1981-01-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
\ English]

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Two days ago, at the U.S. Senate hearings on the confirmation of secretary of state-elect, Alexander Haig, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, senator Charles Percy, questioned Mr. Haig on the prospect of relations with Canada, especially in view of the east coast fisheries treaty. Both gentlemen obviously displayed positive approaches to strengthening these relations. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That this House applauds the constructive initiative taken by the chairman and welcomes this indication of more constructive co-operation between Canada and the United States in the years ahead, and expresses its profound chagrin that the Prime Minister of Canada chose to trade scallops for skiing when he refused to meet with president-elect Reagan.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the economy of Canada is being knifed in the back by the Liberal government's energy policy, bringing havoc and depression to thousands of homes and businesses, resulting in capital leaving the country, companies cutting their budgets, drilling rigs leaving Canada or standing idle, workers being laid off, and orders for steel, trucks and other materials to Ontario being reduced or
cancelled altogether, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House urge the Government of Canada to accept the offer made to the Prime Minister by Premier Lougheed on July 25 last, and cancel the discriminatory taxes levied on the oil industry in the recent budget.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the federal government, despite its verbal commitment to recognizing 1981 as the International Year of Disabled Persons, has allocated only $1 million to projects for the disabled in the current year, and has unfairly set January 15, or this Friday, as the closing date for applications for these funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the federal government extend the deadline for applications to at least February 15, 1981, since many groups cannot meet the Friday deadline, and that the government immediately increase the amount of funding beyond $1 million which is an inadequate sum to reflect the genuine feeling among many Canadians that 1981 must be the beginning of a new era for our handicapped population.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, having received this morning the unanimous approval of the government team, I rise under the provisions of Standing

January 14, 1981
Order 43 on a very urgent matter. 1 would ask for the attention of both opposition parties on this very urgent motion.
Last Friday all hon. members heard that the Iron Ore Company of Canada had decided to end completely and indefinitely all operations in its Sept-Iles concentrator and pellet plant. That economic decision means the early lay-off of 500 workers at Sept-iles and 150 more at Schefferville.
Given the fact that in less than a year the north shore has been severely affected by lay-offs, as member for Manicoua-gan 1 would urge, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote):
That the House give full support to the various measures proposed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, with a view to providing fast help to the 650 workers laid off as a result of the decision of the Iron Ore Company of Canada to suspend all operations on the North Shore.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the recent offer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of the services of Petro-Canada to develop African oil resources, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources be immediately provided with a one-way ticket to Senegal and that January 14 be proclaimed a national day of mourning for the Senegalese.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TRANSPORT
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I would like to present a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The minister of transport in the late lamented, dynamic Conservative government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -took urgent action to resolve long-standing transportation problems in western Canada, action designed to facilitate and expedite the movement of grain as well as to stimulate economic development. Last summer the partially revived Liberal government endorsed the recommendations of the Neil report on rail line retention, and yesterday, under the Mazankowski formula of October, 1979, the CTC approved jet service into western Manitoba commencing June 1.
In view of the urgent necessity for the implementation of the total transportation policy of the Conservative government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That the Liberal government proceed with the implementation of that policy as a priority item instead of emphasizing diversionary and divisive tactics which undermine rather than enhance economic recovery.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Liberal government recently appointed as citizenship court judges three people-a former Liberal cabinet minister, the wife of a former Liberal cabinet minister, and a secretary to a Liberal cabinet minister-and that these appointments are obviously totally unfair to sons, daughters, aunts and uncles of former and present Liberal cabinet ministers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House condemns the Liberal government policy of blatantly selective nepotism in its political patronage and calls upon the government to establish a special committee to protect the employment interests of all other Liberal family members and Liberal hangers-on.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
January 14, 1981

t Translation]


RAILWAYS
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 about a matter which concerns all Canadians. The holiday season has been very difficult for a great many travellers who patronize VIA Rail.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote):
That the House request the Canadian Transport Commission to conduct a thorough investigation into the reasons for passenger and freight train derailments, the delays of VIA Rail trains in eastern Canada between December 15, 1980, and January 12, 1981, and to submit recommendations so that corrective measures be taken during heavy traffic periods. The report ought to be tabled in the House before June 1, 1981.


Madam Speaker:: That motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ASTRA TRUST
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the increasing lack of confidence on the part of the public in trust companies and other financial institutions following the recent horror story of Astra Trust, a company incorporated under the provisions of this government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That this House require the Minister of Finance to conduct a full and complete inquiry into the incorporation of the Astra Trust company, identify the principals involved, their relations with other corporations of both a national and international nature, and determine how the funds of so many innocent Canadians simply disappeared.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing necessity to every Canadian. Two days ago the government proposed certain amendments, one of which will clearly add to our national unity problems. I refer specifically to its proposed change to section 41, that there be in practice three classes of Canadians for purposes of constitutional amendments by referenda: first, Ontarians and Quebeckers; second, maritimers; third, westerners. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That every Canadian must have equal status in any consensus-gaining mechanism relating to constitutional amendments.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUTE LAW (MILITARY AND CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS, COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES) ACT, 1980 CALL FOR AMENDMENT TO PHASING-IN PERIOD-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I move:
That this House expresses the hope that before the end of January the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs will introduce legislation to shorten or eliminate the phasing-in provision of this session's Bill C-40, so that widows of disabled veterans who have been recognized as entitled to their pensions will receive those pensions now while they are still alive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

January 14, 1981
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. He will know that the hon. Garde Gardom, the minister of intergovernmental affairs for British Columbia, speaking for the six provinces which are contesting the federal government's constitutional position before the courts, said that he has seen no unwillingness on the part of the provinces to negotiate constitutional matters with the federal government up to now. The federal Minister of Justice is quoted as saying "we have passed the stage of bargaining ... we are not negotiating". I wonder if the minister will confirm that this is the position of the Government of Canada and whether he will tell us why his government is turning its back on progress by negotiation.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, all summer we had many negotiations with the provinces. We told them on June 9 that we were proceeding with patriation of the constitution and the enshrining therein of a bill of rights. We tried to reach an agreement all summer. This part of the constitutional package will be dealt with in the House of Commons.
When I replied to the question it was a question in relation to whether we should convene a new conference of first ministers. We said a long time ago that we do not think that would be useful. Of course, when the constitution is patriated and we have a bill of rights in the constitution, we have said there will be a resumption of the meetings with the provinces to look at all the other aspects of the constitutional problems that face the nation. There was a list on the table last summer of other items which must be discussed, like the position of native people in the constitution, and so on. We will be willing to resume our negotiations with the provinces after the work of this House on the first phase is completed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the translation of what the minister has said regarding the matter which is now before the House, which is deeply divisive in the country, is that his government will pay no attention to the provinces. They will not negotiate with them until after the matter has cleared Parliament. That is what he has said.
The minister will know that a Gallup poll released today indicated that 64 per cent of Canadians reject the Liberal position that the people and parliament of Great Britain should decide the questions which are important to the rights and liberties of Canadians. Does the minister intend to continue to ignore that opinion, to ignore the provinces and to insist stubbornly upon a constitutional package which divides Canadians?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to reply to the first part of the question. I said that it was Premier Hatfield
who said, before Christmas, that it would be absolutely useless to call a first ministers' meeting on the subject at this time. It was not I who said that first.
In answer to the second part of the question, the hon. gentleman should know that before the British parliament acts on this matter, this House of Commons and the Senate will be called upon to vote on it. The matter is in committee and it will come before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, legally we have no choice. I, too, wish we could amend-


An hon. Member:: What about the provinces?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I, too, wish we could amend the Canadian Constitution in Canada. 1 am not at all happy that we must go to England. That is why we are doing what we are doing-to end that colonialism, so that we will be able to do everything here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First and foremost, the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada will be called upon to vote. If the resolution is rejected by this House, the parliament of Great Britain will not have to vote. We will vote here first and we will see who is in favour of patriating the constitution and who is in favour of a bill of rights which will give equality of rights to Canadians. After that parliament in England will approve or disapprove; but it must be the last time, if they approve, that we go back to England.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this House has voted on patriation, the Conservative party voting for it and the Liberal and New Democratic parties voting against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My last question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why does the Government of Canada give a higher priority to a constitutional policy which divides Canadians than to an economic policy which can create jobs for Canadians?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, obviously, as the Minister of Justice just stated, the government gives a high priority to the question of constitutional renewal, and that is absolutely clear. It has been clear since the opening of this new Parliament. But at the same time we give equally high priority to economic questions. A very important bill will be brought before the House tomorrow, which then will go into committee, dealing with gas and energy questions. On Friday, we will
January 14, 1981

begin debate on the income tax bill which gives the House an opportunity to deal with economic questions. We are dealing with both important questions simultaneously, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will know.


FINANCE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. As the government bulldozes its way unilaterally to Westminster, the great fear that we have is that the Minister of Finance and the government are forgetting the consequences of their monetary policies and their policies in general on the working poor of this country, the one million unemployed and the old age pensioner. Food prices are rising and will be, for example, further exacerbated by the inclement weather conditions in the southern United States. The price of eggs has gone up and the high interest rates will work their way into the food system. If the minister has his priorities correct, what steps does the government intend to take now in order to alleviate the suffering of these millions of Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased to notice, as I have, that over the last two weeks there has been a drop in interest rates in Canada. It may be that that trend will continue. Obviously, if there is a reversal in that trend or if interest rates continue at a high level, it will have a damaging effect on certain sectors of the economy. I have already assured the House that it is my intention to monitor the impact of interest rates on particular groups, so that if in certain hardship cases action is justified, it will be possible to consider the kind of action to be taken.
1 want to add for the information of the hon. member that it would be action directed to specific groups, since in view of the present budgetary circumstances it would not be possible to cover everybody in the community who might be affected by adverse economic circumstances.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to identify the specific groups which should be the target of the minister's concern. The House debated for 23 hours the impact of the monetary policies of the government on the poor of this country. The minister knows, because he has used the argument, that this concern has been addressed by the government's indexing program. The minister knows, for example, that family allowances, child tax credits, the Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance payments are indexed once a year. Indexing for this coming year will put recipients of these various payments behind the rate of inflation, which was 11.2 per cent last month and is expected to go to 11.5 per cent when the CPI comes down next Friday. If the minister intends to be consistent, will he adjust the rate of indexation for these
Oral Questions
programs for this year so that it is more in keeping with the real rate of inflation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, Parliament itself has dealt with these questions frequently, and it has established an indexing system that relates to all these programs which it believes is fair and reasonable. If the hon. member has any particular deficiencies which he would like to point out with respect to the operation of that system, I would be glad to consider his representations. I do not want him to leave the impression, for example, that the senior citizens of Canada are not fully indexed in accordance with the cost of living index changes. That indexation is provided for presently by the law and he knows that.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The multinational oil companies, who for so long have developed our resources under the patronage of previous Liberal governments, have cancelled the proposed Syncrude expansion in the tar sands, as they announced yesterday. This is not because of anything done by Alberta but is because they did not agree with the prices the minister offered. What specific measures does the minister now propose to take to stop this kind of blackmail and to get on with these projects?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his question and draw to his attention the statement made by the representative from Syncrude, who said: that the management committee hopes that "the problems of pricing and policy will be resolved quickly, so that we may reactivate the program and provide Canadians with this additional and much needed oil production". So the hope expressed by the management committee of Syncrude is that the two governments will resolve their current difficulties.
This is also the hope of the federal government. We have had some discussions at the official level with the Alberta government and I hope that when the government of Alberta feels it is appropriate, there will also be discussions at the ministerial level in an effort to arrive at a quick and satisfactory resolution of issues relating to the tar sands in particular. We have made proposals which 1 think are quite fair and quite generous and I hope they will be accepted.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, this has got nothing to do with the government of Alberta. This is an objection to the minister's pricing formula. It looks as if the minister's National Energy Program is breaking down. We do not have an agreement on the tar sands.


An hon. Member:: It hasn't got off the ground!

January 14, 1981
Oral Questions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Negotiations with Alberta have broken down. The Independent Petroleum Association which represents Canadian companies said yesterday that they were against the program. What measures is the minister now proposing, after all these criticisms and the fact that the program is breaking down, to ensure energy security and supply for Canadians?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: He is going to resign.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to disagree in the strongest terms with my colleague and his claim that the National Energy Program is breaking down.


Walter David Baker: He said it has broken down.


An hon. Member:: Do a Chrysler.


Marc Lalonde: That is not the case. The government is firmly committed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: 1 see the Tories are really in trouble over there. Madam Speaker, but 1 will not pass comment on that.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are a one-man avalanche.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was worried about 40,000 jobs a few days ago but 1 think he is more worried about one job now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, 1 have a final supplementary question. That may be a good line but it does not solve the energy problem in Canada. First it was Cold Lake, then the Alsands project, then Judy Creek and now the planned Syncrude expansion; all have been cancelled. Apart from showing some pride in this country, how long will the minister wait before he comes to grips with this problem by saying to the multinational oil companies operating in the tar sands that those are our resources and are not to be used for blackmail? Will he say "If you won't develop it, we will?"


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to reiterate to the hon. member that the federal government is firmly committed to the objectives and the policies contained in the National Energy Program and that we do not intend to back off from these policies. 1 want to assure my hon. friend of the strong determination of this government. Whether it is a question of Canadianization, a question of the policies of conversion and substitution or the objective of self-sufficiency, we are determined to achieve these goals, and we will.


An hon. Member:: When?


Marc Lalonde: As far as the specific points raised by the hon. member are concerned, 1 quoted exactly the spokesman for Syncrude who said they were hoping discussions between the
government of Alberta and the Government of Canada would be concluded and a satisfactory solution obtained. That is still our hope and objective. As for the determination of the government to achieve its objectives, 1 think they are quite clearly stated in our National Energy Program. The steps which have been taken by the government since the budget clearly indicate that we intend to achieve our goals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The minister is certainly aware that VIA Rail trains have experienced undue delays during the Christmas holidays; that there was a shortage of locomotive fuel; that passengers did not have enough food and water; that the CN gave priority to freight trains over passenger trains; and finally that emergency teams were not on duty to clear the tracks. Does the minister intend to request the Canadian Transport Commission to investigate the numerous delays and derailments, especially between December 15, 1980, and January 12, 1981, so that recommendations will be made with a view to improving VIA Rail passenger service?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, 1 regret that the motion just moved by the hon. member for Gaspe was not adopted. As the hon. member for Rimouski is suggesting, I intend to launch an inquiry through the Canadian Transport Commission or my department and submit a report to her as well as to other hon. members on the circumstances which led to the difficulties to which she referred.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. My question to him yesterday concerned the fact that there are 9,000 fewer people working in manufacturing last December compared to a year ago, 33,000 fewer people are working in the construction industry and 16,000 fewer people are working in transportation and communications. In reply to my question, the Minister of Finance said that "there is bound to be change of that kind and it is healthy in a growing economy". Would the Minister of Finance elaborate for the people of Canada on what exactly he meant by that comment? May we assume that
January 14, 1981

a growing economy, to his way of thinking, means fewer people working in the manufacturing sector in Canada, fewer in the construction field and fewer in the transportation and communications field? If that is his answer, how can he justify that kind of stance for Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, what I was pointing out yesterday to the hon. member was that in 1980 the number of jobs in Canada had increased to about 240,000, an amount of job creation which compares very favourably with any industrial country in the world. The hon. member was forgetting to put that fact before the House of Commons. In addition to mentioning changes within sectors he ought to have at least told the House that over all, the Canadian economy had shown the ability, despite a recession, to create a very large number of jobs and to ensure that in 1980 the highest number, the highest proportion ever, of the adult population of this country was working. That is on the plus side. I thought I ought to draw that to the hon. member's attention yesterday, and I do it again today.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, what members of this House, certainly on this side, are interested to hear is the minister's explanation of the negative side of unemployment in this country.


Mr. Siddon:: The whole story.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Does the minister feel that the only way we can have a growing economy in this country, as he indicated yesterday, is to have fewer people working in the manufacturing sector, fewer in the construction sector and fewer in the transportation and communications field?


Mr. Nielsen:: That is what you said.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 think the answer is so obvious that only a man like the hon. member would ask the question. Of course not. But that was not the gist of my answer. The gist of the answer was that over all we have had reasonably good performance in the Canadian economy despite a recession. Obviously there have been changes from one sector to the other. Maybe the hon. member might have mentioned those sectors in the economy where employment has increased over the period he had in mind. I do not for a moment take any pleasure in the fact that there has been a decrease in employment in any particular sector, nor does he. But 1 think he ought to put the facts in perspective, and that is what I attempted to do yesterday.
V *	*


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is further to the previous questions directed to the
Oral Questions
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the Syncrude cancellation, which is yet another example of the impact of the National Energy Program on the future supplies of oil in this country.
The focus of the announcement by the company was that the tax and price measures of the National Energy Program did not provide a sufficient rate of return for the project to proceed. At the same time, the president of Petro-Canada, Mr. Hopper, has said that the project could proceed if governments-and I stress governments-achieve sufficient compromise to reach agreements to provide reasonable rates of return to investors to allow the project to proceed. Petro-Canada is a 15 per cent shareholder in the project.
Since Mr. Hopper is clearly predicting significant changes in the National Energy Program, would the minister advise the House what Mr. Hopper knows that this House does not know?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, he probably knows a lot more about the daily operation of the oil and gas industry than members in this House know.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Especially the minister.


Marc Lalonde: But he does not know any more about this issue than any member of this House. Our position in this regard has been put forward in the budget and in "The National Energy Program" and in answers and speeches in this House.
Again 1 stress to the hon. member that not only must he talk about the level of prices for the tar sands but he also must include the level of government takes, including royalties. I remind him that the government of Alberta-the Edmonton government-is receiving very large royalties indeed. All this must be taken into account when you arrive at the netback to the firms concerned. This is the object of discussions with the government of Alberta.
I have indicated before that we were ready to arrive at arrangements for tar sands plants, even separately from conventional oil prices. The Edmonton government has decided not to proceed with discussions along those lines. It has refused even to talk on a separate deal for the tar sands in order to allow those projects to proceed. That is the decision of the Edmonton government, not the national government. I have to respect their view.


Erik Nielsen: That is enough.


Marc Lalonde: I do not agree with it, but I have to respect it, and we will try to arrive at an agreement.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, four times now the minister has tried to put the problem in the area of intergovernmental debate. It is not intergovernmental debate, it is the economics of the project which are suffering from the National Energy Program.
Further to the participation of the president of PetroCan, since PetroCan is the government's window into the industry,

January 14, 1981
Oral Questions
what advice has Petro-Canada provided to the government which would improve the viability of these projects and allow the major projects to proceed and help future Canadian supply improve?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 can confirm to the hon. member that I have not received any advice from Petro-Canada on this issue. If advice had been received, obviously it would have been of a confidential policy nature and would not be a subject to be revealed.


Miss MacDonald:: Their phones are cut.


SHIPPING
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In 1972, the then federal minister of the environment placed an environmental moratorium on the west coast to deal with risks of and liabilities for environmental damage resulting from tanker traffic. Last year, the 188,000 deadweight-ton oil tanker B.T. San Diego was involved in a serious accident on the west coast. The same vessel will be entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca on January 26 on a test run. Is it still the minister's position that the west coast moratorium is a viable instrument to deal with west coast tanker traffic?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, up to this point I have had no reason to change that opinion.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY BEFORE MORATORIUM LIFTED
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On December 17 he wrote to me indicating that that same environmental moratorium is going to be lifted. In light of the provisions of Bill C-48, which we are not being allowed to debate in detail, there is no guarantee whatsoever that there will be full environmental impact studies coastwide and there is nothing in the bill providing for a full public inquiry. Will the minister assure the House and the residents of British Columbia that before that moratorium is lifted there will be full public inquiries and full payment to interveners to lay out concerns regarding the environment of British Columbia?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the bill to which the hon. member refers will be referred to a committee of this House in a couple of days. There will be ample opportunity, as there has been in the House, to debate the matters before that committee and there will certainly be opportunities for all interested members to express their views.
With regard to the particular aspect he has raised, I will examine it further and be in touch with him. I will discuss it with the Minister of the Environment.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the CBC. Could the minister tell the House whether he has met with the union and the CBC French network management about this strike and, if so, could he tell the House whether he intends to urge his colleague the Minister of Labour, to intervene by appointing either a mediator or a special representative to settle this conflict which has lasted too long already?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I think that all members on this side of the House are fully aware of the interest shown by the hon. member for Longueuil in labour issues. Indeed, Madam Speaker, on Monday of this week I had an opportunity to confer with the CBC management about this strike which has already been on for long, perhaps for too long, at the Montreal CBC French network news service. Last evening, here in Ottawa, I was able to discuss the same matter with the union president and today I received a request from the union asking for an intervention by the Minister of Labour with a view to helping both parties arrive at a settlement.
It is obvious that in our system, Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the remarks of certain commentators, it is not up to the Minister of Communications to solve the conflict, it is up to the parties to reach agreement. Acting on the request of the union, I have just reached the Minister of Labour who is in Halifax today and I asked him to step in and appoint either a mediator or his personal representative at the negotiation table with the hope that the whole thing will be unravelled and that the CBC French network news service will resume its activities at the earliest.


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister indicated to my colleague from Etobicoke
January 14, 1981

Centre that he supported the Bank of Canada's high interest rate policy with respect to its efforts to control the treasury bill market and keep rates higher. The little people in Canada who invested in Canada Savings Bonds are getting only 11 'A per cent return now, probably less than the rate of inflation, while the government is paying 16'A or 16% per cent to the big boys, the banks, and paying the investment community 13, 13'/2 or 14 per cent on their regular bonds. What is the minister going to do in order to be fair to the people with Canada Savings Bonds?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I said yesterday, Madam Speaker, was that the governor of the Bank of Canada was not deliberately holding up interest rates in this country. He has made it clear more than once that in his view interest rates which prevailed because of the rates that prevailed in the United States at that time were unnecessary for Canadian purposes. That is what I said yesterday and I am happy to repeat it again today.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that the last issue of Canada Savings Bonds made it virtually impossible for the bonds to be cashed before January 1 unless the lender wanted to receive no interest on his money. We are now past January 1 and interest rates continue to be high. It cost the government a great deal of money to issue those Canada Savings Bonds in the first place. The minister promised the people of Canada who bought those bonds, lending money to the country, that they would be treated fairly. Is the minister going to be fair to those people or is he going to watch while there is a great rush on the treasury by people cashing those bonds and taking advantage of the fact that they can put their money in the bank and get higher interest rates? They can put their money almost anywhere else and get high interest rates. Will the minister at least give these people a rate of interest that gives them some profit over the rate of inflation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that it will be my intention to be fair to those who have purchased bonds, who have the freedom in our system to purchase that excellent form of instrument or to convert to other instruments where they earn a higher rate of return, if they wish. It will be our purpose to be fair to those who invest in those bonds.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The reduction of the subsidy to the shipbuilding industry from 20 to 9 per cent has already resulted in the loss of many direct
Oral Questions
and indirect jobs, cancelled contracts to the tune of some $203 million and the loss of millions of dollars to our economy. 1 wish to ask the minister whether the government has any new plans to assist and keep viable this very important national industry.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, our information is that most shipyards in Canada continue to have strong order books and that this situation will continue for some months. This will give us time to complete our work on possible programs to replace the 20 per cent subsidy program which expired July 1. In this connection, we will be consulting both with the industry and the unions. I hope the result will be a program which will respond to the needs of the industry and the Canadian economy.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: I would like to ask the minister whether in his deliberations with his colleagues in cabinet he would give serious consideration not only to reinstating the full 20 per cent subsidy, but give consideration as well to subsidizing interest rates on loans made to Canadians purchasing ships built in Canada so that our shipbuilders will be able to compete more effectively and competitively with foreign shipbuilding industries which are more highly subsidized by their governments.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we will certainly look at suggestions brought to our attention by the industry, the unions and people like my hon. friend. Of course, any decisions we make will have to be in the context of the financial room the government has for this and other kinds of programs in the economic development area.


HEATING COSTS-REQUEST FOR COST OF LIVING REFUND
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Two days ago people in Winnipeg received their bills for heating their houses in December. To their horror they found that their bills were twice what they were a year earlier.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: People in very modest homes received bills of over $100 for the month. Will the minister give consideration to some form of a cost of living refund so that people can meet these sharp increases in costs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will give consideration to the hon. member's representations.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that the biggest part of the increase is due to the 40 cents tax per 100 cubic feet of gas, will the minister give consideration to some exemption for this very essential commodity?

January 14, 1981
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not sure 1 heard fully the hon. member's supplementary question. I will look at it in Hansard and give it some thought.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. There have been some unusual reports coming out of Washington about the NATO defence budgets. Can the minister assure the House and the country that there is no intention on the part of this government to go back on its promise to increase the defence budget for Canada by 3 per cent in real terms and the capital portion of the budget by 12 per cent?
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, this government has never been one to go back on its promises and l can assure the hon. member for Victoria that the measures announced when the Minister of Finance presented his budget will be carried out in the operations of the armed forces.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that in two of the last three fiscal years the Liberal government did break its promise to the Department of National Defence to increase its budget by 3 per cent in real terms. As the conference of defence associations is meeting in Ottawa at the end of this week, I would like to ask the minister if he will announce that he intends to increase the budget for the reserves in the Canadian forces by a substantial amount, to take them off the starvation diet they were on under the Liberal government previously?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, in the last ten months this government and my department have done their utmost to try to re-equip our armed forces with the best equipment possible. Now I can assure the hon. member for Victoria that the priority will be with respect to reserves. Tomorrow I will be mentioning what we intend to do concerning the reserves at the conference of defence associations.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Recent reports in The Globe and Mail of Toronto and Le Devoir of Montreal indicate a tripling in one year of the number of cases of malaria being reported in both Ontario
and Montreal, with an over-all increase of tenfold across Canada in the last five years. Since only a small proportion of this increase is due to the Indochinese refugees, is the minister concerned about this trend and, if so, what steps has she taken to cope with the problem?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I will have to check the facts related by the hon. member. If I may, I will inform the House and the hon. member and submit a report at the earliest convenience.


Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, while the minister is inquiring into this I wonder if she would also consider a supplementary question. Members of the Society for Tropical Medicine in Canada have frequently expressed their concerns about the inadequacy of present day training of Canadian health care workers in tropical diseases, due in part to the lack of a special centre such as an institute of tropical medicine. Last July in committee the minister's assistant deputy minister for health protection, speaking on the minister's behalf, said that suggestions along this line were worthy of follow-up. Have any initiatives been taken since then?
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, in my opinion the wish expressed by a great many specialists to establish a Canadian centre for tropical diseases is quite justified. In light of economic conditions, priority could not be given to such a centre in recent years. Therefore I have nothing further to report at this time but we will let the people know the moment we can do something about it.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday the problem of urea formaldehyde was outlined, as was the fact that tens of thousands of Canadian families are exposed to a toxic substance which has been linked to cancer. The minister responded that the help the government could provide was to tell such persons to contact their physicians or telephone the minister's local offices or those of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Would the minister confirm for this House that when those offices are telephoned the answers given by those offices are those the minister has instructed? The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources says that the only sure way to handle the problem is to gut your house. Would the minister confirm that other than providing testing the National Research Council has no suggestions whatsoever with which the government
January 14, 1981

could help? Of the 22 private firms recommended, three in British Columbia are not in the business of testing for urea formaldehyde but could do so at a very substantial expense. Would the minister confirm that the government has no policy on this matter and that yesterday while shooting from the hip she simply shot her foot off?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the question is very serious, worrying as it does a great many Canadians, so perhaps I might be allowed to be somewhat more precise than the hon. member was in his remarks. Roughly 60,000 homes in Canada have been insulated with this substance which has now been banned. Thus far we have received 100-odd complaints prompted by health problems which appear to be directly linked to this substance. It is obvious that it has not been used by all Canadians who are affected. The work must have been badly done.
1 said and I repeat to the House that if, for example, people suffer from very serious throat or eye irritation we have asked them first to contact representatives in the offices of my department who will refer them to their physician to ascertain whether it might not be a case of flu or other ailment and then they will be urged to hire a firm to check conditions in their homes. In light of a report from qualified experts the Minister of National Health and Welfare had no choice but to alert Canadians and call for a moratorium. The final report is due within a few weeks and we will make a decision. Of course there is no existing mechanism which would enable us to go ourselves and correct the deficiencies resulting from badly done work. However, I will check with my department so that the procedures will be closely followed.


SUGGESTED PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF POTENTIAL DANGER
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I think the other foot just went. I am not certain whether I will receive the same response, but I would like to address my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister acknowledge that the government has been aware of the potential dangers of this substance for some five years because of studies in the United States and Europe, and would he acknowledge that he was asked by me and by the government of Saskatchewan, through its minister of consumer and corporate affairs, to act on this particular problem? Would he further acknowledge that had he acted at that time tens of thousands of Canadian families would not now be exposed to this dangerous substance?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should be aware a moratorium is now in effect
Ora! Questions
and that very serious people have been asked to make a thorough study of the matter after which, in light of their findings, we can ascertain the extent of the problem. It is therefore useless to jump to conclusions before knowing exactly what that study ordered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare will show.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, on December 9, before the Christmas break, when I advised this House that there was to be an announcement respecting metric conversion and test centres on January 1, 1982, the Prime Minister answered that I was conveying falsehoods and spreading rumours which were unfounded. Now that what I have suggested has proved to be a fact, and now that the government intends to enforce metric conversion and test centres again on January 1, 1982, is it the intention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to lock up stores, put bands around cash registers and prohibit stores from doing business, as was done in the test centre of Peterborough, if stores refuse to purchase metric scales at their own expense after this forced implementation of metric in retail food stores on January 1?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the public that the operation will be conducted in a decent and appropriate manner, and that we shall not resort to the methods the hon. member would have us use.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his co-operative and understanding answer and follow it up with a supplementary question. If it is not the minister's intention to lock up stores and if it is his intention to allow them to proceed with imperial if they so desire, why has he given the option to Peterborough not to be on the list for metric conversion on January 1, 1982, and why only after the rest of Canada, if and when it is converted, will Peterborough then fall back on the list? Since there is not one metric weigh scale left in retail food stores in the city of Peterborough to my knowledge, is it the minister's intention to allow these test centres on January 1 to have the option as to whether they wish to go metric or stay imperial? If they do not move on January 1, is the minister prepared now to confirm what I think he said in his first answer, that is, that there will be no forced implementation on January 1?
6192

January 14, 1981
Oral Questions


André Ouellet: 1 repeat, Madam Speaker, that the operation will be conducted in a civilized manner and that we are confident everyone will co-operate. The program will be implemented first, in large urban centres then progressively, during the course of 1982, it will be extended to other cities throughout Canada. That is why Peterborough is not included in the first phase scheduled to start in early January, 1982. However, in 1982, we trust the people and merchants of Peterborough will get ready to convert to the metric system in the spirit of co-operation we feel confident we can expect from them.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It concerns the absolute discharge granted to Ferguson Jenkins on a charge of possession of narcotics on December 18, 1980. That a judge would hand down an absolute discharge in such a case is, I believe, absolutely irresponsible and a travesty of justice. It implies that the severity of a sentence is measured in part by the status of the person who commits the offence. I would ask the minister, therefore, whether there is anything the government can do in this case or in future similar cases to rectify this blatant double standard in the interpretation of the law by Judge Gerry Young.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 cannot intervene in this case. This is a decision handed down by the court and if the Crown is not satisfied, there can be an appeal. This is not a matter in which the Minister of Justice can intervene.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question.


Mr. Lawrence:: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NATIVE PRINCESS OF ALBERTA
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the House that Miss Brenda Laboucan of High Prairie, Alberta, who was recently chosen
the native princess of Alberta, is visiting here today and is seated in the Opposition Leader's gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I regret that I have to draw to your attention a matter which occurred some time ago. I gave notice of it to you, Madam Speaker, before Christmas. It has to do with the conduct of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Duclos) who has been absent most of the time, so this is the first opportunity I have on which to bring it to your attention.
My question of privilege has to do with the question I raised in the House prior to the Christmas recess regarding the deafening silence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the matter of the fears of the western world of the Soviet Union in relation to Poland.
My question was raised in the adjournment debate and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs answered it at the time. It seems to me that his response was deliberately designed to stifle debate in that he tried to intimidate members of the House through the language he was using. The question I asked was a legitimate one and the parliamentary secretary's language was disparaging. He used unparliamentary language when he described my question, both in the adjournment debate and previously, as demogoguery. If you, Madam Speaker, would check Beau-chesne's, you would find that this is definitely unparliamentary language.
I call on the hon. member to withdraw his statement and to desist from trying to intimidate members, thereby stifling debate.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I remember very well the exchange that the hon. member and myself had on the evening in question. 1 must say that I did not want to offend him. It seems to me that, during that particular debate, both the hon. member and several of his colleagues of the official opposition took unfair advantage of the little knowledge that most citizens have about the scope of the protocol of agreement between the Soviet Union and Canada. I believe that it was really unfair of the hon. member and some of his colleagues to suggest that, under this protocol, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could have transmitted to the Soviet Union what are for all practical purposes state secrets, namely the results of conversations between representatives of the Canadian government and of other countries belonging to the Atlantic Alliance.
January 14, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was very brief when he raised what I believe to be not a question of privilege but rather a question of decorum. He did not go into the subject of the debate at all. I would therefore invite the hon. member to withdraw statements which might have seemed insulting. 1 am not saying that they were, but it seems to me that the problem could be solved rather quickly if the hon. member limited his comments to this matter of decorum and stated whether he is willing to withdraw his remarks or indicate that he did not intend to offend the hon. member. 1 would accept this explanation.


Louis Duclos: Madam Speaker, 1 do not want to waste the time of the House with a matter which is basically not very important. Perhaps the comments of the hon. member were not demagogic, but I believe that they were a bit childish. Thank you.


POINT OF ORDER
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 seek direction from the Chair. The tar sands plants Suncor and Syncrude are both located in my constituency, as are the proposed Alsands project and the Cold Lake project, along with many other experimental projects in north eastern Alberta for in situ recovery from the tar sands.
Today a number of questions were directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) regarding the announcement by Syncrude that they are cancelling their plan for a $2 billion expansion. The answer by the minister appeared to be misleading, so I attempted to be recognized on a supplementary question. 1 seek your direction, Madam Speaker. Since this matter concerns my riding, is it ever possible, when such questions come up, to be recognized for a supplementary question, and how should I go about it?


Madam Speaker:: Yes, of course, it is entirely possible for the hon. member to be recognized on a supplementary question, even if the original question on that subject has been asked by another hon. member. But I cannot know in advance whether the supplementary question is really related. I suppose I did not see the hon. member at the time and I am sorry if his question was urgent. I would say that the course to follow is to attempt to be recognized tomorrow.
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts- Mr. Clarke.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-625, to amend the Criminal Code (power to take blood samples).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, the purpose of my bill is to correct what I perceive to be a weakness in the law as it applies to the problem of drinking and driving. The purpose of this bill is to allow for the testing of blood samples for blood alcohol levels in cases where, because of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, drivers are not now subject to testing when suspected of impaired driving.
I bring this bill forward because at a highway intersection not far from where I live there was a collision of automobiles and a young man, whose life was full of potential and promise, was killed. The person driving the other vehicle in this case was suspected of being extremely intoxicated, according to several witnesses. Unfortunately, because of the existing law, no blood level testing could be conducted. Within several days that same person, that driver whose drinking and driving had just brought about the tragic death, was again on the road.
Therefore I want to assure the House that in my proposed amendment to the Criminal Code authority would only be given and exercised in the event that breathalyzer testing is not feasible and securing a blood sample does not interfere with any form of medical treatment.
It is time to close this simple gap now. I urge that this bill be accepted for first, second, and third readings.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following

January 14, 1981
Introduction of Bills
questions will be answered today: Nos. 784, 1,524, 1,588, 1,650, 1,738, 1,743 and 1,776.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government prepared to adopt, as government policy, the commitment made by the Progressive Conservative government in their budget, that farmers would be permitted to sell their farms with up to $200,000 free of capital gains tax after contributing to a registered retirement savings plan and (a) if so, on what date will such action be taken (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: The
Minister of Finance will be publishing a comprehensive paper on the taxation of capital gains. The government does not propose to consider any major changes in this area until the various issues raised in the paper are adequately discussed and reviewed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Are there two deputy ministers in the Department of Supply and Services and, if so (a) since what time (b) what are the names of all persons who have filled these positions?
2.	Is it government policy to continue with the two deputy ministers and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, on what date will this be made clear?
3.	Did the Lambert report recommend one deputy minister and, if so, what is the government's policy in regard to the recommendation?
4.	Does the government plan to keep two deputy ministers and, if so, for what purpose or for what need?


David Michael Collenette: 1. Yes.
(a)	Since the DSS Act was passed by Parliament in 1969.
(b)	Deputy minister, Supply 1969-70 Mr. Gordon Hunter
1970-73 Mr. Jean Boucher 1973-79 Mr. J. M. DesRoches 1979-Present Mr. G. D'Avi-gnon.
Deputy minister, Services 1969-75 Mr. H. R. Balls 1975-80 Mr. J. L. Fry 1980 Present Mr. D. Kirkwood.
2.	At the moment it is government policy to continue with two deputy ministers in the Department of Supply and Services. The Department of Supply and Services is a very large and complex department with two major functions, government procurement and provisions of financial support services to other government departments. These two functions require different professional skills involving different management practices.
3.	Yes, the Lambert report did recommend one deputy minister but on the basis that a major portion of the present services administration would be transferred elsewhere in the government. The report proposed that the government of the
accounting branch be transferred to the proposed financial management secretariat, that the audit services bureau be disbanded and its staff transferred to individual departments and the proposed financial management secretariat, and that the responsibility for the operations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund be given to the Department of Finance. The government is evaluating the recommendation and an announcement of the government's views will be made when the review is completed.
4.	Please refer to 2 and 3.


Mr. Howie: Has the Dalhousie-Belledune Port study been completed and, if not, on what date is its completion expected and will it be made public?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Dalhousie-Belledune Port study was commissioned jointly by the province of New Brunswick and DREE in mid-1979 to determine future potential of the public harbour of Dalhousie and the NHB Port of Beiledune. The study was awarded to ADI Limited, Fredericton, N.B., who submitted an initial progress report in December, 1979, and a second progress report in April, 1980. In August, 1980, the steering committee for the study, under the chairmanship of the province, approved a request from the consultant to postpone completion of the study and preparation of a final report pending the availability of important environmental and economic information relevant to the Belledune-Dalhousie study. The information to which the consultant made reference is the subject of separate studies for which final reports are not anticipated before November of this year. In light of this it is not anticipated that the Dalhousie-Belledune study will be completed before some time in the new year. With regard to the release of the study following its completion, provincial representatives have not yet indicated if they wish to make the final report public.


Mr. Herbert: With reference to the answer to question No. 972, what was the total cost of the restoration project listed as lie Perrot and were any conditions attached to the granting of the sum of $401,400 that would ensure any continuing indication of the federal contribution?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The response for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The lie Perrot project is almost at the point of completion. It will have cost $690,000, 60 per cent of which will have been contributed by the federal government. As far as acknowledgement of the federal government's contribution to the said project is concerned, the following provisions of section 17 of the Subsidiary Agreement on Tourism Development were adopted in order that a procedure be clearly defined and respected by both parties:
January 14, 1981

17.(1) All documents inviting tenders related to the projects under this agreement must specify the following: "This development project is financed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion of Canada and by the Quebec Planning and Development Bureau and implemented in collaboration with the Department of Tourism, Fish and Game (or the Department of Cultural Affairs or the High Commission for Youth, Recreation and Sport)" or such other wording to the like effect as may be agreed to by ministers.
(2)	Canada shall supply, erect and maintain during the course of construction of each project a sign or signs specifying that the relevant project is a development project undertaken under this agreement, or other such wording to the like effect as may be agreed upon by the ministers.
(3)	Canada reserves the right to supply and erect upon completion of the project, where possible, a permanent sign or plaque bearing an inscription to the effect set forth in subsection (2) of this section.
(4)	The official opening ceremonies for the projects funded by this agreement shall be arranged jointly by the ministers or persons appointed by them, who shall proceed jointly.


Mr. Neil: 1.	What is the estimated number of (a) French nationals (b) Canadians who would benefit under the Reciprocal Social Security Agreement between Canada and France?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, what are the names of the countries with which France has a social security agreement, citizens of which will be allowed to claim a French old age or survivors' benefits in Canada?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) and (b) Since benefits payable by Canada are not tied to citizenship, it is not possible to differentiate between Canadian citizens and French nationals who might qualify for benefits from Canada under the social security agreement between France and Canada. In the year 1981-82, approximately 1000 persons are expected to qualify for old age security benefits under the agreement and a small number of applicants are expected to qualify for Canada Pension Plan benefits. Estimates on the number of Canadian residents who may qualify for benefits from France because of the agreement are not available.
2. France has social security agreements with the following countries: Algeria, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Cape Verde Islands, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Luxemburg, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Niger, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Roumania, San Marino, Senegal, Spain, The Federal Republic of Germany, The Netherlands, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom (including the Islands of Guernsey and Jersey), Sweden, Switzerland and Yugoslavia. Citizens of these countries will be allowed to claim a French old age or survivor benefit in Canada.
Introduction of Bills ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada (a) $ 35,000
(b)	424,000
(c)	225,000.
Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (a) $ 22,000
(b)	nil
(c)	nil.


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Federal Business Development Bank for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: In so far as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned: (a), (b) and (c) Costs for advertising, free publications and other information conveyed to the public, for fiscal year ending March 31, 1981, are as follows:
Total costs budgeted by financial services:	$1,673,510
Total costs budgeted by management services:	$ 882,000


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Towers:: Madam Speaker, for some time now I have been requesting the parliamentary secretary to answer question No. 811 which has been on the order paper since May 8. Some very important questions have to be answered there. The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) asked questions on this topic today. I would certainly appreciate if the parliamentary secretary would answer those questions.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I undertook to look into getting an answer for the hon. member. I am trying to do my best. I should advise him that there are many other questions on the order paper which have been there a long time. Indeed, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) had one question on the order paper for three years, and we got it anwered just recently. 1 will do my best in the next few weeks.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Such efficiency.

January 14, 1981
Motions for Papers


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would Your Honour be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 33 and 35?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Herbert:
That the order of the House do issue for copies of all agreements, correspondence, notes and other communications relating to the requirement by the Foreign Investment Review Agency that Tate and Lyall Limited reduce its shareholdings in Redpath Sugar Limited.
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the Foreign Investment Review Agency has been informed by its senior legal counsel that these documents are privileged under Section 14 of the Foreign Investment Review Act. I am certain that the hon. member would not want the agency or this government to be guilty of an illegal act. As a matter of fact, the hon. member previously moved much a motion in November, 1979. I would therefore ask him to withdraw his motion until the House has accepted the proposals of the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to extend access to information held by the agency.


Mr. Herbert:: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the document prepared in or before October 1970, which was either submitted to cabinet or prepared for submission to cabinet and which dealt with the restructuring of the Department of Public Works including the option to form it into a Crown corporation.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, this motion is for the production of cabinet papers relating to the restructuring of the Department of Public Works. Cabinet documents are exempted from production under the guidelines applicable to
notices of motions for the production of papers. Therefore, I should ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its incompetent housing policies, which have led directly to soaring housing costs, plummeting housing starts, and critically low vacancy rates.
He said: Madam Speaker, we have proposed this motion to the House because we are concerned about the state of affairs in the housing sector in Canada. Housing costs have soared to a point where it is difficult for present home owners to maintain their homes and almost impossible for first-time home owners to purchase homes. Housing starts have plummeted, reflecting a state of concern in an industry which employs hundreds of thousands of Canadians and indicating social problems now and in the future. Vacancy rates have reached low points in many areas across Canada, indicating that Canadians are having difficulty finding places to live.
Because we want to air the question completely, to propose solutions and to spur the government on to action, we have proposed the following motion:
That this House condemns the government for its incompetent housing policies, which have led directly to soaring housing costs, plummeting housing starts, and critically low vacancy rates.
There is no speech dealing with the crisis facing the housing sector today which would be complete without reference to the crippling mortgage interest rates facing Canadians. I would not for a minute suggest that the Liberal government has completely ignored this crisis faced by hundreds of thousands of Canadian families who are renewing their mortgages. For example, before he was appointed to cabinet, on March 2, 1980, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) promised that "mortgage interest will be the issue the new government will give priority". Ten months later it has received as much priority as his industrial strategy.
January 14, 1981

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) promised to look at the impact upon home owners and potential home owners of interest rates, to see what special steps could be taken. Not to be outdone, the minister responsible for housing promised on November 7,
1980,	to watch the situation. On November 13, 1980, he reiterated strongly, "We are watching the situation", and on December 15, 1980, he was "meeting" and "visiting." The fact remains that despite criminally high mortgage interest rates, the government has done nothing to cushion the impact of today's 15.5 per cent mortgage interest rates upon home owners who were paying 10.5 per cent in 1976 and must renew their five-year mortgages in 1981.
The government has moved to help the unfortunate victims of the Liberal AHOP program, and well it should. The AHOP program was a potential disaster for every mortgage that was put out, and every real estate sales person and lawyer practising real estate law in Canada knew it. The only ones who were fooled were CMHC and the Liberal government.
Putting that fact aside, I want to ask the government about what happened to universality. Canada has adopted the theory of universality from baby bonus to old age security programs. Why is the Liberal government abandoning that theory when it comes to mortgages? Why does it refuse to recognize the hardships which today's mortgage interest rates are putting on the Canadian family?
Not only does the government fail to recognize the hardships faced by Canadians who are paying outrageous mortgage interest rates, it also stands by while innocent Canadians who have not accepted government assistance such as AHOP or have not defaulted on CMHC guaranteed mortgages are in positions where they can be sued on the covenant to pay.
The House will know that a mortgage is security for a debt. If the Government of Canada honours its guarantees on the government-insured mortgages, or takes over the AHOP mortgages, and its policy is not to sue the former owner for any deficiency between the recovery on sale and the amount guaranteed and paid out by the government, we all know that the institutional lenders do not have to be as generous and they are entitled to sue. That is why we are concerned about Canadian home owners today.
A Canadian home owner renewing a $50,000 mortgage in
1981,	which was taken out in 1976 at 10'/2 per cent, is faced today with a 15'/2 per cent mortgage interest rate. That can mean as much as $177 a month in additional carrying charges. So, why do we discriminate against the Canadian who is trying to carry that mortgage? Despite posturing, promises and postponements, the Liberal party is refusing to assist the average Canadian to overcome that burden.
The New Democratic Party joined with their Liberal counterparts to condemn our party when we brought in our mortgage interest and realty tax credit plan. Let us see what that alternative would have done for the Canadian home owner. Based upon a $33,000 mortgage at today's Liberal interest
Housing
rate of 15'/2 per cent, a Canadian family would have been entitled to a tax credit of $1,125 a year, or $94 a month. That $94 a month would go a long way toward offsetting the mortgage interest rates which the government is fostering and condoning. Our party wants to make home ownership more affordable for Canadians.
The Liberal party criticized our plan. During the last election it was suggested that the 18-cent federal excise tax was to be used to subsidize our program. 1 challenge the minister responsible for housing, who will hopefully enter this debate. The government has increased the excise tax on gasoline, and it has increased the cost of gasoline. Ministers have produced an unheard of tax on home heating oil, as well as increasing the deficit by $3 billion. Given those increases, how can they account for the fact that they have increased the hardships which are facing Canadian home owners without assisting them in any way whatsoever? If they criticized us for proposing to tax Canadians and return some of the tax money to those who need it, how can they justify taxing Canadians, increasing the cost of gasoline and the deficit, and doing nothing to help home owners?
The government has increased the cost of gasoline to the consumer. It has increased the taxes on gasoline, home heating oil and natural gas. We proposed an energy tax credit. That was a tax credit of $220 for the average Canadian family earning under $21,380 per year. It would have lowered the cost burden for the low-income family, which now exists under the Liberal government scheme. We appeal to the government to alleviate the unjust burden which now rests on the low and middle-income earners by introducing a similar energy tax credit.
We are concerned about the level of housing starts in the country. Traditionally, a review of housing starts serves two purposes. It indicates the level of activity in the housing sector of the economy. Jobs in the construction industry and related industries depend upon this activity. Construction workers, forestry workers, real estate salespersons and retail outlet clerks at hardware stores, to name a few, are people who depend directly or indirectly on activity in the housing sector for their livelihood. Banks and investment houses review their loan and investment portfolios with an eye to the health of the housing industry. Just as important to Canadians, we use housing starts to gauge how well we are moving toward our goal of placing every Canadian in a decent, affordable housing situation in a sound community environment. As either an economic indicator or a social gauge, Canadians have cause to be concerned about the incompetent housing policies of this government which have led to the lowest level of housing starts in years.
Figures provided by CMHC confirm that the lack of government policy in the housing field is seriously widening the gap between the number of housing starts CMHC says is necessary to house Canadians adequately and the number of housing starts which actually take place. In 1980 alone it was estimated by CMHC that we required 266,000 housing starts. The government produced 160,000 housing starts. For the past

January 14, 1981
Housing
four years we have failed miserably to meet those goals. Our average requirements were 260,000 housing starts, but the Liberal government only achieved 209,000. But most important is the fact that it is getting worse. The shortfall in 1980 means we only achieved 60 per cent of our target.
Our vacancy rates indicate that Canadians are having difficulties finding adequate accommodation in many areas. First-time home owners are finding it impossible to finance a home in some areas, and difficult to find one in other areas. The government has consistently failed to produce policy or programs which will have a significant impact on housing starts. Housing shortages, rising prices and the lack of activity, all demand in decency that the government initiate some action.
Home ownership is part of the Canadian dream, whether you are a first, fifth or tenth generation Canadian. Traditionally, Canadian couples saved to own a home. Because of the lack of action by this government that dream is turning into a nightmare.
There was a study produced by the University of Guelph which stated that the question is not: how and when can we afford a house? Rather, it is: can we have a satisfying life without a house, a garden and a mortgage? 1 am prepared to admit that there are many times when I can do without a garden. I can definitely manage without a mortgage all the time.
Let us look at that dream. The study points out that a modestly-priced family home costs $70,000 in Canada. With a 10 per cent down payment a buyer is faced with a $63,000 mortgage to carry that house. At today's rate of \5Vi per cent the monthly mortgage payments would be $679.75. The study goes on to point out the other escalating costs which are a direct result of action, or inaction, by the government, including heating, insurance and transportation. The home is a traditional foundation for a strong family life. I ask the minister when will the government act to assist Canadians to buy a home and achieve the Canadian dream?
The reduction in housing starts has had a negative effect upon employment in the housing sector. The Canadian Construction Association estimates an employment multiplier effect of 1.25 to 1.75 jobs per housing start. The 1980 shortfall alone of 106,000 housing starts represents a loss to the Canadian economy of between 132,000 and 176,000 jobs. There are
95,000	Canadians who want to be employed in the construction industry, that is 14.3 per cent of the work force which is unemployed. Since this government took office as much as 21.7 per cent of the work force engaged in construction has been out of work.
This decline points out a long-term problem which I would ask government ministers to address themselves to now, so that when recovery comes we will be ready. As employment opportunities decrease in the housing sector there are skilled workers who are tempted to leave for other industries with more stability. They take their skills with them. When we return to the level of activity which is acceptable in the housing industry, with the level where it should be, they will be reluctant to
return. I ask the minister what provision is he making to find an adequate supply of labour, if and when he ever will assist the housing industry to recover? The supply of skilled labour is vital to that recovery.
In view of the social and economic impact which housing starts have, let us be fair and review what little action the government has taken. The only initiatives of any significance in the field of housing starts are the reintroduction of the Multiple Unit Residential Building program and the provision of additional funding under the National Housing Act social housing programs.
Experts have already predicted that the high interest rates will offset the tax benefits of the MURB program. The increase in funding for 5,000 units under non-profit and co-operative housing programs is commendable, but one cannot help but wonder when studying the long-range results. I am concerned that the same situation may arise as with the AHOP program when the developments begin to age and extensive repairs and renovations are required. A study should be undertaken to find out what will happen down the road. Let us look at the situation now, not when the problems begin. In the long run, social assistance to individuals by way of a shelter allowance may make a lot more sense than financial assistance to bricks and mortar.
It is estimated by the Progressive Conservative Party that its mortgage interest and realty tax credit program would have increased the level of housing starts by 20,000 to 35,000 ownership units annually. We are not saying that it is the answer, but it is an alternative and it would have worked for four to five years. It would have had the social effect of increasing the supply of homes and making them more affordable for Canadians. Using the multiplier effect of 1.5 jobs per housing start, the program alone would have created 30,000 to
50,000	jobs annually for that same four-year to five-year period.
The biggest criticism of our program by the Liberal party was a silent admission that it had no program which even remotely compared with ours. That party did not have a program then and it does not have a program now. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), who is responsible for housing, is presiding over one of the most disastrous periods in the history of the housing industry in Canada. His answer to the chaos surrounding him, when he is questioned in this House is, "We are monitoring the situation." Surely, the time has come for action rather than reflection. We urge the minister to swallow his pride and adopt the Progressive Conservative mortgage interest plan and, failing that, we urge him to take more forceful action to stimulate housing starts in Canada.
I would like to refer briefly to the Community Services Contribution Program because it affects the housing sector. The government has demonstrated very little concern for either the serious economic and employment problems of Canada or agreements reached with the provinces. On Novem-
January 14, 1981

ber 12, 1980, the minister of housing announced in this House the cancellation of the Community Services Contribution Program. The global agreement between the provinces and the federal government which his predecessor signed specifically states:
Canada and the province(s) agree that prior to December 31, 1980, they will endeavour to replace the agreement with a new agreement that provides a long-term certainty to the community services program.
The only long-term certainty they received was that the program no longer exists. Either the minister of housing does not take much stock in agreements or he just does not have the clout to represent the home owners of Canada and the municipalities of this country in cabinet. On July 10, 1980, in reply to a question in this House the minister stated:
I have recommended to the officials of the corporation and to the government that, because of the time of year, the program be extended for at least one year.
That promise was made again on October 11, 1980, when the minister spoke to the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. Three days later in this House, on October 14, 1980, the minister stated if the program could not be continued, "that some other way will be found to assist the municipalities". The government, Mr. Speaker, entered into a written agreement which it then ignored. The minister gave assurances both inside and outside this House about extensions and alternate programs, all of which have been ignored. I would ask the minister how can the provinces and the municipalities continue to deal with him when his word is being broken?
I have another suggestion which the minister may like to consider. When the program was cancelled, the minister stated that it was cancelled because 50 per cent of the money went to soft services such as recreation services. I have the figures here and, in fact, only 11.4 per cent went to soft services in 1979, and in 1980 the portion was 7 per cent. These figures were prepared by CMHC. 1 hesitate to suggest that the minister misled the House, but either he did not have the figures in front of him or perhaps he ought to take another look at the term "soft services".


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is soft soap.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We are concerned about the cancellation of this program for two reasons. The first reason is that the Government of Canada broke its word on the agreement and to the municipalities. The second reason is that the cancellation concerns employment. A large proportion of that employment was in the hard services area of the construction industry- sewers, water, storm sewers and so on. The government has cast aside the economic, employment and social benefits which would accrue to a great number of Canadians through the program.
I do not believe that the government had any business in the field in the first place. The power and responsibility for that kind of servicing belong, in my opinion, to the provinces, but once it is in the field and after having led people down the garden path through agreements, surely the government has the responsibility to withdraw in an orderly fashion. We urge
Housing
the government to reintroduce the Community Services Contribution Program in such a way that proper consideration is given to the projects which municipalities had under way at the time the government cancelled the program.
When the home insulation program was introduced in 1977, one of the major objectives was to save energy used for space heating by stimulating action on the part of individual Canadians to upgrade the thermal efficiency of existing housing stock. We support that objective. "The National Energy Program", which was really the budget introduced on October 28, 1980, further elaborated on this objective. It stated: "Improving the energy efficiency of existing housing makes good sense. It must proceed faster than it has." We support that statement.
The government's answer to these high-sounding, philosophical promises was to increase the CHIP budget from $80 million per year to $265 million per year. Period. Stop there. No further. There is no mention about the three million Canadian homes built after 1961 which are not eligible under CHIP even though their insulation standards were much the same. There was no mention of expanding the CHIP program to include other materials such as double glazed and triple glazed windows. These help to save heat and energy, and are an essential part of proper home insulation. It is only common sense that we use every possible tactic to save energy, and windows and doors must be considered when insulating homes.
What we are asking of the government is that it immediately extend the CHIP program so that the three million homes built after 1961 and before September 1, 1977, can be properly insulated, and that it expand the program to include hermetically sealed windows, thermal pane windows and doors in order to achieve optimum efficiency from energy saving.
I would like to talk a bit about vacancy rates, which are mentioned at the tale end of the motion. It is serious to suggest that Canadians are finding difficulty in maintaining their standard of shelter, but it is even more serious to have a situation where Canadians cannot even find a place to live. CMHC vacancy rates indicate that Canadians are indeed having a difficult time finding a place to live, due to a lack of action by the government. In the two-year period, from October, 1978, to October, 1980, the national average for vacancy rates fell from an acceptable rate of 4.6 per cent to the critical and unacceptable rate of an average of 2.3 per cent.
This problem stretches from coast to coast. In Victoria the rate is .1 per cent; in Saskatoon, .6 per cent; in Toronto, .6 per cent, and in St. John's, Newfoundland, it is .1 per cent. As I mentioned earlier, experts suggest that the rising interest rates have cancelled the benefits of the MURB program.
As a token stimulus to provide low rental housing, the minister announced on June 17, 1980, funding for 5,000 additional non-profit housing units. In the same statement he noted and admitted that between 1977 and 1979, rental housing approvals dropped by 54,000. That is a drop in the bucket provided for low rental housing. In fact, in 1980 the CMHC figures indicate that multiple housing starts were down by 36 per cent compared with 1979. Clearly we need to see some
6200

January 14, 1981
Housing
dramatic action by this government and this minister to correct what is fast becoming a national disaster.
Earlier, I dealt briefly with the subject of shelter allowances, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to the minister that he seriously consider introducing a shelter allowance program. There are some advantages to this. It is a direct cash payment to the individual and is subject to income requirements. It does not go toward bricks and mortar so we would not find ourselves tied up with buildings across the country. It would also give families a choice of where to live and how to live. They could carry the benefits from household to household and from place to place. There are other benefits as well. Owners of rental units could charge more realistic rents without harmful effect to the tenants. Most important, of course, is that it would encourage builders to build rental units.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we are very, very concerned about the critical state of the housing sector in Canada today. We believe this has been caused by the action and inaction, mostly inaction, of the government. We have outlined the problems and suggested some solutions because we feel that Canadians deserve a better opportunity to have decent, affordable housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it is delightful to hear my Tory colleagues castigate the present government for incompetent housing policies. Of course 1 agree with them, yet in 1979 the Conservatives offered no housing programs for average and low-income Canadians, no means that I know of for young couples to get into home ownership, no relief for tenants, and their mortgage tax credit benefit program would have benefited only those who were lucky enough to already be in homes and not those in the greatest need. I would hardly call that a "universal program," to quote my colleague.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: However, Mr. Speaker, we agree with the motion put forward by the Conservative party today. The Liberal government has no effective policy and few effective programs to deal with the housing crisis that now affects most Canadians. It does, however, have a very effective economic policy to ensure that young couples will never get into home ownership. High interest rates have caused home owners to lose their homes. The government and the minister responsible for CMHC have no social goals, no over-all, comprehensive goals for a social housing policy for Canada and, therefore, no comprehensive planning to deal with the housing needs of the country.
We agree that rents are extremely high. In seven major Canadian cities there is a zero vacancy rate and in those cities in particular rents are astronomical. The cost of new housing is extremely high in all parts of Canada, and particularly in
those parts where there is economic growth it has risen out of the reach of most Canadians.
I think the Liberals are great dabblers, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague pointed out, they give programs with one hand and take them away with the other. Perhaps that keeps ministers and bureaucrats employed.
The Neighbourhood Improvement Program was successful and involved communities in rehabilitating their neighbourhoods, but it was taken away. Now the government has cancelled Community Service Contribution Programs to municipalities, the very programs and grants that are essential if municipalities are to control land, service land, and make it available for affordable housing.
Instead of providing for smaller, integrated public housing a few years ago when the housing act was changed, the government did away with public housing altogether. Ministers did not seem to realize that there are poor people in the country. There is no single federal program now that deals with 100 per cent poverty communities.
According to some examples that I will come to later, the Liberals apparently believe that what goes on in remote areas of Canada and is not seen by those of us who sit in this House, is of little concern to ordinary Canadians. I submit that is not so. Last December I learned that $20 million had been arbitrarily cut from the budget for native housing. This is an immoral act, Mr. Speaker, when we know that over 50 per cent of the homes of Indian people on reserves are practically just shacks. They have no running water, little sanitation, and this poor housing is contributing to genocide. The government is directly responsible for this. The government must increase the budget for native housing just to catch up with its broken promises and accumulated neglect of years past.
I was very shocked to learn that RRAP, the home repair program instigated in the northern peninsula of Newfoundland and sponsored by the National Anti Poverty Organization, was arbitrarily terminated the day before yesterday. The NAPO group was informed yesterday. From my observation this program was very successful and had rehabilitated some 200 homes in fishing villages, and indeed had rehabilitated whole villages like Parson's Pond. It is a program that seems to be pretty unique and is the best antidote to protecting poor people and those who just have minimum employment each year, from inflation. Some unemployed people own their own homes. They do not have mortgages and they put their own labour into repairs. It is an economic, sound program from any point of view, yet it was arbitrarily cancelled without consultation with the local communities much less with the 100 or more people who had applied for assistance for home repairs and had expected to start on them this winter.
I cannot blame the minister responsible for CMHC alone for many of the dilemmas and for the poor housing policy in this country. Last Monday I pleaded with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to take emergency action in face of the housing crisis that is hurting the country, largely because of his economic policy and the very high and fluctuating interest rates. I tried to make him see that young couples are
January 14, 1981

unable to plan for families because they will never own a home. Later he said, "Of course, you know that there is a decreasing family formation in Canada.", implying that we did not need more housing, when in fact he is the very one that is causing this decrease inthe birth rate.
In many cities it is common for tenants to pay over 50 per cent of their income for rent. Home owners are faced with mortgage interest rates of 16 per cent and higher, and indeed some people will never own a home. The minister did not seem willing to admit this. Of course we know of many homeless students, particularly in the lower mainland of British Columbia, who slept in cars last fall. I presume they are now crashing in pads with their friends. What way is this for young people to get on with their training for future opportunities? The minister ignored these problems just as he ignored my request for major increase in funds for affordable, non-profit housing. It is the only program which can make a great impact on the present situation.
Everyone knows, of course, that the cost of accommodation today is astronomical. Home costs and rents are completely out of control. Prices are escalating far more rapidly than the rate of inflation, with no real relationship to the value of a particular home. For example, my husband and I bought a modest bungalow on a 33-foot lot in Vancouver East some 20 years ago. We paid $9,000 for it.


Mr. Clarke:: Capitalists.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes, we were lucky to be in a home. Today that house would sell for about $150,000. If we waited until next week to sell it, chances are very good that it would be worth $160,000. If I were looking for a home today in my riding, or in most parts of Canada, I would be faced with interest rates over 16 per cent for short-term mortgages. This means people must find close to $1,000 for monthly costs including house payments, fuel and taxes. No one earning under $35,000 per annum, including members of Parliament if they did not have a home, can get into a first home today at these rates.
Many of the immigrants in my riding are getting homes by banding together with not two but at least three wage earners sharing costs of payment. Chances are they will never pay off the full cost of their home in their lifetimes. This leads to drastic overcrowding and a living standard which most of us would not agree is warranted in a country like Canada.
My colleague talked at length about AHOP, as I have in the past, so I will not dwell on that. I understand people who have bought homes under AHOP are holding a meeting tonight in an Ottawa suburb. These people will be losing their homes because they cannot renew their mortgages at the escalated rates, a problem to which the very unrealistic policy of AHOP contributed.
We in the NDP have advocated a mortgage assistance plan for some years now. Recently I proposed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that over $1 billion of the profits which
Housing
Canadian banks have accumulated as a result of the fluctuating interest rates caused by the Minister of Finance and the government, should be set aside in a special fund. This could be a fund for a lending portfolio which would offer stable lower-interest mortgages, particularly for young people who are trying to get into a first home. As we know, the Prime Minister ignored this suggestion.
The Minister of Finance actually has the power to request a fund like this of the banks. It has been done in the past. It was done in the days when we had 30-year mortgages at a set rate of, I believe, 6 per cent. It worked well. This request has not been considered, except I noticed the minister responsible for CMHC had a glint in his eye when I mentioned $1 billion.
I have said many times in this House that the MURB tax write-off is a useless program and we should get rid of it. It is not being used anyway because interest rates are too high. Let us put the $15 million which the government was going to be willing to sacrifice in tax write-offs into funds for affordable housing, and let us up the amount from there.
The programs of the government are inadequate, of course, because they treat shelter not as a social necessity and a right of Canadians. The government treats these programs really as a method of manipulating or trying to manipulate the economic system. This is wrong. Housing, just like medicare and old age pensions and many other social programs which we now realize are essential in a country like Canada, is a right and a necessity. It must be affordable and available to all Canadians. This must be the basic philosophy but it is not the philosophy of either the Liberals or the Conservatives. The free enterprise parties say every day "leave it to the private sector". That is why we have the mess we have now in the whole area of housing. We left it to the private sector. 1 tell the hon. member from Vancouver to have a look at who is doing the speculating if he does not believe me.
We need long-range planning, Mr. Speaker. But we need a decent sound policy to start with. We need planning for housing based on population trends, on immigration policies, and on geographic concentrations of growth where we know there is potential for more jobs and where more workers will go. If the government brings in 50,000 refugees, then the government should provide-it did not-extra housing in the areas where these people are going to settle. Why should low-income Canadians be pushed out of affordable low-rent housing because of our immigration policies? It is not fair to either the immigrants or to the Canadians, who are likely to express a good deal of dissent.
I have said that most tenants now pay far in excess of 30 per cent of their incomes on rent. In a study done in Vancouver those who pay over 60 per cent of their incomes are predominantly senior citizens, single parents, lonely women who are in the high percentage of people in poverty, and native Indians. Does this seem like a just society, even to Liberals and Conservatives?
I ask the minister responsible for CMHC to look into the whole question of excessive speculation which is also causing housing prices to shoot sky high. I do not have the time to go

January 14, 1981
Housing
into this in depth, but foreign ownership in Vancouver is also a major contributing factor to this problem. We feel some action must be taken on the question of capital gains tax to discourage excessive speculation on homes which are not the primary or first home of a family.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: They are already taxed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Since my time is almost up, I would like to summarize ten recommendations which I hope the government will consider for action to help alleviate the housing crisis in Canada.
First, let us recognize the problem at least, and make housing a top priority for government action immediately. I know we have to convince the cabinet as a whole that this is essential.
Second, call an emergency conference which will include provincial representatives, municipal representatives, non-profit societies, tenants and co-operatives-people who know what the housing crisis is all about first-hand. It is not surprising that in March the minister is supporting a real estate conference which is to bring together developers and real estate interests again. Yet there are no funds provided for tenants and home owners and private groups to attend, and these are the people who know from a consumer point of view what is needed.
Third, the government should instigate a mortgage assistance program in co-operation with the banks to reduce mortgage interest rates to new home owners, particularly those earning less than $35,000 a year.
Fourth, provide federal Crown land and provincial Crown land, loans, grants and land banking incentives to try to get more land reserved and leased, if possible, for co-operative and other forms of affordable housing. I would like to see a buy-back clause built into these programs so that there will not be exploitation and profit-making on these kinds of subsidized programs and they will be useful for future generations.
Fifth, let us control housing speculation with an increase in capital gains tax to 100 per cent for resale of homes and real estate which are not the primary residence. Let us have sell-back clauses for all government subsidized housing programs.
Sixth, let us improve housing for tenants by encouraging provincial rent controls and shelter allowances, especially for tenants with special needs. We need to increase the budget for non-profit housing. In the Bob Rae budget last summer we proposed a housing investment which would provide rotating funds of up to $500 million. We would continue to advocate this.
Seventh, let us continue to expand the RRAP programs. I commend the minister for improving the guidelines for this program. However, we should expand it, make it more flexible, more adaptable and community based for rural areas, areas like the one I mentioned in Newfoundland.
The CHIP program and insulation programs need to be improved and made available for newer houses. We need to be assured that insulation will be safe and not dangerous to health.
My ninth recommendation is to increase research and development funds in order to develop energy efficient, affordable housing, particularly modular prefabricated housing manufactured in Canada, creating an industry for Canadians. There are many other innovative housing ideas for which research and development funds should be allocated.
Any federal government program or federal funds which go into local programs such as rapid transit should take into account that land is reserved for non-profit affordable housing. For example, in the greater Vancouver region the federal government will be giving assistance to a rapid transit system. We should act now to ensure that areas near the rapid transit depots will be available for lower cost housing for those who cannot afford to live in the centre of the city.
Finally, our party supports this motion put forward by the Conservatives. We agree that housing requires emergency action. The present government is doing little to recognize and even less to alleviate this problem. Canadians deserve better and more affordable housing. Housing is a human right and should be written into our constitution. The government must take action and do it now.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I wish to congratulate both members who have spoken this afternoon, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell). In their comments they offered alternative suggestions and specific proposals which they urged the government to consider or adopt in order to address what they perceive to be a crisis in housing. I hope, that when I have concluded my comments, I will have touched on some of the specific points raised and hit upon some of these matters. As I say, it is encouraging that they offered alternatives. While my comments may show that I disagree in policy, nonetheless it is encouraging to have heard these constructive comments.
As the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I am aware of the housing problems in this country today. Part of the problem, of course, as identified, is the reduction or decline in housing production which has created a severe shortage in some parts of Canada. However, I would like to point out that there are encouraging signs. The trough has been reached and the upturn has begun. I am encouraged in that by the Conference Board in Canada.
Their forecast shows starts for next year up by some 20,000 over this year, to approximately 181,000 units. That is an encouraging sign. The 160,000 starts this year is remarkable notwithstanding the high interest rates, the change in government, the fact that industry looks to government for leadership and there was some halting in the industry. Nothwithstanding those facts, we have seen a strong number of starts of approximately 160,000 units.
January 14, 1981

In my view, the recovery at this time relates to the government's approach, which is to say that the private sector, rather than massive government intervention, should act in this market so as to obviate distortions which have occurred in the past. Hon. members will recall better than I that the federal government was required to intervene in the marketplace in the early years of the previous decade. This resulted in a production boom, and subsequently, after 1975, overproduction. That contributed to a downturn in the industry. A more reasonable recovery is occurring this time based on the operation of normal market conditions. I conclude that this will lead to a greater stability in the industry in years to come.
I will return to the current situation a little later. In the meantime, I believe it would be appropriate to set the record straight on the mandate of the federal government and its role through CMHC as an agency of government, and on the accomplishments of the government and the corporation over the years.
Social and economic changes in Canada during the past three and a half decades have increasingly required CMHC to take on a new and more comprehensive role in the fields of housing and community services. I notice that there is at least one member of the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has the advantage over all of us of having watched that occur from the perspective of a member of this House. I am happy he is here today during this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am always here.


Paul James Cosgrove: It would take the better part of the afternoon to give a picture of CMHC's development over the years, so I will limit my references to a few of the milestones. Essentially I am talking about the development of CMHC, first as a financial institution and, second, as an agency of the federal government in administering social housing policies.
Its initial mandate, and I am talking about the financial aspect, was to cause more housing to be built to meet immediate and urgent needs. That was met by CMHC within the first few years, using a variety of supportive measures. I think of joint loans with banks, buy-back guarantees, rental guarantees for a minimum return, and the like.
In its social housing role the first major milestone was reached in 1949 when the National Housing Act was broadened to include a housing program. This program, a shared cost partnership arrangement with the provinces, subsequently became one of the most important features of Canadian housing legislation. It led eventually to such programs as non-profit and co-operative housing programs, touched upon today by previous speakers, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, rural and native housing and a number of other programs.
In its role as a financial institution, CMHC introduced mortgage insurance in 1954 as one of the most useful ways of meeting Canadian housing needs. The objective was to attract private funding into the industry, and that was an immensely successful move by the government.
Housing
Mortgage insurance rapidly became the main instrument of the government policy. On the supply side, in the same year, 1954, the Bank Act was amended to allow the chartered banks to make mortgage loans. These financial initiatives encouraged home buying and gave additional impetus to the construction industry. In the late 1960s, mortgage investment was made even more attractive by two further changes, the introduction of the five-year mortgage term and the removal of interest ceilings on bank loans.
I would like to emphasize that the purpose of NHA mortgage insurance is primarily to increase the flow of private capital into the housing sector of the economy. At the same time, by means of inspection services, mortgage insurance has allowed CMHC to exert a continuing influence on the quality and kind of housing built in Canada.
The outstanding results of the mortgage insurance program can be summarized quickly. Of the five million dwellings completed since 1954 in Canada, a full 40 per cent have been insured by CMHC. This has entailed some $36 billion in capital funds that have been attracted towards investment in new housing under the program. CMHC has also insured $12 billion on mortgages on existing dwellings.
All of this housing has been required to conform to the CMHC standards about which I have spoken. I think that by any measurement NHA insurance has been an outstanding success in meeting the objective of attracting private funds into the market to create a stable environment for the investment of private funding and in the establishment of quality criteria in the construction of housing.
As an instrument of social policy, beginning in 1950 CMHC developed even more broadly. The whole community rather than individual homes became the focus of the corporation's drive. Contrary to some comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, this has been an objective and a policy, and the corporation has a record of success in addressing this area of concern of the government, social housing. Between 1955 and 1963, for example, urban renewal was a major consideration. In later years CMHC's involvement in the community extended to assistance for sewage and water services, and to the provision of social amenities.
My statistics show that one of every four members of this House has served in elected office at the local level, and I doubt if any of those members would question the usefulness of the role of CMHC through that period of time.
During this period and into the sixties the provincial governments became more active in housing and community planning, and the NHA amendments in 1964 responded to this trend. This was new to most provinces. However, arrangements were thus made with the provinces for the joint financing of public housing and as well for a wider range of urban renewal projects.
The bulldozing techniques originally hit upon were replaced some ten years later with programs to conserve and rehabilitate. They have been touched upon. After 1969 the main

January 14, 1981
Housing
thrust of the federal support was toward housing which served people in the lower income brackets, as CME1C became recognized as an instrument of social as well as economic policy of the government.
A number of programs were introduced to encourage the production of moderately-priced homes for rental and ownership. Low interest loans and subsidies greatly assisted in the production of low rental housing by non-profit and co-operative organizations as well as private interests. These measures helped many thousands of Canadian families to obtain housing either as owners or tenants which they could not otherwise have attained. It is true that some people, because of economic conditions, have met difficulties under some of the programs, but by far the majority of these families continue to enjoy their homes and reasonable financial security.
The volatile housing market of the seventies, with its demand for housing, its accelerating prices and the tight rental market, put a considerable strain on federal funds. This resulted, first, in combining private financing on some programs with federal subsidies and, later, with a whole new approach to federal financing. I refer here to the graduated payment mortgage, for example, which was introduced to take the pressure off the federal subsidy program by providing easier pay-back arrangements during the first few difficult years of a loan.
Substantial changes were made in CMHC's social housing program, as hon. members know. The new approach provided for private financing of social housing projects sponsored by private non-profit agencies with enriched federal subsidies through interest write-downs and full protection to lenders through mortgage insurance. This was a device by which the government, in conjunction with the private sector, combined, to provide more housing than otherwise would have been provided for people in low-income categories who were finding it difficult to compete in the private market. That, if I need remind the hon. member for Vancouver East, was the basis for the policy of the government of engaging with the private sector in this type of arrangement.
The federal government is well aware of the problems faced by some home owners who have renewed or are renewing their mortgages at high interest rates. The effects of these rates, 1 submit, however, are not as serious as has sometimes been reported. Only a small minority of home owners face dire hardship as a result of high rates.
In the vast majority of instances incomes will have increased enough during the past five years or so to offset the increase in mortgage payments. Last year about 350,000 home owners renewed their mortgages. This year that number will probably be about half a million, partly because some 100,000 home owners took out one-year mortgages last year. Naturally, the incidence of home owners who experience difficulty in meeting their monthly payments after renewal will depend upon the prevailing interest rate. As we have observed, the interest rate has moderated during the last month, and it is our expectation-and 1 am optimistic-that the rate will continue in a
downward trend to such a level that home owners renewing will find it acceptable.
In the case of homes bought under AHOP, touched upon by the hon. member for Simcoe North, we said in 1975 at the initiation of the program that if any home owners found themselves in an untenable position at the end of the initial five-year period, the government would provide or consider further assistance. We are meeting that pledge. We moved in March of last year by making contributions to families which purchased under this plan and which encountered unexpected hardship to provide assistance, which was intended to reduce monthly mortgage and tax payments where possible to a maximum of 30 per cent of a family's income.
When Parliament opened last April we announced that we planned to help home owners who might lose their homes as a result of higher monthly payments resulting from higher interest rates but, as I said, the interest rate spiral has moderated. A few weeks ago when concern was increasing we took a look at the plans we had adopted in May, but the moderation has saved us from that course of action.
Our policy, as 1 indicated earlier, is to intervene in the marketplace when it is not functioning properly and when serious needs are identified. For example, last year, as already touched on, we moved to increase by 5,000 units the social housing starts and units subsidized by the federal government. Neither member who has spoken this afternoon has indicated that that is 5,000 on top of an annual number of 25,000. Hon. members who say we are not addressing the housing needs of people in low and moderate-income brackets should add that
5,000	to that 25,000, put the result beside the total number of starts for the year of 160,000 and consider the cost to the taxpayer. In my opinion that is a substantial and continuing response to that problem.
Incidentally, Vancouver was one of the cities where this assistance was required. We initially approved 892 units of social housing under this initiative for the greater Vancouver area. We discovered before long that with a vacancy rate of .4 further action was required. As a result, a month ago we approved an additional 800 units to help meet this critical shortage.
As hon. members know and have touched upon, in the budget the minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) reintroduced MURB assistance. It has been suggested that the starts which are generated by that will not be picked up by the private sector. My information from the private sector is to the contrary, and I have seen in announcements from the province of British Columbia through its minister of housing, and the minister responsible for housing in the province of Ontario, that both those provincial governments are considering an add-on to that initiative by the federal government so that we can address jointly again the question of the housing needs of low or moderate income Canadians in those areas where we all recognize that there has been a shift and the markets are tight, especially in the rental market area.
I would like to turn to another matter which bears mentioning. Shortly after the Conservatives formed the government in
January 14, 1981

1979, they turned their attention to the possibility of privatizing some or all of CMHC. We know that this proposal resulted in the document known as the Matthews report, which has received considerable publicity.
Many people were led to believe, and I think incorrectly, that CMHC was beset by serious problems which threatened its doom. The interesting thing to me is that in the Matthews report those provisions which addressed the issues were not referred to. For example a passage in the report reads:
A very significant factor in the outlook for the eighties is the enormous past accomplishments of the housing industry, the financial industry, and government. Together these groups have produced a virtually unsurpassed stock of housing for Canadians, with almost no significant pool of unsatisfied housing requirements.
It seems to me that what is being said here-and I address the point-is that the CMHC has helped to do a good job. To argue that because it has done a good job, it should cease its operations-1 think the implication in the report was that CMHC was not required any further-does not make sense. If CMHC has done a great job, which is my experience in the ministry-its expertise and its reputation for concern in housing, not only in the financial sense but in the social sense are known-the argument is all the stronger for ensuring that it continue to be a valuable instrument to the government and to Canadians as we address the question of housing in the 1980s.
Reference has been made to the mortgage deductibility plan of the official opposition. The hon. member for Simcoe North did not say that it addressed home owners. It did not address the needs of tenants, nor did it address what was perceived to be the most pressing problem at that time, that is, the rental shortage. The plan was inequitable. I am addressing the challenge of the hon. member in telling him what was wrong with the program. It has been demonstrated, and it has been the experience in countries such as the United States which have adopted the program, that it benefited those in the high tax brackets more than people who live in the area of the hon. member himself, an area which needs addressing at this time.
I think it can be stated fairly that over the years federal policies have helped to provide Canadians with a good and an adequate supply of housing at affordable prices. We have consistently followed directions which have provided housing for people who could not compete on the open market, and I have referred to them a number of times in my comments.
In conclusion I should like to indicate that in assuming responsibility for CMHC, I have had the opportunity of meeting with all of the provincial ministers of housing, with numerous local elected officials and local politicians from all parts of Canada. 1 am looking forward to their continued input and to hearing their opinions at the conference to which the hon. member for Vancouver East alluded, which will be held here in March. The conference will have an agenda which will be open to a wide spectrum of concerns of many Canadians, not just those identified by the hon. member in her remarks. We have asked that the organizers of the conference ensure adequate representation from the consumers and from people
Housing
from other sectors, such as producers and officials at the provincial and municipal levels. I am confident that that forum will provide a current review on the state of housing and the prospects for the 1980s which will be useful to the government in continuing its realistic and, I think, responsive role in co-operation with all others who are concerned about meeting the housing needs of Canadians.
I should like to comment now on another point raised by the hon. member for Simcoe North in respect of the Community Services Contribution Program. For the sake of the record I think I should indicate that the government is committed to the continuation of payments under that program until March, 1982, which commits the federal government to some $400 million toward the provision of services to municipalities and provinces which are their traditional responsibilities. That $400 million is a sum of money which normally and traditionally provinces and municipalities would have to provide themselves. This program will be continued until March of 1982. It is my expectation and hope that, with the co-operation and the input of, for example, the housing conference to which I have referred, the government will consider the provision of alternatives to shelter allowance. I am confident that the record of this government, in co-operation with CMHC, which has demonstrated its concern for addressing the housing needs of Canada in the financial and social areas, will continue to be a very good one.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to deal with the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), with respect to this government's incompetent housing policies. Last December, during the special debate on the economy, I stated that the government was totally estranged from all principles save one, the principle of power.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that the government has policies, albeit incompetent policies, which, he states in his motion:
-have led directly to soaring housing costs, plummeting housing starts, and critically low vacancy rates.
There can be no argument as to the existence of soaring housing costs, plummeting housing starts, and critically low vacancy rates. One has only to look to the Kerrisdale district in my riding to see what is happening to housing costs. One has only to look at the numbers that the minister has brought forward. By the way, I thought 1 heard him say that the target forecast by the Economic Council of Canada was for 180,000 housing starts which the minister thought was pretty good. On the other hand, the CMHC estimates for 1981 indicate there will be 264,000 houses needed. That is a shortfall, or a difference of opinion of some 84,000 units. There will be some very disappointed people this year.
The motion goes on to refer to critically low vacancy rates. I see that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) has left the House. 1 heard her telling us some very capitalistic

January 14, 1981
Housing
stories about herself and about the situation in Vancouver East, how she had purchased a house some time ago for S9.000 which is now worth something like $160,000. She also spoke about land banks. We have had that experience and it can be proven what a disaster land banks are and how they simply give governments the power to confer benefits upon their friends. We do not need land banks; we need people to buy land and to develop it and use it, not to bank it. That is what land in the housing market is for.
I should like to ask the member for Vancouver East, or any other Canadian, if they would be willing to sell their own house to foreigners. I heard the hon. member for Vancouver East mention that we should not allow foreigners to buy real estate in Canada. I wonder whether the member would sell her house to a foreigner. In the interests of providing cheaper housing, I wonder whether she would sell her house for less than market value. She told us about the beautiful capital gain she made. I wonder whether the hon. member for Vancouver East would like to pay tax on her capital gain or will take advantage of the proposals and avoid that tax.
I wonder if the hon. member for Vancouver East or any of her colleagues would consider themselves speculators because they happened to buy houses. After all, we would all be in that position if we own houses and happen to sell them for more; we would be guilty of being speculators. Yet the hon. member for Vancouver East and her colleagues all voted against a policy which the Conservative government put forth to provide relief through a mortgage interest and property tax credit scheme.
Vacancy rates have also been mentioned. I should like to refer to a rates list which was put out by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It indicates the vacancy rates on privately initiated units, including newly completed units available for rent, from 1978 to 1980. The next sheet shows a series of worse rates if newly completed buildings are excluded. When I say "worse", I mean lower vacancies. There are no less than seven metropolitan areas in Canada which in October,
1980, had vacancy rates of less than one per cent. The highest shown in any place is 5.8 per cent in Hull, although when that is combined with Ottawa it would be 4 per cent. Also there was Winnipeg and Windsor. Of course Windsor is a special case right now. In any event, only three places have over 5 per cent vacancy rates, and in all places, except those with vacancy rates below one per cent, the vacancy rates are falling.
We can trace the roots of the housing crisis back to 1971 when it really started in earnest after the government changed the generally accepted accounting principles and decreed that a loss on rental housing was not deductible from other income for tax purposes. But the government indicated that if one invested in a factory or a business and incurred a loss, then of course one could still deduct that from other income. How unfair to the taxpayers, how unfair to the tenants who were enjoying a goodly supply of rental housing in those days!
The clear and obvious result of this government action was a lack of investment in housing by high income Canadians.
Therefore, as a result of that there are now higher rents. In fact we got higher rents then. Because of higher rents and pressure on local and provincial governments in many areas of Canada we got rent controls.
However, the recent reintroduction of the MURB tax shelter was an attempt to correct this wrong and to attract once again the sector which was investing in housing into the housing market once again. It is not a sop to the rich, as my friend to the left tried to say. In saying that kind of thing, it would seem that my friends to the left do not want housing for their constituents. It is obvious. They have said again today that the government is not satisfying their needs. So, let us try the private sector and give them a little encouragement.
This action in 1971 was followed by various programs introduced by the government. There was AHOP which is interestingly enough known as "A FLOP" in some quarters. The hon. member for Simcoe North mentioned what a disaster AHOP was. But there will be 40,000 Canadian home owners in 1981 seeking to renew their AHOP mortgages. Most of them will probably walk away from their houses instead of renewing their mortgages. In 1982-83 there will be a further
46,000	Canadians wanting to renew their mortgages.
Then the government gave us ARP. It was a nice program which provided some housing. But interestingly enough, it absolutely required the continuation of high inflation rates in order to prevent the owners and builders of these developments from going bankrupt. Any policy which absolutely requires a continuing high rate of inflation is doomed. I suspect that ARP was doomed.
Then they gave us RRAP to help restore old housing in older areas of cities, because it was recognized that they were still good units. That resulted in huge rip-offs of elderly and unsuspecting home owners who wanted to have work done. Proper inspections were not conducted, and I have files in my office of problems created by RRAP.
The then minister of finance, Mr. Turner, gave us RHOSP which was supposed to encourage housing and stimulate the housing industry. All it really did was defer or discourage the purchase of a house at this point, because if one soon bought a house in Canada, one could not take advantage of the program. It was only if one deferred one's purchase for ten years that one could take advantage of RHOSP. We can look at what has happened to anyone who has taken advantage of this program. They may have received a few tax free dollars out of their RHOSPs, but they will not be able to buy much of a house with the funds now.
Then they gave us something called COOP. I guess it was co-op, really. It was a CMHC scheme for financing town houses in high cost areas, but one could not get into one of them unless one earned over $30,000 per year. Well, where is the aid for Canadian home owners in need? It is ridiculous.
Over the last decade CMHC made demands on the industry to continue to improve its requirements, so that finally costs were driven up. Now there are many cases where the 25 per cent income limit which used to be acceptable to CMHC
January 14, 1981

cannot be met. People now pay far more than a quarter of their income toward shelter costs. All these Liberal policies worked just as well as a spanner tossed into a machine works.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a situation right here in Ottawa. Before I came here eight years ago, the Lebreton Flats area was cleared of what was then reasonably priced housing. It was held vacant by the government for ten years before any redevelopment was started on that site.
In the thirty-first Parliament the Progressive Conservative government proposed forward-looking policies such as mortgage interest and property tax credits. Their passage was shot down by members opposite and members to my left who do not care about providing housing for Canadians who need it. Those two groups defeated the budget proposals of the Clark government. Our budget was acknowledged by millions to be the first honest budget in over a decade, one which would have started Canada on the road to economic recovery.

Well then, what is to be done, Mr. Speaker?

What to do?

Eight years ago, in 1973, I stated in this House that I had a quick solution to the government's problem in the housing industry: "Get out of it!"

Get out of the industry. At that time the minister, Mr. Basford, took my advice in a perverted kind of way. He had the now Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation buy an industrial site in the city of Vancouver. It was 37 acres called Granville Island in the heart of his riding. He had the corporation move out the light industry which was there to make way for a park. Of course he hired the former president of the British Columbia Liberal party to be the director of that project. This island had nothing to do with housing or mortgages, but CMHC owns this island yet. The minister is looking embarrassed, I hope.
On this site they built stores which were rented in competition with other landlords renting stores. So we had merchants with subsidized rents, who were competing with merchants in other areas who were paying normal rents and paying the very taxes which were being used to subsidize these other merchants. We had a commercial area over there where people were paying full costs, customers were paying the full price, and over here we had subsidized rents. It is a ridiculous situation, especially for a supposed housing corporation.
This is a people place just waiting for a fire or other disaster to happen. There are stores, theatres and restaurants on this 37-acre island, which is at the end of a two-lane causeway. 1 shudder to think what will happen when we have a good fire going there. In Vancouver we call Granville Island "Basford's
Housing
boondoggle". Mr. Speaker, that is what that housing minister did to solve the question in Vancouver.
I think it is interesting that the present housing minister said in his remarks, "Vancouver, incidentally". Mr. Speaker, I hope that was a Freudian slip. But it is a typical display of the attitude of this government-"Vancouver, incidentally". Then he bragged to the House about having provided nearly 2,000 housing units. Well, there are individual companies and individual families who have provided, through the private sector, more than that number of units. I do not think it is anything to be proud of. On his own housing starts information it is truly a drop in the bucket.
At the same time as I was telling this former minister to get out of the housing industry, my former leader, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, was urging the government to wind up the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. Apparently they saw the error of their ways since, in fact, that ministry has now been eliminated. I do not know that all of its functions have disappeared, but that is what we can work toward.
Why is there a housing shortage in Canada, Mr. Speaker? Canadians certainly have the capacity to build an adequate supply of housing for Canadians. In fact we have an overcapacity under the present climate, and never have more Canadian entrepreneurs been building more homes for more Americans than ever before. What a situation! Now, because of even more government interference on another scale, we are watching the oil rigs following the entrepreneurs all the way to the border so that they can find oil for Americans, in greater numbers than ever before.
Affordable housing, Mr. Speaker, went up the flue with the value of the Canadian dollar. If I had more time, or if this was an economic debate, I could explain what happened with respect to housing and inflation, and interest rates and inflation. But perhaps others will contribute that to this debate.
We have the situation right now where rents are cheap in the industry. That is no accident, they are cheap because of rent controls. That was a two-edged favour that governments, in general, did for tenants. It made it easier for tenants. If you have an apartment you have got controlled rent, and it is fairly cheap. Even if your apartment is not under controls then you are probably competing with some that are. But the hooker is there are not any apartments available-less than 1 per cent in many places in Canada. So it is harder for the tenants because of these actions which governments have taken.
I say rents are cheap, Mr. Speaker. I can give as examples two apartments, one a rental apartment and one a condominium, let us say a nice two-bedroom condominium apartment in a city in Canada today priced at $100,000. If a person buys a condominium apartment for $100,000 with $20,000 down, his carrying costs will be over $1,300 a month, ignoring his $20,000 down payment. A similar apartment in comparable condition can be rented in any comparable city for half that amount because of these mixed up policies of various governments.

January 14, 1981
Housing
Ever since 1 came to Ottawa eight years ago people have been talking about the housing crisis. Of course it is a nice diversion for the government because it is nebulous. There is no housing problem in Canada today-there is a money problem. Mr. Speaker, if you have enough money you can buy anything or you can rent anything. You can go to Vancouver Quadra and I can show you a nice mansion you can buy for $1.2 million. I do not know if that will be in your budget. Or you can buy an adequate home for half a million dollars, or you can go into an older part of Kerrisdale and get a storey and a half older home for $280,000. The member for Vancouver East was telling us about her $160,000 house in what used to be the poorer area of town-the NDP section. They are buying 33-foot lots over there, Mr. Speaker, for over $100,000. In the western part of Vancouver Centre riding they are knocking down $240,000 houses so they can build two condominiums on those lots. Therefore, the land costs are $125,000 per unit.
1 looked up to see what I had said a few years ago. I just want to quote a couple of paragraphs from a speech 1 made here before. Not too many people quote me, and I like to do it once in a while. It was at a time when I was telling the government it should get out of the housing business. I said that the government could help us a lot by leaving us alone in our housing problems. This is what I said:
Disband the bureaucracies, cut taxes, and let us solve our own problems, with the interference of our local or provincial governments if we choose, but without federal interference, without federal bureaucrats taking our money from us in taxes and spending it as they want it spent rather than as we want it spent.
Later in the same speech I said this:
If it is really our desire to raise the material standard of living of poor people, rather than push them around and run their lives, then we should abandon the government policies that impoverish them. In place of the present mess of welfare schemes and housing schemes, we should give the poor people the cash presently spent on these things and let the poor people spend the cash in the ways that give them the greatest satisfaction. To build our preferred type of housing for the poor people and to hire thousands of bureaucrats to oversee them in these ghettos is wasteful.
My friends to the left would have the state take over the job more completely. I think that is a truism. As I said in my speech:
-the state is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else;-
Later on I said:
-government. . . can destroy but not create, can build nothing of itself but can seize only what others have created;-
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this government could save itself a lot of problems and it could save Canadian home owners and tenants a great deal of grief if it would get out of the housing industry. Then the government could concentrate on real federal problems which government should be considering, like inflation, unemployment, and defence.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) for giving a member from Quebec
the opportunity to say just how pleased we are with the housing policy of this government, not that it cannot be improved, of course, but I do feel that, at the present time, as a Liberal member from Quebec, I welcome the housing policy of our government and would like to repeat the remarks I made during the debate on Bill C-20 to the effect that, according to the figures put out by the well-known organization called the OECD, Canada ranks first in terms of the ratio of people per room. Their standards are recognized internationally; Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg and other countries are covered in that study. We must recognize as well that Canada ranked first, again according to the figure of the OECD for 1980, in terms of housing units made available to Canadians.
As far as available housing is concerned, I suspect my hon. colleague is mistaken in his interpretation of Canadian problems. There may be housing problems in some cities, some areas, but those problems are in the process of being solved thanks to the wise policy of the minister; still I feel that the problems are merely local. If we look at Canada as a whole, that is, if we look at it from the point of view of federal MPs, we realize that Canadians in fact have a very high standard of housing.
For my part, 1 can only rejoice in the fact that in the riding of Mercier several new starts have been made in the last few months, and that, in the Montreal area, generally speaking, the densification program, that is, the construction of 10,000 units, is now in progress; the city of Montreal, as well as the federal authorities, of course, say they are very pleased with the program that is now under way in a metropolitan area that is comparable to Vancouver and Toronto. In that respect, we certainly have no reason to complain, as representatives of the Montreal area, about the policy of the minister responsible for housing.
In any event, I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to invite those of my colleagues who may be experiencing temporary difficulties in their areas, to spend some time in Montreal since we can offer them the advantage of housing that is comfortable, of excellent quality and at reasonable prices. It might perhaps foster mutual understanding amongst Canadians. I invite them to come and visit the province of Quebec. Our housing supply is quite adequate, and they could perhaps enjoy temporarily another way of life, of leisure, until such time as the situation improves in their own areas.
As members of Parliament, we must recognize that there are problems, that some developing cities actually suffer from shortages. But it must be stressed that the problem is localized and that remedial action is being taken.
In Quebec, we have had a few problems, it cannot be denied. My colleagues are no doubt aware of the farm zoning act; in any event, the only Quebec opposition member has certainly
January 14, 1981

heard about it and will no doubt have to speak to it in a coming election campaign. That act gave rise to certain problems with respect to housing, that is, land speculation, and has slowed down development in the outlying areas of Montreal. However, I must add that in Quebec we have not experienced the same serious and extensive land speculation problems as other provinces. I think my colleagues would be dishonest if they were to blame the federal government for such speculation. They should ask the provincial rather than the federal authorities to control such speculation.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) or the hon. member for Simcoe North would be well advised, 1 think, Mr. Speaker, to discuss with provincial representatives the increased costs and the shameless land speculation. The greater part of the cost of these houses or housing units consists of land costs. How can a country as vast as Canada suffer from a lack of land, Mr. Speaker? The only answer is speculation.
It is understandable that Switzerland, because of its size, should experience such a situation, but as representatives of the federal government, we find it astonishing that Canada, the second largest country in the world, should be short of land. And I do not think that the answer to the speculation problem is a housing policy. Our friends opposite, the Progressive Conservatives who are also quite chummy with the private sector might be well advised perhaps to have some private talks with their colleagues especially on the matter of those reasonable profits about which my honourable colleague from Vancouver East could tell them a lot because if her property went up from $9,000 to $150,000, I am wondering if in all honesty any true New Democrat could sell his house at such an exorbitant price and make such unreasonable profits. Therefore I wonder why in those provinces with a New Democratic representation no action is taken to put an end to such activities on the part of speculators, on the part of a sector of private enterprise that sometimes takes advantage of the consumers. 1 do not think, Mr. Speaker, that public funds contributed to by all taxpayers across Canada should be used to quench the greed of these speculators.
On the other end, Mr. Speaker, coming back to the subject of housing and the allegations contained in the resolution of my colleague from Simcoe I must say that at the present time, the policy of this government just as before, is geared to helping people become owners of a reasonably-priced good quality home.
However, I do not believe that a reasonable policy should promote access to housing at any price, at the expense of other taxpayers and underprivileged Canadians. Mr. Speaker, we must recognize the fact that some people are less privileged than others as far as housing is concerned. As I pointed out in this House in November, 1979, there are really three groups in our society with special housing problems. These include, first of all, the Indians or the native people of Canada who have
Housing
benefited from special programs. I should add that, in my opinion, the minister is well aware of this situation and in co-operation with his colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), he developed specific programs and policies on behalf of these people as soon as the Liberal party regained power. There are two more groups which are just as badly off in my opinion, namely, low-income women with dependants and senior citizens, who both have housing problems. I believe that this government is aware of their plight.
I know that considerable efforts have been made by most Canadians to help these groups. More work will have to be done, but I believe that this can come about only with the co-operation of the provincial governments. These are social measures. Therefore, if we want to stay within the spirit of federalism, I think all action in this area should be taken with the co-operation of the provinces.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to report that the Mercier constituency has had a very successful experience with co-operative housing. This has allowed and will continue to allow low wage earners to purchase property at reasonable prices and to become home owners, in multiple housing projects, it must be admitted, but they can still live in their own homes even though they do not have the high incomes mentioned by my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back now to the question of housing needs in Canada. Should we go on building to meet the needs of industry or of the people? As hon. members are certainly aware, there has been a decrease in the birth rate, our population is getting smaller and our way of life has changed. In this regard, we have on the one hand greater mobility and on the other hand, smaller families than ten or 20 years ago, and as a result of a declining birth rate, an aging population.
Therefore I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a wise housing policy should reflect these demographic phenomena and meet a new demand, and I think that the minister is very conscious of these facts. There is no doubt in my mind that as a former mayor he will be able to meet the demand by promoting the necessary programs. On the other hand, I am somewhat surprised that my colleague from Simcoe North should mention a sudden shortage and call this debate on housing policy, even though 1 welcome this opportunity to provide information to the Canadian public. 1 would like to point out to the hon. member that, in 1978, we had just about the same shortages, the same increase, and that over the last ten years, nine of the 20 surveys which the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation conducts twice a year, or about 50 per cent of them, have shown the same results. The situation is therefore not unusual. It is certainly not alarming, and 1 would like people to know that, although we are now debating this issue quite calmly and with great interest, there is no reason to sound the alarm for the future because, considering the problems now facing the

January 14, 1981
Housing
world economy, we cannot truthfully say the problem of housing in Canada is crucial. In fact, for the sake of my colleague from Vancouver East I would like to mention that we have received encouraging figures showing that there has been a recovery in areas formerly plagued with real shortages. This means that in cities such as Vancouver, between January and December the building activity increased 40 per cent. In Victoria the increase was 200 per cent. And somewhere else where the demand is greater it was up 133 per cent. According to my colleague from Simcoe North, a greater demand is supposed to put pressure on prices, push up prices of housing units and put them out of reach of the people. It would seem that Canadians can afford to buy those houses, since in areas where few housing units are available a high level of building activity is recorded. Just the same, for the benefit of my colleague from Toronto, I would like to point out a few facts from an organization which he knows quite well, 1 think, since there are two members from Toronto. 1 refer to the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. I am repeating myself somewhat, Mr. Speaker, since those facts confirm our apprehensions.
Demographics, family formation ... is predicted by all forecasters to bring about a widespread reduction in total demand for housing by the middle of the next decade-
And later:
-it's inevitable that by the mid-1980's, demand for housing will be less over all. In short, the peak has passed.

We are not the only ones to be aware of the situation which is due to a falling birth-rate, to a decrease in family sizes, new marriages and new people coming into the market to purchase new houses and 1 think that the department, in its wisdom, meets the demand. I did not hear my colleague suggest solutions which without increasing the deficit would not cost anything to the taxpayers. The only imaginative solution found by our colleagues, which will surely bring back to them some bitter memories, was the 18-cent tax on gas which I think was not very well received by the Canadian people. The $2 billion or $3 billion intended for the friends of the Progressive Conservative Party went up in smoke in December, 1979, and I think that their housing program did not meet the needs of Canadians who, of course, proved this assumption to be right.
Mr. Speaker, coming back to my colleague from Vancouver East who pointed out a while ago how many underprivileged groups should be provided with adequate housing and so on, 1 think that the government in its wisdom each year earmarks some funds, and the minister was quite explicit about it a while ago, to increase the number of low-cost housing units. The burden should, just the same, be acceptable to Canadians. We would like to provide all Canadians with first-rate housing but we will not be really in a position to do so before a few years.
In the meantime, I ask her to consider the cost of her proposals.
It seems that NDP members have a lot of imagination when it comes to new policies, but they have much less when they have to put a price tag on these policies. Therefore, ! suggest to them to consider, as an alternative, the solutions offered by our Creditiste colleagues who had a rather peculiar approach concerning the acquisition of funds. I do not see any other alternative, because for the time being 1 think our economy can in most cases meet the needs of Canadians but cannot surely provide a higher standard of living than any other country of the world. I think that our colleagues are just popularity seeking when they refer to some aid to Third World countries where people have nothing to eat and no roof over their heads. And I think that a responsible government should not incense Third World countries by spending moneys that might be deemed unreasonable in relation to the whole budget.
In my view, the Minister of Finance has proposed, with the support of the minister in charge of housing, very sound housing measures in his budget. And were I to believe that some people even outside my constituency-because I feel 1 can speak for the Canadian people-were experiencing a particular problem, I would be the first to rise and ask that such deficiencies be corrected. I do not think we have had that kind of shortage over these last ten years. Housing costs have increased less than the inflation rate, the existing housing supplies and the shortage are almost the same as they were ten years ago. In other words the shortage fluctuated. We have always responded to these shortages, which means that they will be made up.
In conclusion, I hope that land will become available in provinces other than Quebec at more reasonable prices. I feel that we should urge our colleagues from those provinces to look into these matters along with their provincial counterparts. I for one am ready to discuss this with them.
I thank the minister for his excellent policies and for the opportunity he has given me to exchange views with my colleagues on an issue of national significance.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in the debate today and to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). We are debating an opposition motion which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government for its incompetent housing policies, which have led directly to soaring housing costs, plummeting housing starts, and critically low vacancy rates.
Before I get into the meat of my remarks, I should like to touch upon a couple of items raised first of all by the minister and secondly by the hon. member for Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette). I know that the hon. member for Mercier will be pleased to learn that there is at least one constituent from Mercier watching her this afternoon. The housing starts in the riding of Mercier that she and this government were taking credit for were in fact instigated by TUnion Nationale govern-
January 14, 1981

ment in the province of Quebec which subsidized the first $7,000 of the mortgages. One of the hon. member's constituents called in about this very quickly in order to set the record straight.
1 should like to thank the minister responsible for CMHC for the history lesson, much of which was contained in the organization's annual report of 1979. I know that David Mansur, the first president of CMHC, will be extremely proud of the minister and that history lesson that he gave.
I know that the housing critic for this party will echo my remarks when I say that we are pleased that a conference has been set for March. The agenda is wide-ranging and the conference is well planned. We on this side of the House hope it is successful and that the people of Canada can look forward to some very real results. I cannot support the view of the member of the NDP who suggested that the conference should be called immediately. This conference has been arranged and is ready to go, and I wish it all the best.
The right to own decent affordable housing has been a generally accepted principle in this country for a long time. That is until now. No one can argue that shelter is an absolute necessity. However, we are now faced with a housing problem. It could be far worse than the problems faced after World War II when CMHC was established in 1945. We are faced with policies of a government which cannot tell us that it really supports the fundamental right or freedom of every Canadian to acquire a home, to own property, a right which most Canadians have taken for granted.
At this time in our history when we are all concerned with the changes being recommended by the Liberal government, fundamental changes to our nation, the right to private ownership of property is being eroded by a government that will not give us the guarantee of private ownership in writing, but whose floating bank rate policy has skyrocketed interest rates to unprecedented heights making the purchase of a simple home virtually impossible for most young Canadians.
It was once considered government policy to encourage and stimulate housing production. I believe that was the initial mandate given to CMHC. It was once policy that CMHC should concern itself with social housing needs. To some extent, I admit that progress has been made. Over the Christmas break I spent a delightful morning at one of the senior citizens' residents put up by the Ontario Housing Corporation and financed by CMHC. Those people are well housed and enjoy their residence. I had a high regard for the role which CMHC has played in the housing field, until recently. However, in its role as an agency of federal social policy on shelter, it has failed miserably. Whether this failure is due to the added burden placed on it or whether the government just cannot decide whether the corporation should be a financial institution, a social agency or a real estate brokerage firm, I am not sure. The minister responsible for housing has repeatedly said that it is not a function of government to build houses or apartment buildings. Is it the function of the government to depress the construction and real estate industries?
Housing
CMHC is quickly becoming very large in the real estate business. As of June, 1980, by the minister's figures, CMHC had on hand more than 36,000 housing units across the country. Roughly 16,000 units were acquired just last year. If the June figures are any indication, I am sure it has probably picked up another 10,000 units by now. It makes CMHC a very large property owner, property it just cannot afford to carry or own. CMHC lost about a half a billion dollars in 1979. We do not know yet what it lost in 1980. But the lack of national housing plans just allows this condition to worsen.
Just for a moment, let us go back to the problem of affordability. Owning a home was once the dream of most Canadians. 1 believe it still is. Public opinion polls show that 90 per cent of young Canadians want to own their own homes, but that dream is becoming a nightmare.
For example, can a family with an average income of $22,000-obviously one with both husband and wife working-afford to buy a home at an average cost in metropolitan Toronto of $98,000-with which the minister is familiar- carrying a first-mortgage interest rate of at least 15.25 per cent? That was the lowest rate I could find today, and that is just gambling on a one-year term.
The hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) in his role of housing critic just a short time ago felt that 14 per cent interest rates were high and that 30 per cent of income allotted for shelter cost was too high. How does the minister feel about 15.5 per cent and 16 per cent interest rates, and roughly 40 per cent to 50 per cent of income being spent on the most basic housing? Where is the minister now? Why is he not speaking out in favour of the young people who cannot afford a home?
There is another fellow who sits over there in the front row. I am speaking of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). He was the finance critic when he sat in opposition. I sat with him on the Commons finance committee. I was there on October 30 when he made his profound statement. At the time he was talking about a 14 per cent prime interest rate. He said:
-it will mean the loss of thousands of jobs, increases in the cost of living, it will bring the housing industry to a halt, it will put housing beyond the reach of most middle and lower-income Canadians, it will hurt small business and it will hurt farmers, and add to the cost of food.
Where is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce now?


An hon. Member:: He was going to resign.


John Horton McDermid: That is right. We watched that infamous program where he said "if interest rates go up, I will resign". He is still sitting there, and I hope the people in Windsor remember that.
An NHA mortgage in 1975 averaged 10.4 per cent. If that mortgage were renegotiated today, the home owner would be looking at roughly increased mortgage payments of approximately 25 per cent. The financial shock which these increases cause on the family turns their dreams into hideous nightmares. For example, a $50,000 mortgage at 10.4 per cent

January 14, 1981
Housing
amortized over 20 years costs $483.77 per month in interest and principal. Today at 15.25 per cent, that same mortgage with the same term costs $650.54. That is a $167 increase, and this government says, "They are earning more money now. They can afford to pay". Except the government does not figure on people having families, and that is an added cost. The cost of fuel has risen along with all other costs. It just does not add up. It costs almost $200 more a month for the same mortgage.
We all know about AHOP. I have discussed this topic many times in the House, as has my colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North who was the official opposition's critic for housing, and a number of other members in the House. It is not "a-hope". It is AHOP. The minister hopes it will disappear; I know that, but it will not. You have got it, and you will have to face it. The minister has come up with a little scheme of helping cases of hardship. Up to December, in the Toronto area, only 55 applications had been made. Each individual has to bow down to the local CMHC manager and say, "Please, sir, may 1 have a little grant from you?" That is very demeaning. The minister has been very careful in saying that he will handle each case on an individual basis. That is just like giving band-aids. He is not looking at the problem at all. He is not really caring about those people who are having one very tough time. We hear words such as, "Come and see me, and I will give you a little money. I will see what I have here and I will see if I can help you out on an individual basis." I have been hammering away at this with the minister for a very long time. The inaction has been very obvious.
The AHOP program looked extremely good on paper when it was brought in. But something this government continues to do with programs it brings in is to forget the human element. A program looks great on paper. It appears super when the scribes up over the Speaker's throne write about it. The press release looks fantastic. However, the government forgets the human element. It does not look at people. It takes them out of everything.
Earlier the minister said that they are looking at the problem, or that they are monitoring the situation. CMHC is now selling vacant units in the region of Peel, which I partially represent, for $5,000 to $8,000 less than the original home owners paid for them a few years ago. This is a vibrant real estate market in a metropolitan area. It is a suburban area where costs have gone up for those units, yet they are being sold at $8,000 less than was originally paid for them.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Who is paying the difference?


John Horton McDermid: We know who is paying the difference. That is why they are walking away. The minister knows that. He cannot fool the people any more. There are all kinds of vacancies there. It is easier to walk away than renegotiate a loan or go on your knees to CMHC asking for a little more to help you out. Walking away is easier and much cheaper than foreclosure.
I hope the minister will come out of the housing conference with a true national housing policy, one the urban centres can latch on to. One problem is that metropolitan housing authorities cannot count on the government. They do not know if next year they will get any money. Social housing has been provided through their housing departments, but they do not know whether they will get any aid. It is at the whim of the minister. We have seen evidence of this time and time again.
Low and moderate income housing is desperately needed in this country. It has been provided in metropolitan areas up until now, but they cannot plan any longer. There is no housing planning, no program whereby they can say, "This is what we are going to do one, two, three years down the road." Until something like that is in place, we will continue with the housing mess than we now find in Canada. I urge the minister to come out of that conference with a national housing plan which makes sense.
New housing starts are down. I do not have to repeat the figure. The minister knows that in 1980 they were down to
160,000	from almost 200,000 in 1979. The estimated requirement was 260,000. There has been a tremendous shortfall. With housing starts running lower than required, the cost of housing is increasing. Property taxes are increasing. Double digit inflation and energy costs are affecting family incomes. It is time for the government to take a long hard look at how it can help these home owners.
I listened earlier to criticism of the mortgage interest and property tax credit program. I heard it said that that would not help the renters. Renters are already being helped. The landlord who owns a building can write off the interest on his mortgage now as a business expense. He can write off the property tax as a business expense. Therefore, renters are now getting that benefit, and have been getting it for a number of years. They receive a reduced rent in that way. We say let's help the young people get into housing now.
The minister says this is a program for the wealthy. That is utter nonsense. Wealthy people do not have mortgages on their homes. They have paid them off. Believe me, it is the desire of every person to pay off his mortgage. If a wealthy person does have a home mortgage, you can bet your boots his money has gone into investments and the interest can be written off as a business expense. Therefore, the rich are now being helped, so don't hand the Canadian public that baloney. They will not buy it.
I want the minister to come to the riding of Brampton-Georgetown and tell that to the young people who want to buy homes. The program introduced by the Progressive Conservatives which the NDP and the Liberals defeated, shot right down, would have reduced interest rates by 3 per cent. That would have allowed another group of young people to qualify for mortgages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate this afternoon. Maybe because I
January 14, 1981

have a reputation of not always saying good things about the government, there will be some credibility to the remarks I am going to make. 1 personally am very proud, and 1 say this very sincerely, of the efforts of this and previous governments in the past 12 years in the housing field in this country.
I, as a builder and contractor, could sing the blues about the state of the construction industry today. But that does not get away from the fact that housing starts last year, 1980, and let's put this into perspective, dropped 18 per cent. The figures for December have just been released. There was an 18 per cent drop in a year when everybody acknowledges interest rates were high. Therefore, there was a deterrent to people finding mortgages for new housing. However, using the figure quoted by the previous speaker of 160,000 starts, if we compare that to our neighbour, the United States, I say thank God we are in Canada and thank God we have the policies we do in this country. Frankly, one of the reasons there may have been some reduction in housing construction in the last little while is because there was such a surge in housing construction in previous years.
There has been reference to AHOP, a program which I say very seriously I support 100 per cent. I support that program because it has provided housing for a very large number of persons who would not have been able to afford it without the support of that program. If, as a result, there has been a relatively small percentage of persons who have not been able to continue in their housing accommodation, and let's be blunt, at least for the period of time they lived in those houses they had housing they could afford. It was good housing. If they have had to walk away because their salaries have not increased as anticipated, it is one of the facts of life that we do not always get everything we want. At least we have assisted 19 persons for every one person who has had to walk away from his housing.
I want to come back in a minute to the cost of AHOP but, talking about availability of housing, I wish to put a few things on the record. I wonder if the opposition realizes that five miles from here one can buy a new three-bedroom house for $22,000. I am putting these figures on the record intentionally. Some will say, "But who wants to live five miles from here?" I am telling hon. members that some 30 years ago when I built my house, I had to build it some 25 miles outside Montreal because that was the only place I could find a piece of ground which was cheap enough in those days. I suggest that one of the problems today when people are looking at housing costs is that everyone expects to live in downtown Ottawa. Under those circumstances I say they should be prepared to pay the price. However, houses are there at reasonable prices if people want them.
While talking about new houses let me mention, for example, that on the south shore of Montreal one can buy a brand new pre-fab three bedroom house, equipped with a refrigerator and stove, for $34,000, with a 5 per cent down payment. What more could anyone want today? If one cannot buy the same
Housing
house in Edmonton, then I say, "Too bad". I know what is going on there. We know why prices are high, but another reason prices are so high in Alberta is that there has been a surge in building which has created a shortage of building tradesmen. As a result we have to bring into this country various construction tradesmen to work in the province of Alberta. One of the problems we have is that our construction worker is not necessarily mobile. Do I not know it? 1 live just outside Montreal, and I have waited precisely nine months for an electrician to do work in my house. I suggest that all is not that bad in the construction industry when one has to wait that period of time to get construction help.
I also want to mention that for those who perhaps cannot afford $22,000 or $34,000 for new housing, not very many miles from where I am standing right now, one can also buy partly finished houses. The exteriors are complete, but there is interior finishing to do. The cost of these houses is $14,000 to $18,000. I remember also some 30 years ago that when we wanted to build houses most of us had to take shells and finish the interiors ourselves. Some probably even had to build kitchen cupboards themselves. I suggest that people today are not prepared to build their own kitchen cupboards. In fact most expect everything to be finished, including the painting, the tiling, and even the carpeting on the floor. It is a question of what we want. Part of the reason prices have increased substantially is that people have demanded more in their housing.
1 wanted to discuss the cost of AHOP a little bit, but before I get into that I wish to talk about mortgage insurance. Mortgage loan insurance was introduced in 1954 when the National Housing Act was amended to allow the chartered banks to enter the residential mortgage lending field. The banks had previously been excluded from direct mortgage lending under the terms of the Bank Act. By protecting the lender against the risk of loss, NHA mortgage insurance encourages approved lenders to invest in mortgages. Mortgage insurance fees paid by borrowers to CMHC are accumulated in a mortgage insurance reserve fund.
I want to talk about that fund in a minute.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A bankrupt fund.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I will repeat the comment of the hon. member opposite. He said, "A bankrupt fund". I want to refer specifically to that point. Lenders may claim against the fund in the event a borrower defaults on his payments and foreclosure results. The mortgage insurance fee is usually 1 per cent of the amount of the loan, and is included in the loan amount. Various ministers responsible for CMHC over the years will be able to substantiate that, over the years, I have suggested that the 1 per cent fee was too high and that it should be reduced to one-half of 1 per cent. The reason I did that was that there was relatively no risk, and a huge fund exceeding $600 million accumulated from the insurance premiums which were being paid on mortgages.
As late as the fall of last year, in writing to the minister responsible for CMHC, who spoke earlier this afternoon, I

January 14, 1981
Housing
said that I would vigorously oppose the imposition of any additional charge for regular mortgage insurance fees which should not be regarded as a source of funds to ease a liquidity problem caused by government policy.
The point is-and 1 go back now to AHOP-AHOP was a social program which was brought in, and the insurance fee was 1 per cent as in the case of regular housing. There has been acknowledged a far greater percentage of walk-aways under AHOP than in relation to regular mortgages. I have stated-and I mean this very sincerely-that this is a social cost, and it must be recognized as such. As a result I have opposed the increase of the insurance fee even on AHOP housing because I believe that, if it is a social program, then the 90 per cent or 95 per cent of those who successfully have used AHOP should not be paying an additional fee to cover those who, unfortunately, do not receive the increases in income which enable them to retain their houses.
The extent of the AHOP problem was certainly aggravated by economic difficulties, regional situations, and at least to some extent by related government policies. We know that this has certainly been the case in southern Ontario, and it certainly has been in Quebec where the provincial political situation has exerted an appreciable influence on the success of the program.
1 would like to read an extract from a letter which the minister was kind enough to send me about two months ago, regarding the mortgage insurance fees charged by CMHC. The extract reads as follows:
it would be inequitable for CMHC to raise its mortgage insurance premiums to recover the losses incurred in insuring loans under the Assisted Home Ownership Program and the Assisted Rental Program. As you point out in your letter, these were social programs and accordingly, their social cost should not be borne by those seeking National Housing Act mortgage insurance, but by the government. Unfortunately, as you know, no provision was made for this at the time these programs were introduced, with the result that the Mortgage Insurance Fund has already borne this risk and is now bearing the cost.
As far as normal insured loans are concerned, it is my view that the insurance premiums charged should reflect risk and the M1F should be operated on a self-financing risk-pooling basis. I do not believe that there is justification for taxpayers at large to subsidize the cost of mortgage insurance. It was in this context that the current study on the NHA insurance fee structure was initiated.
The gentleman across the way spoke about the huge losses to CMHC resulting from the acquisitions of these properties, but even-and the hon. member should read the newspapers occasionally-the newspaper columnists, who sometimes have a tendency to exaggerate, have talked about the cost last year as being in the order of $100 million. The figure may or may not be correct. 1 will not be the one to say that $100 million is not a very large sum of money, but 1 will put it in context. Fortunately as a result of policy-and it was not originally intended to be that way-we had a fund of some $600 million which was able to be used for the very purpose of helping a good social program to acquire these properties and at the present time to return these properties in an orderly fashion to the market.
While I am on the subject-and I cannot resist poking a finger at the opposition for its inconsistency-they may recall about two years ago when Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation was attempting to dispose of some of its portfolio on housing that there was one very large housing project in Montreal which was put up for tender. It made good sense to any one who looked at the figures that CMHC should sell that property at a loss. What was the reaction of the Tory party at that time? The spokesman for the Tory party stood up in this House and objected strongly to the fact that CMHC was trying to reduce its portfolio. The reason was simply that the spokesman for the official opposition was afraid that the rents of the persons occupying those apartments would increase when that building belonged in the private sector instead of being in the portfolio of CMHC.
1 call that plain hypocrisy. As a result the taxpayer-after all, this is CMHC absorbing this loss, and CMHC belongs to the taxpayer-had to absorb unnecessary costs because of the resistance put up at that time to the disposal of the portfolio when prices were reasonably good. 1 suggest that if CMHC had not met resistance in those days to selling off some of its housing, it would have been in an even better position than it is in today because, after all, its problem today is not loss, its problem is liquidity, and there must be a very clear distinction between these two figures. For the opposition to talk about a half billion dollar loss is absolutely garbage, and I have no other term for it.
I do want to put on the record, when talking about mortgage interest, a few statistics which might be of interest, and I address these remarks particularly to members of the NDP so they can think about what direction precisely they want to suggest the government take. I wish to read one paragraph from a letter to me from CMHC. These are figures provided by CMHC in January of 1981. It reads:
The total cost of a I per cent, one year subsidy for all new mortgages in 1981 for new housing with loans of up to $50,000 per unit is estimated to be $75 million. The total cost of a 1 per cent subsidy to home owners for first time renewal of mortgages on housing in 1981 is estimated at $100 million. If a 1 per cent subsidy were provided to all home owners renewing in 1981, the total cost is estimated to be $125 million.
Armed with those figures we should make up our minds on whether we feel that that is a direction in which we want to move. I realize the hardships experienced at present because of mortgage rates running at 15 per cent, but also today it is possible to get a one-year mortgage. In fact the one or two year mortgages are at lower rates than the five-year mortgages, and 1 feel it is not particularly risky to be taking a one-year mortgage at this time, even at the higher rate, in anticipation of reduced interest rates one year from now.
When I built my house I did not have any choice because 1 could not get a one-year mortgage. I had to get a five year mortgage. So 1 was stuck for five years, whether I liked it or not. A person taking a mortgage today has the option of taking a one-year or two-year mortgage. I found it most interesting that the interest rate on a one-year or two-year mortgage is half of 1 per cent or even 1 per cent less than the interest rate on a five-year mortgage.
January 14, 1981

1 want to discuss some of the efforts made by CMHC in trying to help the construction industry, and I will refer specifically to renovation work because, after all, as a builder, if 1 cannot get orders for new housing, I have to find something to do, and one of the things I can do is to look around for alternative construction work, and surely renovation is one of the things I can do.
The main support of the federal government to residential renovation is through the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, or RRAP. Here I want to insert a remark concerning what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell). There has been no reduction whatsoever in the allocation of funds for RRAP. It is completely untrue to make that suggestion. As a result, I suggest that a little more publicity would not do any more harm.
I will read from a letter from the minister responsible for CMHC as follows:
Under that program, CMHC may lend home owners in designated areas up to $10,000 for improvements. Of this amount, a maximum of $3,750 may be forgiven. For rental properties, landlords may obtain loans from private lenders for rehabilitation work, and are eligible for CMHC forgivable loans for up to 50 per cent of the cost of repairs to a maximum of $2,500 per unit. In the current year, some $250 million has been allocated for RRAP.
Then the construction industry must make sure that those funds are used. Home improvement loans made by bankers or approved instalment credit agencies may be guaranteed by the home improvement loan insurance fund established for that purpose by CMHC. The maximum loan amount is $10,000 and the insurance fee is 1 per cent of the principal borrowed, in other words, the same percentage fee as applies on regular mortgages.
There are many other areas in which CMHC has provided invaluable assistance, not only to the construction industry but to the home owner. 1 want to speak for a moment about a favourite program-

-the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, or RRAP. This assistance is intended for individuals, either owner-occupiers or lessors, rather than for large organizations or other levels of government. That is why the program does not lend itself to public advertising in the same way as the inauguration of a new apartment complex financed by the federal government.
The program is intended to provide financial assistance for home improvements to individuals or families of average income in designated rural areas. Assistance is provided in the form of loans of up to $10,000, of which a maximum of $3,500 may be forgiven, according to the applicant's income. In the province of Quebec, the program is administered by municipalities which are compensated for the administration costs incurred. This program has been a big success particularly in my riding where farmers have made good use of it. I commend the minister for it.
Housing

I should also like to make reference to CHIP because, after all, that program is also a construction program and it has been extremely successful. I received from the minister a month ago the notification that some three-quarters of a million cheques have been issued under this program. The assistance amounts to over a quarter of a billion dollars. I suggest once again that, for those of us who were in the construction industry, these are the means by which we try to get over the immediate problem of the drop in new housing construction. Since I am back to speaking about new housing construction, 1 should like to put on the record some rather interesting points concerning the number of houses that have been built in 1980.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks I should like to say that I am usually happy to hear from the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I know he was heavily involved in the construction industry. He has been out of the construction industry for some time and presumably he has been away from his own constituency for a long time, and that is too bad.
If he had talked to some of the young people who were conned into buying AHOP properties by the advertising put out by the corporation which gave them a hope and a dream that housing would go up in value and that their investment in real estate would rise in value, that it would give them a place to stand and it would give them security so that they could hold their heads high in the community, if he talked to them repossessions than I would dare to count, I wonder if the to leave them because they could not finance them because the corporation had polluted the marketplace so that the homes they bought could not be sold because there were so many new homes around because builders had received guarantee insurance on mortgages from CMHC to the extent that in some areas, particularly in the region of Peel, there are more repossessions than I would dare to count, I wonder if the would continue saying this was a great program. I wonder if he would say that it was great for these people to have homes for a short while. It is too bad we let them have their homes and their dreams for a short while and we allowed those dreams to be crushed.
The hon. member says that AHOP is a social policy. Is it the social policy of CMHC to con people into putting $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 investment down on a property and to have that investment washed away by marketing schemes allowing builders to over build in an area and thus to destroy the real estate market in that area? Is that social policy? Is that Liberal social policy? That is exactly the problem.
On Saturday a man by the name of Mr. Defrates came into my office. He purchased a condominium unit in the Streets-

January 14, 1981
Housing
ville area of Mississauga. It was a single family house condominium. There are 35 units in that condominium which were originally financed by National Trust. He paid $77,900 for his unit. He put $10,000 down and financed $67,900 on paper at 9.5 per cent. There was so much overbuilding in the area that the project- and 1 have seen it; it is a lovely project-just did not sell. As a matter of fact, of the 35 units developed, only seven were sold. Somewhere along the line the mortgage company rented another five units but the rest remained vacant, and the keys were turned over to CMHC in May, 1980.
CMHC took possession and completed the units. They were painted and decorated, the grass was cut, and they were left vacant. The units have since been appraised at $55,000, not the original $77,900. But even at that price the corporation will not put them on the market. The corporation will not even rent them. The corporation has left those houses vacant. They are being heated over this cold winter. The corporation shovels the snow over this cold winter. It uses the money of the people of Canada over this cold winter. The corporation has no program for the proper disposal of these properties on the real estate market it destroyed by handing out mortgage insurance for various developments which took place.
We can say that people make mistakes, that businesses make mistakes, and that corporations make mistakes. Surely CMHC can be excused for its mistakes, but in March, 1977, in the region of Peel, James Crozier, the director of social services, filed with CMHC a complete dossier and brief on the AHOP problem, the condominium problem and development problems which the corporation created in that region. One would have thought that with a local social service agency setting out clearly the problems which were occurring at that time, that CMHC would have ceased giving undertakings to insure. But, no, the game was ongoing. There was AHOP and the graduated payment plan mortgage scheme; various great schemes developed. We all know how many capital letters these fellows opposite combined in the management of this corporation. I have mentioned AHOP and GMPP or whatever it is, but there is NIP, RRAP, and others. All of these schemes were put together to do something, but certainly in the region of Peel they were criticized. The problem was pointed out in March, 1977, yet the corporation went ahead and continued to finance more and more building, and more and more families wound up getting sucked in and repossessions took place.
1 live in the southern part of Mississauga on the lake. Just outside the old town of Port Credit there is a development
called Balsam Woods which was started back in 1974. It is a townhouse condominium complex. They never could sell Balsam Woods. They sold the homes, nice modest condominium homes, but people walked away from them. So, they sold them again. Last year 1 was involved with my church in placing a Vietnamese family coming to Canada. CMHC gave me the opportunity to rent one of those units for that family. The manager of CMHC gave me the keys of four units. He said, "Don, take your pick". I visited the complex and I walked among beautiful homes which were lying vacant. Some of them have been rented, some of them have been sold, but the project never got off the ground. The project had insurance undertakings in 1974 and 1975, but it did not get off the ground. Yet, in 1977 and 1978 the corporation continued to give insurance undertakings. The problem is compounded by the high interest rate policy of the government.
Yesterday in the House the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) confirmed that high interest rate policy when he confirmed his policy of directing the Bank of Canada to use its treasury marketing system to keep the rate of interest high. So, the interest rates are 15 or 15.5 per cent, and there is no government policy to reduce them for home owners. They thought that our suggestion in the last Parliament of an interest tax credit would help the rich. It was designed-and everyone involved in housing knows it-to help young couples pay the interest costs. With interest rates at 15 per cent today, it would have meant 3.5 per cent off the cost of carrying a home. That was a help, but is there anything similar from this government?
The budget of CMHC is in excess of $1.1 billion. Certainly it would carry a great deal of the cost of helping young people with the interest on their mortgages. In many parts of Canada they do not need the Government of Canada in the housing business any longer. For example, the government of British Columbia has surpluses. It can finance housing in Vancouver. I know there is a problem in Vancouver, but British Columbia can do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 15, 1981