
It is true, as 1 am sure hon. members opposite will remind the House, that the officials we met in Washington advised, "Don't do it." They gave all kinds of reasons why Canada should not adopt such a program, but essentially it was that once you get into it, you cannot get out of it. Every official who criticized this kind of program, however, admitted that he himself had benefited very nicely from such a program, and all of them said that it helped not only themselves with their particular housing problems but that it helped the housing industry in that country. Of course, in advising Canada not to get into this kind of taxation scheme, the officials who run the programs in the United States were defending their own self-interest. It became very evident that they really liked running their programs, extensive as they were, and that the more expensive and elaborate the programs were, the more of them they had, the better the bureaucrats liked it.
1 ask the committee to compare that kind of scheme with the one being offered by the Minister of Finance. This program could be very easily administered through the income tax department. There would be few, if any, additional costs, and the revenues would be directed into the industry, with all of the attendant benefits.
It is interesting to note that in the United States all interest, not only mortgage interest but interest on consumer purchases and even state taxes, has been deductible since 1913. We were told that some 50 per cent of home owners do not have a mortgage and that home owners are given a $3,200 global tax exemption. Of the 50 per cent of ail Americans who own homes and have mortgages, only 25 per cent, in other words, half of those who have mortgages, claimed more than the $3,200 global tax exemption. The resultant loss to the treasury is much less than is even contemplated by this government. With only 25 per cent of taxpayers making the claim in the United States, I think we can expect the same kind of progression in this country and so the loss will be much less than has been anticipated. The program will not be a great tax drain but, instead, will be a boon to all Canadians.
I hope hon. members opposite will take the trouble to talk to their constituents about this. They would then realize that members of whatever age and whatever style of living, of whatever party, of whatever wealth, are interested in this kind of measure because it is a simply administered, beneficial to the econony, kind of measure.

In particular, to my friends in the official opposition I suggest that they compare notes with the new member from Vancouver Centre who, I might observe, is the only member of their party west of Winnipeg. Ask that member from Vancouver Centre about the questionnaire he sent out to his electors. It will be worth observing that Vancouver Centre contains what is known as the west end of Vancouver. It has a density of about 50,000 people per square mile. 1 believe that area has the highest population density in Canada and the second highest population density in North America. The member for Vancouver Centre asked his electors if they favoured mortgage interest deductibility, the program being offered by our Progressive Conservative government. His electors voted 60 per cent in favour of that program. I appeal to members opposite to recall that their electors are no different from those electors in Vancouver Centre who may be tenants but who want to become home owners, and who see this program as a great boon to their future.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Chairman, this evening I want to speak in relation to clause 1 of Bill C-20. A look at the clause helps confirm how far Bill C-20 is from the original Conservative promise of mortgage interest and property tax deductibility. The one promise the Conservatives had been saying they were going to keep was allowing the deductibility of mortgage interest and property taxes from income for tax purposes. In spite of strong arguments against the soundness of any such scheme that were made over the past year or so, there were those among the public who continued to believe it responded to a need which they wanted government to deal with through the tax system. It has been my belief that there could be an approach to the cost of housing, to the cost of shelter for Canadians, which would be different from that of the Conservatives in being fairer and less costly to them as taxpayers than the Conservative proposal.
Last September the Minister of Finance in effect admitted that the Liberals were right when they criticized the original Conservative mortgage interest deductibility scheme on the grounds of complexity and on the grounds that it was unfair to lower and middle-income Canadians. The minister then said he was abandoning his original scheme for one permitting a credit of a certain proportion of mortgage interest and property taxes against the personal income tax payable by home owners. To use the minister's own words spoken at his press conference last September, he said:
A tax credit is used because it is both simpler and fairer than a deduction . .. it gives greater benefits to lower income and middle-income Canadians.
This is exactly what the Liberals said in criticizing the original proposal.
Before and during the election the Conservatives argued that they knew what they were doing when they proposed their scheme of allowing deductions of a certain amount of mortgage interest and property tax from incomes for tax purposes. But last September 18, and later in presenting bill C-18 to the House, the Minister of Finance in effect confirms that he and
December 4, 1979

his party did not really know what they were doing when they made their original promise. This change, this flip-flop, should undermine most of what little credibility the Conservatives may still have had left with those Canadian voters who were impressed with the scheme in its initial form as presented during the election.
While the Conservative scheme as set out in Bill C-20 is an improvement on the original one, it still has a number of serious flaws, a number of serious gaps, as has been pointed out by many on this side of the House. Bill C-20 does nothing for the large number of Canadians who rent. It does nothing, except for a limited credit for property tax, for the large numbers of home owners who have no mortgages on their homes. It does nothing for home owners whose incomes are too low for them to be required to pay income tax. These people get nothing from Bill C-20.
There is another great flaw in the Conservative approach, that is, the failure of the Minister of Finance to say where the money for the proposal in Bill C-20 will come from. Today the minister went on at great length in trying to explain that options, variations, on the proposal in Bill C-20 that would help groups not covered by it, could not be brought in by his government at this time. He argued all of these options would be too expensive, and therefore he and the Conservative government could not implement them. He said his government was not out for popularity though they were a minority. They had to be responsible, he said, and concerned about the size of the deficit, $11 billion, but a deficit he has admitted was less than the Liberals had forecast when they presented their budget in November, 1978.
The minister was so busy wiping away his crocodile tears about all this that he never bothered to tell us why he was not worried about the almost $3 billion cost of Bill C-20 in its fourth year of operation, and the more than $500 million cost this year, and about how all this would expand the deficit he apparently is also claiming to be so worried about. He claimed speed in passing the bill is necessary so people eligible for it can fill in the tax forms his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, so conveniently sent out even before the bill was passed.
It seems to me that the real reason for the minister's desire for speedy passage of this bill by the House is so that he would not have to explain where the money to pay for it is coming from. This is something he would have to do if this bill were part of a budget, or if final decisions on it were not taken until after his budget was presented.
One initiative pledged by the Conservatives as a way of improving the federal government's fiscal management was to present a budget which brought together and described not only all government expenditures through payments to individuals and companies and in transfers to provinces, but also its tax expenditures. These are the revenues it forgoes when it provides a vast range of allowances, deductions, credits, exemptions and so on to both individuals and business. 1 want to say this would be a desirable initiative. It has been the manner of presenting budgets in the United States, Britain and
Mortgage Tax Credit
West Germany for some years. It reflects a valid idea that a government should present a complete and accurate picture of all forms of its expenditure and how these are being paid for, and by whom.
The President of the Treasury Board spoke of the government's intentions in this regard when he took part in the throne speech debate. In my view this concept already has been undermined, if not totally destroyed, to say the least by the way the government has gone about trying to implement this mortgage interest and property tax credit proposal. Bill C-20 involves a major new program requiring substantial amendment to the income tax law, starting with this clause 1 which we are debating right now, and affecting substantially the balance of government revenue and expenditures. But the Minister of Finance has not presented it as part of a budget. It has been brought in as a separate bill in advance of and separate from his budget. As I have said, the Conservatives are justifying this method on the grounds that speed is necessary if the bill is to become law so that the credit can be claimed by those eligible as part of the completion of their 1979 tax forms. It also means that by presenting it before the budget, the Minister of Finance is obviously hoping to get it passed without having to say how the plan will be paid for.
In fact, in his speech opening debate on second reading of the bill, he was reluctant to admit that the program involved a substantial tax expenditure for which the government would have to find the money. He admitted that the plan would cost $579 million in its first year of operation, and over $2 billion, close to $3 billion, in its fourth year. But all he said about how it would be paid for was that the money would be found in people's pockets; those who would get this new credit.
But this is $2 billion, almost $3 billion, the government would otherwise have collected in tax revenues, revenues it was spending on government programs, including payments to individuals and companies, and in transfers to provinces. The government will have to find that money, either through borrowing to increase its deficit, cutting down substantially on its existing programs, raising taxes, or some combination of all three. But this Conservative government is now pledging not only that it will not increase the deficit but, instead, that it will actually reduce it.
The government has not said what programs now providing useful service to the public it would cut out or reduce. However, the only way it could pay for a program the size and cost of the tax credit plan would be through some pretty massive cuts in existing programs, including programs that those who would be receiving the tax credit plan would likely consider necessary and desirable. Such cuts could well cancel out, eliminate, benefits from the tax credit plan for these people, assuming any benefits are left after the impact of the Conservative high interest rates. The burden of the elimination of programs would also fall on the many Canadians who will not benefit from this plan-the renters, those who do not have

December 4, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
mortgages on their homes, and those whose incomes are too low to pay enough tax to qualify for the tax credit.
One hint as to how the Conservatives intend to pay for the plan may be found in the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has pledged that the existing family allowance program and income tax deductions for children would remain in their present form only during 1979 and 1980. But one should ask why the money for the tax expenditure involved in the mortgage tax program should come only from cuts in social welfare programs for families, or in federal programs providing direct services like health and safety inspections to the public, rather than from cuts in other tax expenditure programs, for example, some of those available to the large multinational oil companies.
If the cost of this mortgage tax plan is to come from higher taxes, which ones will be increased, and by how much? The minister has not been willing to say. There is a hint in the Prime Minister's statement to the first ministers' conference on oil pricing two weeks ago. In it he spoke of his government's desire to impose an energy self-sufficiency tax on higher revenues going to oil companies as a result of the rapid increase to world prices he was promoting.
He also spoke of wanting a sizeable increase in the excise tax on gasoline. But while he talked of using the proceeds for the purpose of moving to energy self-sufficiency, a closer reading of his speech shows he was not saying all the yield from these new taxes would be used in this way. For example, he spoke of the yield of the energy self-sufficiency tax being used for energy related projects. This means it could be used to pay for the oil import compensation fund making up the difference between the high price of imported oil and the Canadian price. In turn this means that $700 million now being spent by the government for this could be used for other purposes, including the first year's cost of the tax credit plan. Also, as I have pointed out, the Prime Minister has said that this tax would yield in excess of $5 billion in additional revenue.
A lot more money would be there as well for that kind of objective from the higher excise tax on gasoline for which he is pushing. The Prime Minister was careful to say all of this would not go into his proposed energy project investment fund. So these high taxes, proposed as part of his new energy package, could in large part be a disguised way of getting all Canadians to pay for the mortgage tax credit plan, including those not benefiting from it at all, and helping offset any benefit even for those eligible for it.
Originally the Conservatives, before they were elected, suggested a substantial portion of the plan would be paid for by higher tax revenue coming from government activity in the building industry, as a result of a stimulus provided by the mortgage interest proposal. This is now most unlikely because of the increases in interest rates since June of this year. At best the mortgage interest plan will help maintain activity at some point near current levels, counteracting the damaging effect of the record high interest rates on the home building and construction industry. The reductions in mortgage rates announced recently by some financial institutions, but to what

are still record high levels, demonstrate the damage the Conservative high interest rate policy has been doing to the construction industry. Some mortgage rates have dropped slightly because people are simply not applying for mortgages to be used for home building and construction.
The Conservatives promised home owners with mortgages, and prospective home owners, they would be better off because of the Conservative mortgage interest proposal than they were before it was promised. This will now not be true because of the Conservative high interest rates policy. It is actually cancelling out benefits for those who had hoped to gain from it. At best, they will be the same as they were before the plan and before the mortgage increases last June. Some will be worse off even with the tax credits.
Any benefits from this plan will also be offset by the higher costs of home heating from the Conservative proposal for increases in energy prices.
The minister said if members were genuinely concerned with high interest rates that the bill would be passed quickly. If this is his argument, he should want to limit the bill's application initially to one year. If he does not agree to this he is saying, in effect, these Conservative high interest rates will be going on forever, or at least while the Conservatives remain in office.
The minister also had the nerve to say the $2 billion cost of this plan means the Conservatives are carrying out their promise of a $2 billion tax cut. Let us get back to what they actually said. There were promises both of a mortgage interest plan and a separate $2 billion cut in personal income tax, a promise the Prime Minister has already confirmed has been abandoned.
The manner in which the government is presenting its mortgage interest plan to Parliament means members are being asked to vote on it by the Conservatives without either they, or the Canadian people, knowing where the cost will come from, who will bear the burden, and whether as a result the plan is justified in light of that burden.
This House needs some answers and the Canadian people need some answers before any final decision can be taken by the House on this bill. I, and members of the official opposition. recognize that there is a problem to be dealt with. The cost of shelter has been rising faster than disposable income, and faster than the cost of living. What is needed is a fair and effective program to deal with this general and basic problem, one which affects renters and people who own homes without mortgages, as well as those who do not have enough income to be liable for income tax against which a credit can be claimed.
The Liberal amendments set forth by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry in his speech on second reading contain the elements of such a program, one that would be fairer and more effective and have a lesser cost for taxpayers than the cost of this Bill C-20. If the Conservatives were truly concerned about the housing needs of Canadians they would accept and act on the Liberal amendments. If they do not, it will further confirm to Canadians that the Conservatives should not have a mandate to govern, a conclusion Canadians
December 4, 1979

have already reached according to the Gallup poll after putting up with this non-government for only six months.


Mr. Orlikow:: Members of the New Democratic Party are going to vote against this bill because we feel it will give assistance to those who need it the least while ignoring completely the problems of those really in need.
This is a government which railed against the deficits of the former government and said it would reduce those deficits. Yet it proposes to give tax concessions amounting to over $500 million in the first year, and over $2 billion in the fourth year, to people who are essentially in the middle and upper income brackets. They give us no information as to how they propose to replace the money which would be lost in this way. Indeed, they give us every indication that the money will be replaced by the reduction of programs of assistance to people who are in the poorest income groups.
As I listened to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine tonight, I could understand very well how the government could lose the support it had so quickly, and how it could slip in six months to a position where it only has 28 per cent of the votes. Their speeches showed they had no understanding of the needs of ordinary people.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra talked about the trip he and 30 other members of Parliament took to the United States to study the workings of similar programs in that country. 1 am not surprised that if they spent their time visiting in the middle and upper income suburbs of American cities they found support for this program. Why not? Those are the people who benefit from the program. But 1 wonder whether those members of Parliament, or the hon. member himself, took the time to visit the Haight-Ashbury area in San Francisco or took the time to go down to Chicago or New York, or Cincinnati or Cleveland, or any of the other American cities in which you find mile upon mile in the core areas where people are afraid to go out on the streets not only in the evening but to a large extent in the daytime, where there are hundreds, thousands, of apartment buildings which are completely empty because they have been allowed to deteriorate.
1 think the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra should ask himself whether that situation in the United States is not due to the fact that they have been so busy there giving benefits to those who have that they have forgotten completely those who have not.
1 want to say to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-I have not spent as much time in Vancouver as he has-and to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, that they do not have to travel very far around those two cities, or around Regina, Saskatoon or affluent Calgary, to see that the same kind of situation which is now a total disaster in the United States is beginning to show itself in our cities in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Not in their ridings.
Mortgage Tax Credit


David Orlikow: Not in their ridings; of course not, Mr. Chairman. And, I can say, not very much in my riding. But the fact is that in the inner cores of most Canadian cities the housing is rotten. It is no longer fit for people to live in. 1 could not believe my ears when 1 listened to the member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine telling us about all the legislation which is on the books to help the poor and to help the native people, and to help those who want to live in co-operative housing.
I happen to have in my hand a report on housing conditions in Winnipeg, prepared in March of this year by the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg. This is a council which includes in it all the public and private agencies which deal with the problems of people in the city of Winnipeg, including the provincial government agencies which work under the supervision and direction of the Conservative government of Manitoba. I want to put on record a few facts and figures about Winnipeg which appear in this report.
Dealing with housing adequacy, they say 14 per cent are in fair condition and 11 per cent in poor or very poor condition. Dealing with housing suitability, they say that 10 per cent experienced moderate crowding and 5 per cent severe crowding. Dealing with housing affordability, they say 70 per cent of all households experienced contribution rates above the poverty line contribution rate. In other words, they are having to pay part of their rent with money which they should be spending to buy the food and other basic necessities they need. They say that 13 per cent cannot afford adequate or suitable housing.
Then they go on to deal with the age of household heads and they say that of the household heads under 25 years of age, 20 per cent live in poor houses and 24 per cent pay above the maximum contribution rate which they can afford to pay. That is the situation in the city of Winnipeg which I, and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, represent. 1 wish he would take a look at the part of the city of Winnipeg which he represented before redistribution. I have in mind the part of the city which he won with more than 50 per cent of the vote in 1975 and where the Conservative member who was elected only had a plurality of 450 in 1979. The reason for that drop is the kind of blindness which the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine shows.
Look at the situation in my city which can be duplicated in most cities in Canada. We find an increasing number of native people living in the core area. The statistics are not very accurate, but we know there are between 30,000 and 50,000 people of native origin living in the city. These are the poorest people in the city and they have the greatest problems of any group with regard to getting employment, with regard to alcoholism, and with regard to housing. There is nothing in this program which will help the people who cannot afford to buy their own homes and have to rent.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine tried to suggest there are programs under whose provisions these people could help themselves. Well, we have in the city of Winnipeg a very good agency which was set up to do one job, that is, to provide adequate rental housing at rents the native people could

December 4, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
afford. 1 spoke a few days ago to the director of that organization. He told me they had not been able to buy a single home last year, and not because the prices are too high. They buy houses in the core areas of Winnipeg and rehabilitate them, houses which if they are not rehabilitated will be completely uninhabitable within the next few years. He told me that interest rates being what they are, and with the insistence of CMHC under present regulations that the people renting the houses be able to pay a minimum of $194 a month, plus the cost of utilities and heating the home, they simply have not been able to buy the homes, or to find people who could afford to rent those homes if they could buy them.
That is because the people they try to help are very often on welfare. If they are not on welfare, they are, for the most part, unskilled people who have short or long periods of unemployment during which time they may well be on welfare or getting unemployment insurance. Those people cannot afford to pay about $250 a month in rent. We are not providing for the needs of those people, and I suggest that those are the people who need assistance most.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine talked about co-operative housing. It is true that we have legislation which permits co-operative housing. Indeed, the legislation encourages co-operative housing. Unfortunately, under the Liberal government last year, and under the Conservative government this year, the people who are involved in organizing co-operative housing development do not know that they can do in the next year. In 1977 they built about 1,900 units under co-operative housing provisions. In 1979 that number dropped to 1,700 units because the former government was so busy trying to get a program something like the one we are dealing with tonight, which would help those who are best able to help themselves, that it was not very interested in co-operative housing.
1 am told that this year co-operative housing associations have not been able to make any plans for the coming year because they have not been told yet by this government how much money will be available for co-operative housing in the next year.
I am concerned about the community services program. I have seen the tremendously important improvements which have been made as a result of past Neighbourhood Improvement Program developments. There is one proceeding in my constituency. 1 understand that there are three more on the drawing board for Winnipeg. I am concerned that in its zeal to cut costs this government will not allocate the funds necessary for the very important and very socially useful work which has been done, should be done, and would be done if funds are provided for neighbourhood improvements as proposed in earlier years.
I want to deal for a few moments with the claims of this government, as exemplified most recently by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, that this proposal will somehow lead to a housing boom. It is not only the members of the opposition who have ridiculed that suggestion. I have in front of me an
[Mr. Orlikow.J
article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on June 4, 1979. The writer of the article interviewed the president of the Winnipeg Real Estate Board. I do not think Mr. Bill Burns, the president of the Winnipeg Real Estate Board, is a particularly radical person or that he is particularly antagonistic to this government, but Mr. Burns is quoted in this article as saying that house sales-and we are talking about last June- and I quote:
-are off by as much as 25 per cent from a year ago. The most recent figures show approximately 5,100 houses for sale in the multiple listings, up 4.2 per cent over this time last year.
It is not suprising that housing is off when one looks at the cost of housing and if one looks at what has happened to interest rates since this government was elected.
I must admit that I have a personal stake in what is happening because I am into the fifth year of a mortgage, and next October I am going to have to refinance my mortgage. When this government took office in May of this year the mortgage interest rate was 11 per cent. A week ago it was 143/4 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Thirteen and three-quarters.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Thirteen and a quarter now.


David Orlikow: Now it is down 1 per cent. Let us look at the figures.


Mr. Cameron:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening to all this debate about housing and mortgage deductibility. The hon. member is condemning it, so would he tell us if he is going to claim his deduction for mortgage interest?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I am a law-abiding citizen-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: If hon. members opposite will listen for two minutes, I do not think they will chortle so much. I am a law-abiding citizen, and I will file an income tax return precisely as the income tax law asks me to do.
Some bon. Members: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: If hon. members will just keep quiet for a minute and let me point out what is going to happen, the difference between what my $35,000 mortgage cost me in principal and interest when this government took over and what it costs now, the principal and interest for the year has increased, because of the increase in the mortgage interest rate, by $696.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Orlikow: That is precisely what I would have to pay in the next year if I had to refinance my mortgage right now. Hon. members ask what I will do if this bill goes through. Let me put on the record what benefits I would get, or what anyone else who has a $35,000 mortgage would get.
December 4, 1979


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
Adjournment Debate



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind answering-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I have to hear the point of order.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, I think the figures which are being used by the hon. member are completely inaccurate. Five years ago at this particular time the interest rate for a mortgage when I refinanced my home was 12'/2 per cent. The hon. member is standing here telling us it was 10 per cent and 11 per cent, and the figures he is giving are on mortgage rates which are not in existence today.



Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the agreement that was made among House leaders, the usual fifth day in this supply period is to be added to those for considering the main estimates of 1979-1980. Therefore, 1 would like to move, with the unanimous consent of the House, that Thursday, December 6, 1979, be the final allotted day in the supply period ending December 10, 1979.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member will agree with me that he can challenge these figures in his own speech in due time, but he has to recognize that his point is only a question of debate.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member can check the figures very easily. When this government took office in May of this year, the mortgage interest rate was 11 per cent. The mortgage interest rate about ten days ago was 14% per cent. On a $30,000 mortgage the difference in payments for the year as between a rate of 14% per cent and a rate of 11 per cent when the government took over is $956. If you reduce the 14% per cent by 1 per cent-if it is now 13% per cent-the increase over the 11 per cent rate in May is $696. What does a person get in the next year as a result of the government's mortgage interest deduction? A maximum of $312! And the reduction because of property tax is $62.50, so the total which any person can claim is $375. I suggest-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is in accord with the discussions we have had.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am 1 to conclude that this is to be made an order of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
['A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.', 'Wednesday, December 5, 1979']
Gérald Laniel: Order, please.


Mr. Hogan:: Rotten deal, Crosbie.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have had some discussions with the chief opposition whip and the House leader of the NDP, and I wonder if we could revert to motions for just a few moments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the request of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker). Is there agreement to reverting to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, during the last campaign candidates in the Niagara Peninsula said time and time again that the unemployment rate in that area was 14.5 per cent. Yet, virtually, the day after the election, the figures which were bandied about varied. I called the Department of Employment and Immigration to ask them what truly was the unemployment rate in the Welland riding, and I was told it was 6.9 per cent. I queried the statistics, so then they said that was not quite right, that the figure they had for unemployment in the Niagara Peninsula was 5.9 per cent.
You wonder, Mr. Speaker, why I bring this up. It is very simple. It is because under the previous government we had the Canada Works program under which we had a distribution of the wealth of Canada among those people who did not have jobs. It was truly a redistribution of the wealth. Now the new government has come in and has virtually abolished the Canada Works programs in almost all the provinces of Canada. Surely Ontario, and the Niagara Peninsula in particular, which was supposed to have had such a high rate of unemployment, should have been able to benefit from that

December 4, 1979
Adjournment Debate
program. But it was cut off entirely, and 1 think that was unjust.
1 asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), as reported at page 1240 of Hansard of November 13, 1979, how long it would take for a program to work its way through the economy. He had mentioned in a previous speech that it would take about six months. 1 asked the Prime Minister whether it was six months and, if so, when were we going to get some action, when were we going to see this government stop flip-flopping and get on with the business of governing this country.
What have we now, Mr. Speaker? We had a speech by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) given to the Canadian Club on November 26, 1979, in which the minister brought out these new great programs through which they say are going to create jobs for the youth of Canada, specifically for the youth of Ontario in the Niagara Peninsula. Under the job experience training program of some years ago my daughter was able to get a job and earn enough money to go back to school. This is the kind of help we must have for our young people. This was a Liberal program we brought in; we benefited from it as did all the people across Canada.
What do we have now? We have a new minister coming in saying he is going to have new programs. Outside of doing political somersaults, 1 suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government does not have any new ideas and it is bankrupt. We have seen the suggestion in the Speech from the Throne, for example, that we have a youth employment secretariat. We have had a youth employment branch in the CEIC for the last ten years. This program has created tens of thousands of jobs.
The minister suggests that we have a wage subsidy program with the magnificent amount of $1.25 per hour, and that is supposed to benefit 105,000 youths across Canada. What will happen is that they will abolish the employment tax credit program, a program which gives geographically various tax credits from $1.50 to $2 across the country. For example, under this program that we have set up, people in urban areas such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, the big areas, could get up to $1.50 in subsidy if they wanted to train these young people for the kinds of jobs that are available in Canada. In other areas outside the urban areas the subsidy was $1.75, and in the Atlantic provinces where my colleague, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) lives, and where this meant thousands of jobs in his and surrounding ridings, there was great benefit because the Liberal government of the time was willing to pay up to $2 per hour in subsidy. Now what do we have? We have a new subsidy. This government is going to bring in $1.25 in subsidy, which shows us that ministers are not really interested in creating new jobs for youth. They are not really interested in putting the young people of Canada to work.
What we are getting are rehashes of the ideas brought forth by the Liberal government which created jobs to the tune of 7,200 per month for the last 18 months. What do we have now from this great new government? We have nothing except an

adoption of our ideas that they said would not work, but they are now claiming them as the great remedies for all the problems we have across Canada. I suggest that the ideas they have been putting forward are not worth the powder to blow them to kingdom come. I suggest that the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers get together and get this country rolling again with the jobs for the young people that they need if we are to grow economically as a country.


Mr. Paul McCrossan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the diatribe over there by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent). I found it sort of interesting because it seems he does more talking than listening. If he had been listening in the House he would have recognized and realized that in the budget next week we will be bringing forth a number of major measures, and will be bringing forth measures next spring as well.
Perhaps I could just outline the government's job employment strategy for youth. As the member indicated, we are trying to consolidate the various functions toward a new youth secretariat to provide a focus particularly upon improving employment prospects for youth. The various functions of forming a new youth secretariat have provided a focus particularly upon providing prospects for youth. I mentioned that in all likelihood there will be something in the budget next week.
I think that what we will see is a form of tax credit, as the hon. member has suggested. I suggest that he wait and see what will happen.
The government is placing an increased emphasis on programs for developing job skills for youth because we see tremendous shortages of skills in this country and yet high unemployment at the same time. The previous government allowed the situation to develop where good jobs are available in our economy but we have not been able to get the people to these jobs. Solving this problem is particularly important to our young adults, and the government has recently introduced legislation to increase the flexibility of our programs so that we may respond to the needs of our youth and to the skill requirements of industry.
A third option which we are looking at is the establishment of a national service corps which will enable young people to participate in community and environmental projects of lasting value to society. 1 have mentioned that there will be more proposals of this kind later on in the session. As hon. members are aware, we are currently involved in a study on the reform of unemployment insurance policies. One of the commitments of my party is, and has been, taking money we can save by reforming a plan which is full of abuses and using it to create the jobs that our youth need today.
1 am sure it is obvious to all hon. members that in order to create jobs for our youth we will require the closest consultation with the provinces and, to that end, officials of the ministry and myself will be meeting next week with officials of the various provincial departments to discuss job strategy, and
December 4, 1979

revision of the unemployment insurance fund, and the redirection of those moneys.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS-SETTLEMENT OF NATIVE LAND CLAIMS- GOVERNMENT POLICY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp) for attending this evening. I would much rather have the minister deal with this issue than his parliamentary secretary. The issue I wish to raise deals with land claims across Canada but specifically those within the province of Saskatchewan.
Last week I asked the minister a question with regard to the government's policy on land claims dealing particularly with the province of Saskatchewan. In the last two years the Government of Canada has not completed one land claim settlement or land entitlement settlement. There is one exception, and that is the COPE agreement, but the government has refused to ratify it.
The minister has admitted that his government, even after six months in office and after having showed us the thick binders which were supposedly to indicate that they were ready to govern, still does not have a land claims policy. As a result, native groups throughout this country are waiting to see what the government intends to do. The problem which the minister has is that he must go to his cabinet committee, make presentations to them, and from there he must go to the full cabinet to get agreement. We understand the minister has a problem. He is not in the inner cabinet and he does not have a direct say in the direction of this country or control over what is happening in his own department.
The question which we, as parliamentarians, must ask is, how can the government act or negotiate with native people if it does not have a policy?
Even more curiously, how can the government allow mining developers to go ahead with their developments if it does not have a policy? It cannot negotiate and settle negotiations with native people because it does not have a policy, but at the same time it allows mining developments to go ahead. 1 would suggest there is a contradiction there, Mr. Speaker.
1 would like to mention the specific problems of the native people in Saskatchewan and I refer, of course, to the Saskatchewan formula. In 1975 the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development stressed to the premier of Saskatchewan that certain land claims and land entitlements were outstanding. As a result of the meeting that took place then, an agreement was signed in 1976 which resulted in the Saskatchewan formula. The agreement set the figure of 128 acres per person for the population registered in December, 1976.
Three years later, on October 19, the minister wrote to the government of Saskatchewan saying that the federal government was reviewing the availability of Crown land for native people. In effect, he was also saying that he was reviewing the
Adjournment Debate
obligations of the federal government. Last week in the House 1 put a question about this to the minister and he replied that he wanted a settlement which was agreeable to the other provinces. Unfortunately, the province of Manitoba with its Conservative government, and the province of Alberta with its Conservative government, will not accept the Saskatchewan formula. The impression that the minister left with the House and with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians was that he would not live up to the agreement referred to as the Saskatchewan formula. He had apparently said at a meeting with his provincial counterparts, the previous night, that the formula was too costly or too rich.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I never said that.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is what was said, according to the news report, Mr. Speaker, and that is the impression he left with this House last week.
The Federation of Saskatchewan Indians wrote to the minister about this answer, not at some private meeting, but which were given to questions in this House. I know that the minister has received that letter and responded to it. The problem is, however, that the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians and other native people in the country are not sure of the direction the government is taking. They are not sure whether the government will live up to the Saskatchewan formula which was signed three years ago, and they are not sure what type of recommendation the minister is making to the government.
I would ask the minister to answer these charges and make it perfectly clear where the government stands, not only in the Saskatchewan case but in the case of all native Canadians.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker. 1 want to tell the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) that the government's land claims policy is very clear. I will not repeat that because of lack of time now, but I went into it today in committee when the hon. member was present.
The hon. member is correct that no new land claims have been settled in the last two years. For that reason my parliamentary secretary is attending at the negotiations now proceeding with the Council of Yukon Indians, so that we may reach an early agreement. It has been agreed to seek an agreement in principle by the end of April, 1980. I would suggest to the hon. member that this shows we are moving with great speed, in view of the complexity of the issues faced in the comprehensive land claims.
The hon. member has said that 1 have refused to ratify the COPE agreement. I would indicate to him, Mr. Speaker, that at this stage there is no agreement to be ratified. There is an agreement in principle which was approved by the former administration. What is needed now is a final agreement, and this will have to be negotiated between the Committee for Original Peoples Entitlement and the Government of Canada. In order to get that process under way, I will meet with them at 3.30 tomorrow. 1 hope that we can eradicate some of the

December 4, 1979
Adjournment Debate
differences that presently exist before we get down to negotiating the final agreement.
With regard to the Saskatchewan formula, 1 would suggest to the hon. member that he not reply on news reports that I said this was too rich. What 1 asked the ministers at that meeting was whether the Saskatchewan formula was acceptable to them. I would suggest to the hon. member that he rely on what is said in this House rather than on news reports.
In order to clarify quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, beyond the answers that I gave today to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) regarding the Saskatchewan formula, 1 want to tell the member that I have responded in telex form to the president of the FS1. 1 just want to read one section of that into the record and possibly this will clarify the situation. In part it reads:
The discussion which I had with provincial ministers on Monday, November 26, was a general and broad ranging one, related to various matters concerning Indian people in the provinces which were represented. As part of our discussion,
I wanted to hear the views of each provincial minister. In this context, I asked the provincial ministers affected (those of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) about their approach to the fulfilment of outstanding treaty land entitlement claims. Since each of these governments has placed different interpretations on their obligation to provide land for treaty entitlement purposes under the natural resources transfer agreements, 1 noted that the outcome of such different approaches would be widely differing settlements among the three provinces. Since it is my responsibility to ensure that the interests of the Indian people across Canada are taken into account fairly and equitably, I was bringing to the attention of those present the concern that I have that the Saskatchewan formula, if it is not applied in Manitoba and Alberta, would create disparities which would affect the Indian people in the latter two provinces.
I want to tell the member, and as 1 have indicated in the House earlier today as well, that the Saskatchewan formula is in place. I know that the agreements are in place and I want to see early movement on the land entitlements.
The Saskatchewan government, obviously in view of the 1930 transfer agreement, has to provide the majority of the land.
[ Translation]


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT-INQUIRY WHETHER GRANTS WILL BE INCREASED
Mr. Armand Caouette (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 said on November 19 last to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Grafftey), statistics show that from 1976 to 1978 the federal government earmarked $392.8 million for university scientific research in Ontario as against $190 million for the same period in Quebec.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to remind the minister that Quebec has been at a great disadvantage when it comes to the distribution of the federal research centres. 1 feel therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the government should review its whole scientific research policy to restore more equity among the provinces and increase substantially the budgets with a view to making scientific research play an effective role. Mr. Speaker, Quebec received $94 million from 1976 to 1977. For
[Mr. Epp.)
the same year Ontario was given $203.7 million, but fortunately that situation was reviewed in 1978 and Quebec got $96.4 million which represents a small increase in comparison with the $189.1 million granted to Ontario.
[DOT]	(2225)
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, never has the government in the past made scientific research one of its priorities. Significant budget cuts have been imposed in this area in the past, and what is more serious is the lack of long-term planning in awarding grants. The lack of long-term funding is creating an impossible situation for researchers and causing the brain drain which benefits other countries at the expense of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote Dr. Herzberg, the 1971 winner of the Nobel prize for chemistry and a member of the National Research Council of Canada, who blamed the federal government for depriving the National Research Council of all authority over last year's grants:
The time and money which the government is wasting on commissions appointed to look into the problems in scientific research could be better employed encouraging research.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of resentment in the world of medical research. Moved by a feeling of frustration because of the government's indifference, researchers could change professions or leave Canada unless federal authorities remedy the situation, remarked Dr. Hudson, a representative of the University of Ottawa Medical Research Committee.
The same doctor stated, and 1 quote:
-while the costs of research are increasing by 15 per cent every year, the budget of the MRC is in real value 10 per cent lower than last year.
[DOT]	(2230)
Then, Mr. Speaker, we realize that only one per cent of the federal budget is spent on research, although that sector is a vital necessity to ensure the economic viability of our society. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the minister said that the government intended to increase the funds allocated to research. But when will they be increased? Will that indexing be based on the gross national product in order to provide a serious basis for research? What does the government intend to do specifically to cope with Quebec's inferiority in that area?
The announcement of the establishment of an engineering institute in Bouchervillc is a beginning. However, 1 would like to point out to the minister that a much greater effort than the establishment of an $18 million research centre will be needed to correct the situation. Can the minister also tell us whether he intends to establish a long-term scientific policy, extending over a three to nine year period, supported by funding commitments for three years and reviewed annually? Furthermore, is he prepared to admit as full members in the federal organizations which have their own budgets representatives selected by the Canadian scientific community?
December 4, 1979

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that the time has come for this new government to tel! us what kind of policy it intends to follow to provide Canada with researchers capable of helping the Canadian people as a whole in view of the fact that according to recent newspaper reports, researchers are saying that the priorities of the NSERC lie in agriculture, food, oil and many other areas.


Mr. Richard Janelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure, on behalf of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Grafftey), in replying to the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Caouette). First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for his question of November 19 regarding aid to research in Canada. The present government considers research and development as a priority concern and it is determined to make regular and continued progress in this area in order to increase the country's gross expenditures from 0.9 per cent to 2.5 per cent of the gross national product.
Our greatest weakness in the field of research and development lies in the industrial sector and the government is working on ways to stimulate increased research at that level. It must respond to market forces. The government's objective therefore is to create a proper climate for research and development and adopt means for improving or supporting and not replacing market operations.
The universities also have an important role to play in our national research and development efforts. The recent press
Adjournment Debate
release of the minister concerning the 32 per cent increase in the budget for 1980-81 of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council proves undeniably that the government recognizes the importance of research in the university environment. That increase will enable the council, in co-operation with the universities and the provinces, to improve the research potential in the universities, to add training programs for new researchers and to foster joint research programs in fields of national interest such as energy, toxicology of the environment, oceans and communications and, as the hon. member mentioned in his question, food and agriculture, with a view to stimulating closer interaction between the universities and industries in free research, and also to renew obsolete material. In a word, it represents an impulse that will enable the council to perform the task for which it was created.
To sum up, in the past Quebec has not always received all it was entitled to expect. To a large extent that difference can be explained by reasons of structural factors, namely, the composition of its industry, the number and importance of science and engineering programs in its universities and the extent of the participation of Quebec university researchers in federal grant programs. Our government will do its best to overcome those difficulties. I trust this answers the question of the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Wednesday, December 5, 1979