1981-12-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that today is the thirty-third anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that Canada is one of the foremost supporters of that Declaration, having ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Human rights which gives legal expression to that declaration; and in view of the continuing abuses of human rights in almost all parts of the world by both left wing and right wing regimes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist), the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) and the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith):
That this House condemn human rights abuses and urge all states to conform to the norms set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to ratify the International Covenant on Human Rights.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), but I must advise him that the motion is now carried and, therefore, debate cannot take place. If the hon. member had risen before, I could have allowed him to debate the matter.


Frederick John King: I had, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I apologize; I did not see the hon. member. Therefore, in order for the hon. member to be recognized, I must ask for the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick John King: Madam Speaker, I would be a more imposing figure had my parents fed me better when I was a youth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick John King: It is a signal honour which permits me to speak to this most important and timely motion.
Nothing in all of man's activities can even closely parallel in value those efforts put forth in response to human need wherever it occurs. No emotion can possibly equal the emotion involved in feeling at one with fellow men anywhere in the world who suffer individual or national abuse. No calling is of demonstratively more worth than the devotion to respect for human rights in our community, in our nation, and throughout the world.
No single occurrence should inflame our impatience, rebuke our indifference and galvanize us to action more than the oppression of man's spirit and the denial of man's freedoms. In this respect, we are our brother's keeper. Dr. Sakharov in response to Dr. Shcharansky's ordeal said:
Shcharansky represents us all.
This is never more true than when applied to all who suffer from national breaches to human rights.
There is no cause on earth more worthy of our attention as parliamentarians, more demanding of our vigilance, more precious in the sight of God and of man than that cause which pursues as its ultimate goal the enhancement of human and spiritual values and dignities. Wherever abuses occur in Canada, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in South America, it is man's spirit that is oppressed, the very substance of humanity which is threatened.
Favoured Canadians generally are the poorer for a lack of real appreciation for the value of human dignity. This lack of understanding results from being part of a most favoured society in a most blessed land, and this sheltering environment breeds a complacency which too easily absorbs us.
Canada has ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which gives legal expression to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Canada has acceded as well to Article 41 of the Covenant which allows a state, signatory to both the Covenant and the Article, to bring to the United Nations Human Rights Committee a charge that another "state party" has violated its obligations under the Covenant. Most significantly, Canada has ratified the optional protocol to the Covenant which recognizes the right of individuals to bring such charges to the Human Rights Committee. To date, only 12 of the 61 states

December 10, 1981
which have ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have acceded to Article 41.
Dr. Andrei Sakharov has said that "without human rights there is no detente ... no peace". That is true of nations and it is true of the individual. God grant that even we in Canada will have no peace-no personal peace-so long as the human spirit is denied liberty anywhere in the world. Dr. Sakharov also said that "the price of exercising your rights may well be imprisonment". That, indeed, has been his experience. May we, to the extent possible, share in his suffering.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, in rising to speak in support of the motion may I say that as we mark the 33rd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights today, I am pleased to report to this House on behalf of the government and, in particular, on behalf of my colleagues, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), and the minister responsible for the status of women, that Canada has taken yet a further step in its commitment to promote the full and practical enjoyment of human rights.
Canada has today, with the support of all provinces and territories, deposited at the United Nations its instrument of ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: In ratifying the Convention, all jurisdictions in Canada have indicated their commitment to take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country, and to ensure equal rights with men in the fields of education, employment and health care, and in the areas of marriage and the family.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I intended to move a somewhat similar motion. I am happy that hon. members of the House agree.
I want to use this occasion to congratulate the many organizations, particularly Amnesty International, for the work which they have done in acquainting the people of Canada and Members of Parliament with the violations of human rights that occur in so many parts of the world-in the east, the west, the north and the south-and for the urging they continue to give to us to do the kind of thing we are doing today.


Madam Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on the motion moved by Mr. King, seconded by Mr. Smith. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the recent discovery that the United States Environmental Protection Agency employed the services of an allegedly unqualified person to negotiate the clean-up agreement of the Hooker Chemical Company's Hyde Park dump, and in view of the fact that this discovery completely eradicates any integrity the proposed clean-up agreement may have had, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House call on the Minister of the Environment to demand that a new agreement to clean up the Hyde Park dump be negotiated and that he publicly state his support of the Pollution Probe position that the only foolproof method of protecting our environment from Hyde Park wastes is to excavate the contents of the dump.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister will know that members on this side of the House are very much concerned about people who have recently retired or are about to retire, because the November 12 budget greatly hurt many of those people.
Does the minister think it is fair that those Canadians who have spent a lifetime planning for their retirement by putting their money into a small business such as a farm, a fishing boat or a truck, should have part of that income they were counting on for retirement suddenly taken away on November 12? Does the minister think it is fair to take away part of the income of those who get severance or retirement pay, leaving them with less to live on in their retirement years? Would the minister tell us whether or not she thinks that is fair, and whether she has figures in her department which would indicate how many of these people may now have to be supported at least in part by the tax system in the future?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I think it would be more appropri-
December 10, 1981

ate to address a question on the budget to the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: -instead of trying to play one portfolio and responsibility against another. The member should know that the interpretation which he tries to give to the budget today is inaccurate and misleading to the public, as much as the one he tried Friday morning in the standing committee, when he affirmed that all bus tickets for senior citizens and other reduced transportation tickets which they were able to obtain throughout previous years, are to be taxed. I repeat that these affirmations are completely false.


APPLICATION OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX TO MARRIED COUPLES
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I invite people to read the minutes of that standing committee meeting. They are very interesting, particularly about what the minister does not know and which she should know.
I would ask the minister whether or not it is an accident in the budget that the principle is affirmed that adult Canadians are entitled to own a home as a part of their long-term retirement plan, that they can dispose of that asset without taxation to have something to live on in their retirement years, except for those Canadians who are married? They have half the right that those who are single, those who are divorced, those who live common law would have. Is that an accident of the budget which was not thought through, or is that part of Liberal policy that they would prefer to penalize those who are married and take half of that privilege away from them?


Monique Bégin: I can only repeat to the member that I know that he has been appointed social affairs critic. He has the various responsibilities completely mixed up. The right of a Canadian to own a home may touch social policies, but I am sorry, I am not familiar with that particular policy.


IMPACT ON PENSIONS AND GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENTS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the minister responsible for senior citizens and retired people has not really given the budget the kind of scrutiny that she perhaps should have before going to cabinet meetings.
In our system, those who work for the government or for a large company such as Imperial Oil, or the Bank of Canada, may belong to a pension plan. They can put quite a bit of their own money and their employers' money into it. But Canadians such as waitresses, cab drivers and others are stuck with trying to put their money into something like an RRSP. Those who are rich in society can put more in than can those who have no company pension plans. I would like to ask the minister if she thinks that is fair and what impact that might have over the long term for her department, respecting the pensions and guaranteed income supplements it must pay.
Oral Questions


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think the only point of information I can bring to the attention of the hon. member is to repeat what the intention of the budget is, namely, to bring about equity, to which I fully subscribe. In the past people with higher incomes have managed, albeit legally, not to pay their share for redistribution.
With regard to the fears the hon. member is trying to spread regarding pensions, the only thing I can add for his information is that all the elements of the pension system in Canada, including the ones mentioned by the hon. member, are under review by the Department of Finance and my department.


POSSIBLE IMPACT ON PAY INCREASE DEMANDS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. He will know that there are some 46,000 employees of airlines who receive a substantial travel benefit which is about to be taxed as a result of the budget. Similarly, there are 100,000 railway workers who have free travel, and that is about to be taxed. This free travel is the result of collective agreements. There are thousands of clerks and other employees throughout the country who work, for example, at Eaton's or Simpsons, and get a 20 per cent discount on sales. There is going to be an irresistable demand in future labour negotiations for inflationary and substantial pay hikes to compensate for the loss of these benefits because of taxation.
Will the minister acknowledge that there will be these irresistable demands for inflationary pay hikes? Second, will the minister prevail upon the Minister of Finance to abandon this particular proposal, which is both unrealistic and counterproductive?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, representations along similar lines have been made to me by the groups the hon. member has mentioned, and I suppose representations have been made to other members of the government. I have made good notes of these representations, and I will keep them in mind.


IMPLEMENTATION OF TAX CHANGES
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I am fascinated by the prospect of how the minister is going to enforce the taxation of these particular benefits. How many hundreds of Canadians will the minister have to employ to determine the quite complicated question of what a taxable benefit is and the value of the benefit to be taxed? How much money will be derived by the federal treasury as a result of these provisions?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I would encourage the hon. member, the other hon. members opposite and, indeed, the people of the

December 10, 1981
Oral Questions
country, not to jump to concusions about how this budget is going to be implemented.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blenkarn:: A new budget is coming up.


Bill Rompkey: There is no evidence at all to indicate any of the options which have been discussed in the press and are now being discussed by the opposition. The theme of this budget is fairness and equity-


An hon. Member:: Shaft Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, hon. members opposite do not want to hear. That same theme will be applied in the implementation of the budget as in the substance of the budget. There are people in this country who can afford to pay more than the share of the accounts of this country they are shouldering at this time. There are other people who cannot afford to pay that share. We will be putting the emphasis of taxation on the former group. We will administer the budget with fairness and equity, and that will be made clear in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEMAND FOR CHANGES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It is clear that because of this budget, which has been described as being concerned with fairness and equity, most Canadians will have the bleakest Christmas in recent memory. In the past three months alone 140,000 people have been laid off from their jobs. The situation for farmers has become so bad that they are taking vigilante action to protect their farms.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Considering that he has promised on a number of occasions, as recently as last night in a speech in Toronto, to bring forward some changes in the budget to deal with the economic crisis, will he now announce some of those changes that even some Liberals who walked out of the dinner last night demanded?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member wants me to talk about farm policy, employment policy, the dinner in Toronto last night, the budget, the NDP, or whatever. I will say a word about the dinner. There were over 500 people. It was a tremendous dinner. I was delighted to be there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER LISTEN TO REPRESENTATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, as usual the minister is more interested in people who can pay $125 or more for a dinner than in those who are unemployed in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask him a straightforward question he should be able to cope with, should he decide to for a change. Considering that businessmen, farmers, consumer groups, home owners, in short Canadians in every part of this land, representing every occupational group, are demanding that the minister make changes in his budget, when is he going to start listening to Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member, as I assured my audience in Toronto last night, that I have been listening very carefully to the representations that were made, that I am open to suggestions for improvements. That is the process I have been going through. I have a meeting this afternoon with the small business men to hear their views. When I have completed the process of consultation and consideration, I will have no hesitation in making public the adjustments that I regard as desirable. I remind the hon. member that the budget has been before the House of Commons. It has received the support of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I regard the House of Commons as the body from which I take direction basically as a minister. As long as I have the support of the House of Commons, I feel confident in the work I am doing.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister cannot even be sure he has the support of the people who sit behind him, let alone the members on this side of the House, when it comes to his budget. He indicated some weeks ago, and I think I quote him exactly, that the banks should be made to bleed a little. I would like to ask him a two-part question. First, does he still believe, given the substantial increase in their profits which even the bankers' association attributes to the high interest rate policy of the government, that they should be made to bleed a little? If the answer to that is yes, will he agree that taxing them at a fair level could obtain $700 million in additional revenue that could be used to produce houses and jobs that are needed by Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks
December 10, 1981

about support. He should not transfer his insecurities about support to me. If he has certain insecurities, let him deal with them on that side. They do not exist over here.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. The number one priority recommendation of the Standing Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped for action during the International Year of Disabled Persons was, and I am quoting:
That physical and mental handicaps be made a proscribed ground for discrimination for all discriminatory practices listed in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
In view of the fact that this same recommendation was accepted by the government and included in the Speech from the Throne, and today we are observing International Human Rights Day, would the Secretary of State choose this auspicious occasion to practise what he preaches and assure the House that the required legislation will be on the Order Paper before Parliament adjourns for the Christmas recess, so that arrangements can be made for speedy passage?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Upon reflection I think that he will agree that the particular question might be more properly addressed to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General who will have the responsibility to introduce this amendment. He is actively working on the matter. I would think that he would be able to report to the hon. member in the near future.
The hon. member is aware of the fact that my responsibilities are those of co-ordinating the responses of the departments to the recommendations in the "Obstacles" Report, and that individual ministers will indicate the actions that affect their particular departments.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, accepting the advice of the Secretary of State, and in the absence of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I shall address my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee. In view of the strong support of the committee, could he take the necessary action within Liberal Party circles to ensure that we will have this legislation before us so that we can actually discharge our obligation? It is a specific obligation, Madam Speaker, that we have undertaken to the disabled community of Canada that this matter would be on the Order Paper and dealt with before the end of the International Year of Disabled Persons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, it is true that this matter was addressed in the Speech from the Throne as a priority of this government. The Minister of Justice has repeated several times since then, in public announcements and to groups of the handicapped, that it is a high priority on his list. We would hope that this will be coming in fairly soon.


PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION TO GRANT LOCAL AUTONOMY
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport concerning our national ports. The documents presented to this House with the budget speech on November 12 indicate that the government will introduce legislation relating to national ports. The proposed new policy will give local autonomy to ports. Is the legislation now prepared and, if so, will the minister make the draft legislation available to interested persons so that it can be reviewed and considered by them?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Yes, indeed, the legislation is now being prepared; the drafting is taking place. I am not in command of that situation, but I would hope that we will get the bill early in the coming year, either January or February. It will be ready at that time, anyway.
On the subject of the contents of the policy itself, there have been a number of papers issued for consultation with industry. I have made a few little speeches on it myself. I will gladly send the full file to my hon. friend.


CNR FREIGHT RATE POLICY
Howard Edward Crosby: The minister apparently knows that there have been a number of statements on the ports policy, which underlines the importance of vetting any proposed legislation before it is introduced in the House. I hope the minister will undertake to do that. The minister also knows that, with respect to ports policy, Nova Scotia ports are dependent on Canadian National Railways as the land link to central Canada. Is the minister prepared to investigate Canadian National Railways freight rate policy, along with the ports policy, to ensure that east coast ports can compete with St. Lawrence River ports under both policies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, on the reprimand that I received from my hon. friend for publishing documents, I have not yet found a way to engage in conversation or discussion of a policy without producing a paper. Therefore, that is what we have done, and this is what I would be in a position to give my hon. friend. Besides that, the reaction to it has been extremely important. A great number of interested associations have already reacted to the basic paper we distributed. If I may say so, things are going

December 10, 1981
Oral Questions
very well and we may be in a position to produce a ports policy which will be acceptable to all parts of Canada. It would be an accomplishment, in view of the fact it has been tried unsuccessfully, three times before.
On the subject of freight rates to the port of Halifax, I think CN has produced charts a number of times before the CTC, giving these rates and demonstrating that they are quite in line with rates given to other ports. As a matter of fact, they have been better in recent years. I will provide that information to my friend also.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF AMERICAN SPACE SHUTTLE ASTRONAUTS
Madam Speaker:: Members will understand why I take the liberty of drawing the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Colonel Joe Engle and Captain Richard H. Truly, who are astronauts from the United States space shuttle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications who is responsible for legislation on freedom of information. As the minister knows, yesterday the federal-provincial conference of attorneys general issued a communique in which the provinces urged the federal government to shelve all action on freedom of information legislation at this time. In view of the fact that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is now in the final stages of considering this important and long overdue legislation, and in view of the fact that we have already passed the clauses to which the provinces object, will the minister appear before the justice committee next week, as the steering committee has ordered him to do, so that the bill can be reported out by Christmas, or will he at this last minute cave in to the demands of the provinces and kill this important legislation?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. member shows so much diligence in hurrying to get the bill through. If it had not been for him, it would have been passed last summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to meeting the attorneys general. I would like to tell him that the meeting took place. I met with them at the request of the Hon. Roy Romanow, the Attorney General of the Province of
Saskatchewan who, on behalf of all the attorneys general of the provinces, wrote to me and asked me to appear and to meet with the attorneys general of the provinces. The common front of the attorneys general of the provinces-and, as I understand it, it includes all provinces, with the possible exception of the Attorney General of Manitoba who was not completely briefed on the question of the federal bill on access to information- therefore, asked me to consider some of the clauses in the access to information bill, so as to give them the opportunity of making representations to my officials. Madam Speaker, indeed I think that I would be irresponsible if, in face of the recommendations made to me by a group of people who are in charge of the administration of the criminal justice system in Canada, I were to simply cast aside their request to meet and explore whatever problems they see in the present access to information bill.


ASSURANCE SOUGHT ON INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION IN NEW SESSION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, we make no apologies for ensuring that the bill that was originally presented to the House was improved as a result of the work that we did in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I must say, Madam Speaker, it is clear that the minister today is not prepared to commit himself to access to information legislation in Canada. I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. If this bill dies in committee as a result of the delay which is now being imposed, is the minister prepared to assure the house that he will bring before the House, in the new session, legislation on access to information that is at least as strong as the bill which we now have before the committee?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, quite obviously what I have indicated is that I wanted to give the attorneys general of the provinces the opportunity of making their points to me and to my officials. As a result of the examination of whatever points they want to bring to my attention I will, of course, report to my cabinet colleagues on whatever problems the attorneys general feel must be met in the bill. If there are amendments to be proposed at that stage, I will listen to the attorneys general to try to improve the bill in the same way as I have tried to listen to the hon. member and the New Democratic Party in attempting to get the bill through the House. The bill is not through the House at the moment, and the hon. member must bear most of the responsibility for that.
December 10, 1981


THE BUDGET
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who told us that he is consulting with the business community. I should point out that it was the practice of his predecessors to consult on policy changes before introducing a budget, not after.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The minister talked about making transitional changes in his budget, but at the moment people are being laid off and businesses are closing their doors because of the uncertainties created by the budget. Could the minister tell the House in more detail what changes he proposes to make, and when he proposes to make them? Will it be before Christmas or after Christmas? When will he bring his budget bills before us?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, obviously the budget bills cannot be dealt with before Christmas, nor probably early in the New Year, depending upon when we return.


Mr. Stevens:: Why?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I have in mind is to complete my examination of the representations I have received and, where justified, to propose adjustments or changes. Just as soon as I have completed that process I will make the announcement. I am not certain yet when that will be possible.
The hon. member referred to the necessity for consultation prior to the budget. I assure the hon. member that I had extensive representations from the business community prior to the budget but, as is very well known, it is not possible to discuss specific proposed tax measures because of budgetary secrecy prior to the presentation of the budget. It may be that the House of Commons ought to consider at some time revising the attitude toward budget secrecy to make it possible to have a more meaningful consultation prior to the budget presentation.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. It will be a Christmas of heartache and despair for families in Thompson and Sudbury, Shebandowan, Uranium City, Thetford Mines, Burns Lake and many other Canadian mining towns which have been hard hit by the current economic recession. The minister has been made painfully aware by her mail of the further damaging blow which the November 12 budget strikes against companies, employees
Oral Questions
and communities engaged in mineral exploration and mining. What advice has she offered to the Minister of Finance to reverse the serious damage which his budget is doing to Canadian mining?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member listed a number of mines. The picture is not quite as bleak as he painted. The lay-offs to which he referred are not completely lay-offs in terms of workers being laid off permanently. For instance, in the mine that is being closed in Sudbury the workers are not being laid off. They are being transferred to other operations within Sudbury. The lay-off is not a lay-off; it is a summer work stoppage which takes place almost every year, as it did in the year past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: Of course I sympathize with those workers who are being displaced, but I should like to add that many of those, particularly in Uranium City, are being comforted by the fact that some 430 workers will be employed by the coal companies. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has told me that Fording Coal is interested in hiring some of them, that there is work for a number of these people in other areas of Canada.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that we are quickly approaching the end of the International Year of Disabled Persons, could the minister inform the House whether she is prepared to proceed with two very important recommendations found in the report of the Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped, namely, an increase in disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, as well as an eventual implementation of a national comprehensive disability scheme?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the answer is yes to both questions. For disabled persons who are so severely handicapped that they receive benefits from the Canada Pension Plan, perhaps from memory I would say that there are 90,000 of them in Canada, I proposed to the provinces, I think last week, to almost double their monthly benefits. This would not draw on public expenditures, but from money already provided for in the Canada Pension Plan. Hon. members will note that I need their help on that. The okay of two thirds of the provinces with two thirds of the population is needed although this is federal legislation, but I am sure we can count on the support of everyone.

December 10, 1981
Oral Questions THE BUDGET


ELIGIBILITY OF FARMERS UNDER SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOND PROGRAM
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am certain by now that the minister should be convinced that his November 12 budget severely hurt farmers more than it helped them. I know that the Minister of Finance met a few days ago with the Canadian Bankers' Association or members of the banking community to clarify the terms of reference to be applied by the banks as they relate to the Small Business Development Bond. In an effort to dispel the confusion which now exists, will the minister make public as soon as possible the criteria which will be applied and used by the banks for determining the eligibility of farmers who are in financial distress and, if so, when?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am pleased with the interest of the hon. member in the operation of the Small Business Development Bond. The decision to extend the bond to unincorporated farmers was made as a result of representations from the farm community elsewhere. I will inquire whether at this stage it would be desirable to make further public information available. I should say with respect to the bonds in general that the existing rules will apply to such bonds issued after November 12 and before the end of the year where such arrangements for the issue where undertaken prior to the budget.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET REPRESENTATIVES OF FARM ORGANIZATIONS
John Wise: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I appreciate the minister's response to my question. I look forward to publication of the criteria within a matter of days. In view of the continuing confusion surrounding other budget provisions, namely, the income-averaging annuity, the capital gains reserve and the income-averaging provisions, would the minister agree to meet a small delegation of two or three representatives of three or four of the major farm organizations in Canada? Would he demonstrate to the House, and particularly to the farm community, that he cares enough to spend at least 60 minutes in the not too distant future to clear up some of the confusion and difficulties that he presented to the industry in his budget of November 12? Does he care enough to give them 60 minutes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as a result of requests from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture I have already agreed to meet with representatives of the federation. The date has not yet been set, but I am quite prepared and have agreed to that meeting. I look forward to the meeting because I believe it will be possible to demonstrate through a discussion with the representatives that the new forward-averaging system will provide benefits to the farming community-


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -which are on a par with the incomeaveraging annuity contracts that were in effect. I am quite prepared to enter into that discussion because I have that belief, and to hear the views of the representatives of the farmers.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I think it is significant, on this auspicious occasion of the presence of our distinguished guests in the gallery who are testimonials to man's success and achievement in space high technology, that I direct my question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology, whose department has just put out a booklet entitled "Limited Partnerships: Investment Opportunities for Financing R&D" in Canada. For a year, in speeches and news releases, the minister has been stating his commitment to high technology and to R&D in Canada, and we applaud this very much. But then came the budget, with not one dollar for R&D, and instead it made cutbacks in investment, interest charges, interest write-offs, and even in post-secondary funding for the training of future scientists.
I want to ask the minister if this booklet, which is intended to show how we can invest more in research, will be a loophole. Can we trust the Minister of Finance to support his colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, or will we be trapping Canadians into investing, and then cut off their investment in the future, to the detriment of Canada's research?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I am really surprised by the hon. member's question. I had obviously expected that, when he rose to ask a question today, he wished to congratulate us on the announcement yesterday of our increase in the space funding for Canadian industry, amounting to something like $132 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: That was in the Crosbie budget.


John (Moody) Roberts: This is one more concrete example of the support that this government is giving to the development of science and technology research in our country.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: It was John Crosbie's idea.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. gentleman referred to the provisions of the budget. He should recognize that in terms of support for research and development in this country, over the past 21
December 10, 1981

months this government has expanded support for research and development by something like $500 million, which is an increase of approximately 50 per cent over a base budget for hard research and development of $1 billion. In terms of the impact of tax incentives, he should be aware that the consequences of the tax changes which were introduced before 1979 have led to a very rapid expansion of tax forgone, and therefore, an indication of research and development being done by the private industry which we now estimate is close to $100 million. On the basis of present tax provisions we expect it will amount to something like $500 million by 1985.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Nonsense.


John (Moody) Roberts: Therefore, within our present tax arrangements there is considerable encouragement for the private sector to increase research and development funding. I would have hoped that he would also have been aware-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: I can assure the hon. member that I have the full support of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Beattie:: Burnt out on re-entry.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which is somewhat supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Elgin. The minister will know that today farming and small business take long-term planning, and the budget has been most confusing because it has disrupted the plans of farmers and businessmen at every turn. Does the minister intend to give some guidance before the end of the year so that farmers and businessmen can move in a positive direction concerning their businesses and farms? Will he give this some consideration?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, it would be my wish to provide that encouragement before the end of the year in that positive direction which the hon. member seeks.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Why didn't your budget do it?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister replying on behalf of
Oral Questions
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the $94 million which this department squandered through the Enterprise Development Program's guaranteed loans to Consolidated Computer Corporation and its two leasing companies. In 1977-78 the Auditor General's report warned IT&C that there were "a number of serious problems and weaknesses in the program system of financial management and control". His report also predicted serious cases of mismanagement could result because of the lack of public disclosure inherent in the loans system.
I would like the minister, or the person replying on his behalf to tell the House what has been done in the three years which have passed since those recommendations were made to tighten these controls. If they were tightened up, then how did all these loans amounting to $94 million, or $30 million in the last 16 months, sneak through?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question has been duly noted and will be reported to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


INVESTIGATION OF LOANS
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board, a minister who has attempted in the last few days to convince us that his department was the proper body to investigate this soaring record of almost $100 million in losses. The same Auditor General's report makes it quite clear that it was the Treasury Board's responsibility, along with IT&C and the Comptroller General's office,to get things in place so that there would be improved financial operations in the loans program and proper disclosure.
In light of this, can the minister tell the House if he still insists that his department is capable of making an impartial in-house investigation? Where was the Comptroller General's office, that public watchdog, when these loans went through to Consolidated? Where was the watchdog? Was it asleep in its kennel or was it wagging its tail?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, first of all the Comptroller General is the deputy minister who reports to me as President of the Treasury Board. If the hon. member is talking about the history of these transactions, the Office of the Comptroller General came into existence only in 1978. As I mentioned in an earlier answer to a similar-minded question last week, the past is clearly behind us, and that is why the Comptroller General has been involved in IMPAC studies across government to improve financial management and control systems. That is his role. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that we should not undertake such an investigation. We feel it is incumbent upon us to conduct such investigations in the interests of good management.

December 10, 1981
Oral Questions
I have also replied in the past 1 would be very pleased if the Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee, or anyone else for that matter, wished to conduct an independent investigation. I am sure we are all interested in getting to the facts because there may be valuable lessons to be learned from the experience of CCI.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. He just recently referred to a budget amounting to some $100 million for additions to the space program. When I read The Globe and Mail I was interested in noting that what he has proposed is part of a program which was adopted by the Conservative government in 1979 for the same amount of money, but which was cancelled by the Liberal government in 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Scott Fennell: I would like to have the minister confirm that this is nothing more than a reintroduction of a five-year program of the Conservative government. I would like to ask why the amount of money is the same even though inflation has eroded the value of the dollar in the last two years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, that is absolute nonsense.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It's true.


John (Moody) Roberts: When the opposition was in government it often proclaimed programs, but very rarely furnished the money to implement them. In this case, it did not even do that.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It was in the estimates, and you know it.


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the same minister who spent a lot of time telling us all the things he does in research and development. I would like him to cast his mind to his other portfolio, forestry. I would ask him what he has done lately for the forest community, particularly in exercising his clear responsibility to assist the industry, which is in very deep trouble, with research and development.
More particularly, what has he done lately to advance the idea of a regional forest complex for the maritime provinces, an idea which has been on the drawing boards for eight years and has been before the cabinet for eight months? Particularly, what has he done to combine this forest complex with a forest ranger school to overcome some of the serious manpower shortages in this important sector of our economy?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, there are a whole series of questions contained within the hon. member's one question. He knows very well that at the end of September we brought forward a discussion paper outlining the problems in the forestry industry in Canada and possible approaches to those problems. We are pursuing the initiatives we took at that time in discussions with the provinces in relation to reforestation. We are bringing forward for government consideration a variety of proposals in relation to marketing, in relation to assistance to the forestry schools of the country, and in relation to the training of highly qualified manpower in the forestry industry.
We do have under active consideration the question raised concerning the Maritime forestry complex, and I expect to be able to make an announcement some time within the next few days.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and fifty-fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) on Wednesday, December 9, 1981, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


ATTIRE OF MEMBERS
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It concerns the question of decorum in the House. For some time I have been concerned with what I consider to be the declining state of decorum in the House. It came to my attention during question period that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who has since left the chamber, was here without the usual jacket and tie. This may be a small and picayune point that has been debated before, but under Standing Order 12(1), Madam
December 10, 1981

Speaker, you have the responsibility to preserve order and to decide questions of order.
Because I could not raise this matter in the normal way during question period, I would ask, is this type of behaviour permitted?


Madam Speaker:: I can tell the hon. member that turtleneck sweaters are not allowed in the House and are not considered to be the proper attire.


An hon. Member:: What about the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola)? She is wearing a turtleneck sweater!


An hon. Member:: This is discrimination!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Equal rights!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) tells me she will wear a tie tomorrow!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: A shirt, tie and jacket are to be worn in the House and I must remind hon. members that is the proper attire for the House of Commons. Until further notice, that is what I will expect from hon. members.


MOTION RESPECTING CHRISTMAS RECESS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the opposition House leader, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the government House leader about the business of the House for the rest of the week and into next week.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, before dealing with the specifics, the House leaders had consultations earlier this week. We came to the agreement on the following motion:
That when the House adjourns on Friday, December 18, 1981, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 25, 1982, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment. Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and that, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all purposes of this order.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that if you ask for unanimous consent, it will be granted.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, on behalf of our party, I can agree to that motion.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I was at that meeting and we in this party can give unanimous consent to that motion.
Business of the House


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the House leaders agreed on a package with respect to the business of the House for tomorrow and next week. The first item of business tomorrow will be Bill S-23, the Jules and Paul-Emile Leger Foundation. That bill should be carried through all stages, and will be followed by Bill C-60, to amend the National Energy Board Act. That bill should be approved after report stage and receive third reading. Following that we will deal with Bill C-46, respecting the importation of meat. That bill should be accepted at the report stage and receive third reading.
If we have time, Bill C-45 will be considered, but there is no confirmed commitment on this one.

As far as next week is concerned, the House leaders have agreed firstly that before the House adjourns for the holidays on December 18, on Monday, before the end of the day, we shall complete second reading of Bill C-78, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, secondly that on Tuesday and Wednesday all stages of Bill C-84, the Small Businesses Loans Act will be completed. Thirdly, on Thursday provided the Minister of Justice is back and is present in the House, second reading of Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Criminal Code will be completed. Finally, the business of the House for Friday has not yet been determined. This will be done some time next week, after consultation with the House leaders on the opposite side. That, Madam Speaker, is substantially the order of business as agreed for tomorrow and next week, until the House adjourns for the holidays from December 18 until January 25, 1982.
f English]


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I believe we are basically in agreement with the government House leader. The only reservation I would have to put on what he said as to the business up until Thursday is to suggest that it may take more than one day's debate for all parties to consider Bill C-78. Since we still have some time before Monday, 1 will clear up that point with the opposition House leader.
However, I have three things to suggest to the government House leader. First, during question period suggestions were made by our side that we would like to see legislation to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act for the disabled placed in the House before the end of the year, especially as this is the International Year of Disabled Persons.

December 10, 1981
Business of the House
Second, I would like to reflect the unease in our caucus with respect to suggested changes to the Income Tax Act, which suggestions have appeared in the press and elsewhere. We feel that it is in the interests of the country to remove the uncertainty as to whether or not changes will be made, and that bill should be tabled.
Third, I would inquire of the government House leader as to the possibility of dealing with Bill C-85 before the House adjourns. I might say that I have already mentioned this matter to the parliamentary secretary.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, first, with respect to Bill C-78, the understanding I had with the hon. member for Yukon was very clear-that second reading would be completed on Monday night. However, I am willing to leave that matter open provided that I am also free to designate Friday of next week as an allotted day if this agreement is not respected. However, I gather that it will be.
Second, as far as legislation for the disabled is concerned, I will consult with the Minister of Justice. I hope that when he is back in Ottawa I will be in a better position to advise about the possibility of tabling the bill before the Christmas adjournment. I am not in a position today to answer that question.
Third, concerning income tax changes, 1 will have to consult with the Minister of Justice about that matter.
Finally, with respect to Bill C-85, I have suggested that we have second reading of that bill next week. I am told that many members wish to participate in the debate on that bill, which is understandable. Therefore, it will not be possible to send that bill to a committee before December 18. If, however, opposition members are willing to send Bill C-85 to a committee, we on this side will be prepared to agree to one speaker per party.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, rather than agree to next Friday as an allotted day, I say to the government House leader that in no way do I want to break a commitment which may have been made by the hon. member for the Yukon. We may have missed things. However, I will take that up with him as soon as possible. Perhaps I will be able to do that tonight before the vote.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, as I understood the agreement, the bills to be dealt with are as outlined by the government House leader. However, I would like to suggest on behalf of my colleague the hon. member for Beaches and on behalf of the New Democratic Party that, if it were possible to let us have a look at the changes that might well be proposed to the Canadian Human Rights Act, not only would that be desirable, but we believe it will be quite possible to pass that legislation by next Friday. As well this will enable us to live up to what I think is a moral commitment that was made during the International Year of Disabled Persons. I would even go so far as saying that we might be prepared to work on reducing the length of time we would spend on other pieces of legislation in order to accommodate the government, if it were the
desire of the government to bring forward that legislation early in the week.
With regard to all other matters, we are prepared, as the House leader knows, to deal not only with this legislation that is before us, but other pieces of legislation. If we can get agreement later we would be quite happy to deal with them.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his collaboration. On his first point, I witnessed the excellent answer given today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice on our willingness to do something as soon as possible. This is not a matter of substance, it is a matter of timing, and on the timing aspect I would like to consult with the Minister of Justice when he is back from London this weekend.


Mr. Andre:: Madam Speaker, with regard to Bill C-60, I just want to put one small caveat before the House; I do not think there will be any problem. I was not able to determine from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources exactly what he meant. We passed this bill once; it went to the Senate, was amended and brought back. I do not know what the amendment is. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could not tell me what it is. I would not want to discover tomorrow that I have agreed to some wholesale change. I do not think there is a problem, but with that small caveat I agree to what was recommended.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it is very simple. It is the amendment recommended by the Senate, which is supposed to appear on the Order Paper. There is nothing special in this regard. In addition, there have been discussions, I am told, to the effect that later on, if not possible before Christmas then after coming back, we will introduce a separate bill to increase the number of members of the National Energy Board to allow that board to deal with the measures in C-60.1 think there was agreement to that too. We will not deal with this bill tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, signed by 79 citizens of the riding of Athabasca, is to indicate to the government that the criteria used to determine eligibility for the herd maintenance program this past year was extremely unfair and discriminatory towards producers of northeastern Alberta.
December 10, 1981

The nature of the petition is to demand that the government take action to correct the injustices of the program and to renew it so that those producers who found themselves in dire straits due to unusually harsh years, coupled with high interest rates and poor returns, will qualify for much needed assistance in order to continue their operations.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency and desperation of their plea, and that you might use the discretionary powers vested in your office to allow discussion and referral to the committee at the earliest possible moment.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,518, 3,296, 3,467, 3,468, 3,469, 3,470, 3,478, 3,479 and 3,480.


Mr. Towers: 1.	Did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs receive letters opposing metric conversion and, if so, how many were from (a) individuals (b) provincial governments (c) trade and industry associations?
2.	Did the department receive letters favouring metric conversion and, if so, how many?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes.
(a)	Individuals:	3,854(b)	Provincial governments:	1(c)	Trade and industry associations:	402.	Yes, 37.


Mr. Dantzer: 1.	How many persons in Canada does the government estimate will be over the age of 65 in (a) 1986 (b) 1991 (c) 2001 (d) 2011 (e) 2021 (f) 2031?
2.	By gender, to what age is a person who is 65 years of age today estimated to live?
3.	To what age is a person who will be 65 years of age in the year (a) 1986 (b) 1991 (c) 2001 (d) 2011 (e) 2021 (0 2031 expected to live?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports:
1.	Current projections by Statistics Canada are as follows:
	Year	Population over the age of 65 years (in thousands)
(a)	1986	2,601.0(b)	1991	2,958.3(c)	2001	3,387.4(d)	2011	3,842.7(e)	2021	4,969.0(f)	2031	6,042.9
Order Paper Questions
2.	Estimates by Statistics Canada are as follows:
Age expected to live
Male aged 65 years	about 79 years
Female aged 65 years	about 83.5 years
3.	Mortality has not been projected by Statistics Canada beyond 1991. It is difficult to foresee the advances in health and medical sciences during the next 50 years. However, based on the most recent trends and changes in the expectation of life, ages expected to be lived by persons 65 years and over have been estimated by Statitics Canada for 1986 and 1991. They are as follows:
Age expected to be lived by
	Years	Person aged 65 years	
		Male	Female
(a)	1986	79.3	84.0(b)	1991	79.5	85.0(c)	to (0	Unavailable


Mr. Cossitt: What is the estimated cost to the taxpayer of the printing of a question which remains on successive Order Papers for a period of 5'A years without being answered and will the government consider a policy of reducing such costs of printing by announcing a maximum lenght of time for the answering of the straightforward Order Paper questions?


David P. Smith: It is impossible to determine the cost of printing one very small portion of the Order Paper.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,255, did the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council prepare the answer for the government without any assistance from others and, if not, what are the names and job designations of all those who assisted him?


David P. Smith: Ministers and parliamentary secretaries who answer written questions take full responsibility for such answers.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,255, which states in part in regard to Order Paper questions, "some hon. members quite clearly overload the system . ..", what are the names of all members who have overloaded the system and is it government policy to consider that the asking of frequent questions by Members of Parliament seeking legitimate information is to be placed in the category of overloading the system?


David P. Smith: The hon. member needs only to read

December 10, 1981
Order Paper Questions
successive Order Papers in order to form his own conclusions as to the answer to this question.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,255, which states in part, that it is "difficult to persuade officials" to deal with answering Order Paper questions "in an expeditious manner", what are the names of all government officials along with job designations that are difficult to persuade and what are the reasons in each case?


David P. Smith: The answer referred to the human reaction of many officials who, by instinct and training, are reluctant to seek publicity. They therefore are quite often reluctant, also, to become involved in matters directly pertaining to the parliamentary process, especially when some hon. members are known to inquire, after answers are given, which officials assisted in the preparation of those answers.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,798 which stated in part that the Department of Supply and Services will carry out the functions of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation but that the Corporation will not be abolished and its board of directors will continue (a) what are all the reasons for maintaining a board of directors for a corporation which will be operated by a department (b) what are the names of all the directors of the corporation who will remain in office, what is the total amount of the directors' salaries involved and what is the breakdown of the amount paid to each director?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: (a) Section 15 of the Surplus Crown Assets Act states, inter alia, that "the affairs of the corporation shall not be wound up unless Parliament so provides". In addition, the complexity of the financial arrangements for the corporation's activities require that changes would have to be made to the Supply Revolving Fund. These will be examined in the near future.
(b) (i) G. R. D'Avignon, G. A. Berger, plus at least four additional public servants to be named by the governor-incouncil.
(ii)	Nil.
(iii)	N/A.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 3,252 on the subject of Order Paper questions which stated in part that "the government is not amused ...", what are all the details of the methods whereby the government reaches a decision as to whether it (a) is (b) is not amused?
2.	Did the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council prepare the answer to this question for the government which he signed or was it prepared for his signature by someone else and, if so, what is the name and job designation of any person taking part in its preparation?


David P. Smith: 1. (a) and (b) The answer to this question could be found in any suitable elementary psychology text, some of which are available through the Library of Parliament.
2. See reply to question No. 3,468 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 3,252 on the subject of Order Paper questions which stated in part "the government does not regret the discomfort of hon. members who so abuse the system when other more diligent hon. members point out this behaviour", what are the names of all hon. members (a) in relation to whom the government "does not regret the discomfort" (b) whom the government considers "more diligent" and, in each case, what is the breakdown of the total number between Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic Party Members of Parliament?
2.	What are all the details of the measurement used by the government to arrive at the Members in the category of (a) "discomfort" (b) "diligent"?


David P. Smith: 1. See reply to question No. 3,469 answered this day.
2. See reply to question No. 3,479, 1 (a) and (b) answered this day.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,494?


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Are any Maritime Command destroyers not fully operational and, if so, how many and, in each case (a) what is the name and class (b) on what date did it come into service (c) for what reason is it other than fully operational (d) for how much longer will it be other than fully operational (e) what will be the cost to restore it to fully operational capacity?
2.	Can the Commander, Maritime Command, fully meet his sea commitments at the present time (a) to Canada (b) to NATO?
3.	(a) Is Canada obligated in any way to advise any or all of its partners in NATO of any changes in its operational readiness status (b) has Canada advised any partners of changes and, if so, which ones and what advice was given to each?
4.	Were contingency plans considered and, if so (a) what were the plans and are they to be implemented (b) do the plans involve other countries in any way and, if so, to what extent and in what form?
5.	To date, were any operational or training programs disrupted as a result?
6.	Which operational training plans have been affected or may be affected in the future?
7.	On what date does the government anticipate acceptance of its first replacement ship?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, this question was asked by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and refers to the status of our destroyers.
The answer to the question is as follows:
December 10, 1981

1. Of the 23 destroyers in the fleet, eight are on full operational status and six more can be placed on operational status in case of emergency or war.
(a) and (b)
Class and Name	Date into Service
Improved St. Laurent Class	
Saguenay	1956
Skeen a	1957
Ottawa	1956
Margaree	1957
Fraser	1957
Assiniboine	1956
Restigouche Class	
Chamber e	1959
St. Croix	1958
Columbia	1959
Improved Restigouche Class	
Gatineau	1959
Kootenay	1959
Terra Nova	1959
Mackenzie Class	
Mackenzie	1962
Qu'Appelle	1963
Annapolis Class	
A nnapolis	1964
(c)	Two have confirmed superheater header problems; 6 have peacetime restrictions placed on them due to possible cracks in the boiler superheater headers; the restrictions could be lifted once in situ ultra sonic examinations have been performed in the next few weeks; 3 are held in reserve status; 4 are undergoing refit.
(d)	First repairs to the ships that are discovered to have header problems will be completed in mid-April 1982. Meanwhile, stress calculations and a firm awareness of the crack propagation pattern confirm that there would be no compromise to crew safety should the ships have to sail.
(e)	Cost is presently being determined but will depend on the number of headers that will have to be replaced.
2.	Given that commitments relate to emergencies and war the restrictions would be lifted on those occasions. During actual repair work individual ships will be unavailable for approximately one month.
3.	The Maritime Commander is obligated to report the status of his committed forces to SACLANT. This has been done but bearing in mind part 2 above our real readiness state has not changed significantly.
4.	No.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions
5.	Yes.
6.	Exercise MARCOT 2/81 (9-20 Nov. 81). Combat Training Exercise (23 Nov.-7 Dec. 81). Caribbean Deployment (Jan.-Feb. 82).
7.	1987.
I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that it was the questioner who asked that this question be starred; therefore, we replied to it verbally.


David P. Smith: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence if there is a date on the answer to the starred question which has just been read into the record, because the information as I heard it does not correspond to some of the current information which is available.
My second point of order is to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council to my question No. 3,267 dealing with subventions to a private sector organization which was filed on October 28, and to draw to his attention question No. 3,341 which was placed on the Order Paper on November 6 and dealt with the simple matter of the number of hovercraft which are in service on the west coast, and what is contemplated by way of increases in that number. I think the tally should be just as easy as it was for the answer to the other question, and 1 do hope that the answers will not be unduly delayed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, with regard to the hon. member's question about the date of the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, the information is current but the answer is actually dated November 30, 1981-that was the date of the question. So that being the date of the answer, this information is correct as of today.


Donald W. Munro: I do not think it is.


David P. Smith: That is my best advice. With regard to the other representations made by the hon. member, I take due note of his comments.

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Madam Speaker:: Since today is the final allotted day the House will go through the usual procedures this evening to consider and dispose of the supply bill. In view of this fact, and according to practices, do hon. members agree that we should distribute that bill now so it may be available to hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is so agreed.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East) moved:: That this House censures the government of its perpetual, excessive, and ineffective reliance on a high interest rate policy, which has not only created the worst economic recession in Canada since the 1930s, but which also continues, to threaten the survival of thousands of small enterprises, adds more Canadians daily to the ranks of the million already out of work, and confronts home owners and renters alike with the worst housing crisis since the Second World War.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as we approach the time of the Christmas adjournment the country finds itself locked into a mood of economic uncertainty, critically high unemployment, record high inflation and the worst housing crisis since the Second World War. We have a government that does not seem to appreciate this or in fact want to do anything about it, or respond in any way whatsoever.
The Toronto Sun in its edition dated September 16, 1981, had this headline: "Grits dine as riot cops stand guard". That, of course, had to do with the shameful and disgraceful performance of the minister responsible for housing and his colleagues who called out the RCMP riot squad to shield them from a delegation of irate home owners who were in Ottawa at the time protesting the high interest rates policy. Another headline in the Toronto Star on the same day read: "Home Owners Roll into Ottawa Protesting High Interest Rates".
I refer again to The Citizen published in Ottawa on Wednesday, September 16, 1981-this is very relevant to what I want to say, sir- which carried the headline: "Hang in there, home owners told". It went on:
Grit your teeth and hang on until the federal budget if you are in danger of being foreclosed, Public Works Minister Paul Cosgrove advised home owners Tuesday, holding out promise that help is on the way.
Finally, going back to that September 16 date, I quote from the Toronto Star, which is not unknown to be favourable to the government and not known to misquote any members of the government. The article reads:
Canadians are fed up with the federal government's handling of the economy, particularly high interest rates. Liberal MPs and Senators from across Canada have told Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his government.
Those headlines are very relevant with respect to the debate today. It is because of what I and many people construe to be the advance billing by the minister responsible for housing
wherein he raised expectations, deliberately and cruelly, by having us believe that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) would be addressing problems facing home owners and renters in the budget as a result of the high interest rate policy, that I intend to focus my remarks particularly on the housing problem.
Let us examine the facts. The housing crisis can best be summarized under two headings, affordability and availability. My colleague the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) will be dealing with another aspect of the housing crisis with respect to those unfortunate Canadians who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their homes. They are the untouchables. They do not even qualify for a conventional mortgage and cannot sell their homes.
I would like to deal with the question of affordability and availability, which has created the worst housing crisis since the Second World War. It has created an acute shortage of rental accommodation in this country, unknown since the Second World War.
If we examine the record, we find that the fact is that in Canada we are just not producing enough new housing units each year to meet the housing needs of Canadians. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada predict that we need, on average, 220,000 new housing units each year to meet this demand. If we examine the record, starting in 1977 housing requirements as compared to housing starts showed a critical decline. At no time since 1977 have we been able to keep up with housing requirements or the demand for housing. For example, in 1977 we needed 256,000 starts and in fact only 245,000 were produced. The number goes down correspondingly. In 1978 the requirement was 259,000 and there were 227,000 actual starts. That continues to the critical period we are in today, 1981, where we required 265,000 starts and only produced 170,000.
If we take the predictions of the minister responsible for housing, the advice he has given his cabinet colleagues, then we are looking at housing starts in 1982 of 135,000 whereas the actual requirement for 1982 is 261,000 units. There is a serious crisis and a critical situation in the country.
Because of the acute shortfall in housing starts, the price of the average Canadian home, which is now $76,000 if you consider an average Canadian home to be a three-bedroomed bungalow, will continue to rise. We are told that we can look forward to increases in the range of 20 per cent next year, once again because of the shortfall and because of inflation. Now, if we are to regard the crisis in that context, what is the response of the government? What advice did the minister responsible for housing have for the people of Canada? This is what he said to his cabinet colleagues, and I quote from the famous leaked document entitled "Impact of Prolonged High Interest Rates on the Housing Sector."
They-
December 10, 1981

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
compares with average investor carrying cost of $750 on the mortgage and property tax for a newly constructed unit with a 30 per cent downpayment.
Again I go on to quote from the document:
Rental investment will thus dry up in most markets. Even when vacancy rates have dropped to zero, there will be no new building until there is a better correspondence between investor costs and market rents for new units. This correspondence will only be achieved after a period during which waiting lists prevail and tenants have little choice of accommodation. Vacancy rates in most markets will approach zero by 1983.
We are almost there. We are almost at zero vacancy rates in most of the major metropolitan areas of the country. The city of Oshawa already has a zero vacancy rate. The city of Toronto has a 0.4 per cent vacancy rate; it is rapidly approaching zero. We can go across the country to the city of Winnipeg, the city of Calgary, the city of Vancouver or the city of Halifax. This is a very, very serious problem, and the situation will get worse.
What is the consequence of this? Again, sir, I have no better authority than the minister responsible for housing, who said:
A black market could develop in rental accommodation with the phenomenon of key money becoming prevalent.
For those who do not understand the term "key money", let me explain. It is a term which came about during the Second World War. It grew from the critical shortage of rental accommodation in many of the major metropolitan areas across the country. You nod, Mr. Speaker, probably because you have first-hand experience. That was the practice whereby, if you were desperate for accommodation, you would bribe the doorman or the building superintendent. In exchange for that bribe he would show you the accommodation available in the building. In return for another bribe he would provide you with a key and a lease. Of course, the understanding was that you would have to provide a bribe every month you were a tenant in that building. That is key money, and that is where we are heading. That is what the minister is predicting. That is the housing black market the minister referred to in his advice to the cabinet. That is a disgraceful situation for a country like Canada.
I want to continue to quote the minister because this is important. I am quoting from a document which was the minister's advice to his cabinet colleagues in trying to make a case for some relief in the budget, which we did not get:
The prospect is not only for tight rental markets but for waiting lists and doubling up with family and friends. We will thus witness a substantial regression in housing conditions following 35 years of gradual improvement.
What a shocking statement. What an indictment out of the mouth of the minister of housing of this government's inability to face up to its responsibility to Canadians. It is interesting that 10, maybe 11 years ago, the minister of housing of the day felt so strongly about the trends in housing in Canada and where we were heading in terms of housing and urban renewal that he put a task force on the road which he himself headed. I refer, of course, to the Hon. Paul Hellyer. When he brought in the report of the task force and its recommendations, he expected some action from the government. When the government failed to act, he did the only honourable thing he could do: he resigned his position from the cabinet.
I suppose you can liken the recommendations in the minister's task force report of ten years ago to the recommendations or warnings contained in the present minister's document to the cabinet of a few short months ago. I suggest to the minister of housing that he would do well to emulate the honourable course of his predecessor, the Hon. Paul Hellyer, and resign from the cabinet.
I advise hon. members who are interested in this crisis, as I am sure all hon. members are, to take a look at the report of the Hellyer task force on housing. They will find it very interesting reading. Many of its recommendations are very relevant to the present housing situation. There were ten principles listed in the recommendations of the task force. I will just quote two which happen to form the keystone of our philosophy as a party. I quote:
Housing and urban development are an urgent priority for the people of Canada and must be treated as such by their elected representatives at all levels.
What a pity the government refused or failed to respond to that recommendation ten years ago. I quote the second principle of the Hellyer task force, one to which my colleagues and I subscribe:
Every Canadian should be entitled to clean, warm shelter as a matter of basic human right.
That is the keystone of our commitments. It is interesting to note that the minister's executive assistance at that time had a large part to play in the drafting of that report. I would not be at all surprised if he had a hand in some of the recommendations.
Hon. members will be interested in knowing who the minister's executive assistant was at that time. He was none other than Mr. Lloyd Axworthy, who now sits opposite as the minister responsible for employment and immigration. He seems to have lost his concern based on his experience. I quote from Hansard of 1979:
The people of Canada are not being crucified, they are being hung, drawn and quartered by high interest rates.
I wish I had said that. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) said that in this House in 1979 when he was the housing critic. He said that at a time when interest rates were at 14 per cent. At 14 per cent he stood in this House and said that the people of Canada were being hung, drawn and quartered. Today we have seen interest rates reach as high as 22 per cent and we see the minister who made that statement now sitting in the cabinet.
What could the government have done? They could have swallowed their pride and reintroduced our mortgage and property tax credit plan. They could have increased the capital cost allowance from 5 to 10 per cent which would help to bring down building costs. They could have continued the MURB program. They could have brought in a shelter allowance to help ease the critical situation in the area of social housing. We do not hear enough about that. All you have to do is read the metropolitan papers of the country to find that the chari-
December 10, 1981

table institutions can no longer cope with the critical demand of those who are literally on the street at night.
The government could have brought in a plan whereby the registered home ownership savings plan could be folded into an RRSP and applied to home ownership. They could have done all those things. There were a number of things they could have done if they fully appreciated the seriousness of the situation in the country today and the depth of feeling of Canadians.
All we get from this government is advice from the minister of housing that Canadians have to lower their expectations. That is the advice of the minister of housing. We have to go back to the way things were two or three decades ago. Tell the young people of the country to make do with orange crates. You will find it awfully difficult to sit on an orange crate today because they are no longer made of wood; you would find yourself with your bottom on the floor in no time short. Yet that is the advice we get from the minister.
I say this to the minister. He was not entirely out to lunch on that advice because the situation 20 years ago was a lot better than it is today. If twenty years ago you could not afford to buy a house because you did not have the down payment and you were just starting out in married life, you at least had an apartment to go to. Now you have no apartment to go to. Housing is beyond your reach. It has become an impossible dream. You either have to forgo your plans or double up with your parents. What a shameful situation in this country today.
I believe before too long we are going to see further back-stepping by the government, what we in Newfoundland used to call turkey-trotting where you take one step ahead and two steps backwards. We have already seen one step backwards when they had to reinstitute the soft cost provisions of the MURB program to accommodate those units which had been started during this current calendar year. I predict that the situation is going to get so bad that before the winter is over this budget, which is already in scrambles, will have to be scrapped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this motion with a great deal of pleasure. The effects of the high interest rate policy of this government are now well known. They are even well known to the members on the backbenches opposite in this House of Commons. They cannot ignore the reality that in the past 90 days 140,000 Canadians have lost their jobs through lay-offs. They cannot ignore the reality that 7,000 small businesses so far this year have gone into bankruptcy.
The backbenchers opposite cannot ignore the fact that bankruptcies of small businesses in Canada in November this year compared to November last year were up 49 per cent. That is significant because, as all business people and consumers know, if there is any possibility of staying in business you sure stay in business in November and through the December shopping period. When bankruptcies are up 49 per cent in the
High Interest Rates
month of November this year over last year, it can be seen that we are in the middle of an economic and human crisis.
The backbenchers in the Liberal Party cannot ignore the fact that farmers are being hurt now as never before. I do not need to stress in this House that farmers are hardly well known for demonstrating and actively showing their opposition to government policy when they are unhappy. Of all the segments of our population, they are the small "c" conservative, law-abiding, peaceful group. What have we seen in recent days? In the province of Quebec at St.-Isidore, hog producers block roads. Why? Because of high interest rates and the impact it is having on their operations as farmers. In the Bruce-Grey region of the province of Ontario, another group of farmers have virtually taken to vigilante action to protect their farms from banks and other mortgage holders who may want to take them over.
Finally, as other evidence of the effects of the high interest rate policy of this government, we had the demonstrations just a few weeks ago of 100,000 Canadians who appeared just outside the main door of this building. That figure surprised a lot of people, Mr. Speaker. It surprised me. To be perfectly frank, it surprised the organizers who represented a number of groups. It was almost double the number they anticipated would turn out. They were people who came not simply from trade unions, but small businessmen, home owners, farmers, people who were trying to send a message to the Government of Canada.
Given this reality of 140,000 lay-offs in three months, the record number of small business bankruptcies, the disruption in farm communities, the loss of homes, the fear of renters all over Canada that their rents will increase by two, three or four hundred dollars next year, how have the major institutions with power and responsibility in Canada responded to this?
First we have the Bank of Canada and our beloved Governor, Mr. Bouey. He has seen the reality; he has seen the effects of high interest rates. What has he said? He made a speech a few days ago in which he complained. What did he complain about? He complained about minimum wages. He said that minimum wages in Canada were a source of inflation. He urged the government-I do not exaggerate, these were his words-to hang tough with its policy. That is what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said.


An hon. Member:: And then he gave himself a raise.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, through you, to the Governor of the Bank of Canada that it is very easy to be tough when your salary is being increased to $105,000 a year, as was Mr. Bouey's. I point out that in dollar value, just the increase alone is greater than the minimum income in Canada that Mr. Bouey said was inflationary. For the governor of the Bank of Canada to be making such a statement is shameful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates


John Edward Broadbent: I should also say that it is easy to be tough when you have the financial resources at this time of year to treat one's family to the things that one comes to expect in a land normally as prosperous as ours at Christmas, to such things as toys and to a special Christmas meal and so on. It is easy to be tough if one is in a financial position to do that. But I also want to say that it is not easy to be tough when one is living on a minimum wage or when one is among the thousands that are being laid off in Canada, a number of whom in 1981 will not even be in a position to buy the traditional family turkey for Christmas. I say in that context that if there is one turkey this country cannot afford, it is the turkey who is the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If there is one case for the Government of Canada getting tough, it is the case of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. They should get tough enough to fire him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If the Governor of the Bank of Canada's response has been one of ignorance in economics-and I say that bluntly-a failure to understand the economic theory that I thought went out of date at the end of the 1920s or certainly at the beginning of the 1930s and is certainly wrong now, if he is to be faulted for technical competence reasons as well as insensitivity, what can one say about the Government of Canada, which since the Coyne affair at least has had the full legal authority to direct and control monetary policy in this country?
Before I note their reaction, I want to say in passing that even President Reagan of the United States, the arch-conservative of the modern age, has begun to reduce interest rates at a more rapid level in the United States than has the Government of Canada. Even President Reagan has recognized the negative, inhumane effect in terms of escalation of unemployment in the United States that the high interest rate policy has had there.
What we have had in recent weeks is an increase in the spread in interest rates between Canada and the United States. As bizarre as it is in some sense, to contend, President Reagan has had a more humane response to the economic circumstances of the Americans than has the Government of Canada. It is hard to believe, but that happens to be the factual reality.
What did the government do? It had a chance to deal with this reality in the budget, but what does the budget do? The budget continues to tax people who are living on pensions and deliberately creates more unemployment. Its own forecast calculated increases in unemployment for the next three years before there is some turnaround. The only way we will get a turnaround is to turn this government out. But that is in the budget forecast.
It continues to tax pensioners and it deliberately creates unemployment, but at the same time it reduces taxes by as much as $5,000 a year for the very rich in Canada. It is a
government that has responded to budget criticism from its friends, such as Dome Petroleum Limited. It made one phone call and within minutes there was an announced change for Dome Petroleum Limited for its benefit, but we have not yet seen a change that would benefit the poor. It is a budget which, above all at this time because of the government's commitment to interest rates, leaves the truly exorbitant and unconscionable profits of the banks virtually untouched.
I say that in this context of human suffering it is time that the Government of Canada realized that in a democratic society the basic moral obligation of a government is to the ordinary people of the land, not to the rich and powerful who can look after themselves.
Specifically, I want to say something about bank profits. I want to do so for a number of reasons. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in one of his casual and arrogant dismissals a couple of weeks ago when he was questioned about action to improve the wellbeing of the ordinary Canadians, asked: "Where will we get the money?" Then he sat down. That was one of his definitive arguments.
I want to say something about that because the hon. member who sits to his right, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), has said that the banks of Canada must bleed a little. They sure have not been bleeding; they have been leeching the people of Canada. We know their profits are $1.8 billion. Their profits are high. A number of corporations could be having high profits for a variety of reasons. Perhaps some of them are very efficient and are producing a good product that is selling well and producing jobs. There are all kinds of reasons. But the reason the banks are having high profits is made clear not by the New Democratic Party but was made clear earlier this week by a statement from a spokesman for the banks that appeared in a publication of the Canadian Bankers' Association when he said that the reason the bank profits are so high is because of the high interest rate policy of this government.
In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we say that it is long overdue that we tax the banks at a fair level. That is all we are saying. We are not saying: "Let us confiscate all their revenue, let us seize their property". We are saying that when there are thousands of Canadians living in poverty, when we have a national housing crisis and the highest level of unemployment since the depression, it is time that the banks of Canada did indeed bleed a little and paid their share.
I have a simple proposal to put forward. When the minister responds today, I should like to hear him deal with the argument. Let us tax the banks at a fair level. If they have $1.8 billion, let us levy a tax on them for some $700 million. I am sure the Minister of Finance could figure this out; it would leave approximately $1 billion for the banks. That is not bad, they would still have that profit. We need some $700 million. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister asked from where we could get money to do various things. Go to the banks, go to
December 10, 1981

the banks! Instead of putting it in, take it out for the people of Canada.
Before saying what I would do with it, in this context I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches:
That the motion be amended by including after the word "policy" the following:
"and its failure to introduce an excess profits tax on bank profits so that new
programs could be established to assist home owners, and to stimulate
construction of the needed housing units".
What could be done with the results of this single action? There are many other things about which other speakers in my party will be talking today, but I want to zero in on this one item. First, there is a minimal shortage of some 50,000 units for the coming year, even if the projections of the government are lived up to as to what is needed across Canada. With the $700 million which could be obtained if the government acted on this amendment, we would be able to stimulate enough production of housing in Canada to produce the 50,000 units. In addition, at a time when real unemployment levels are in excess of one million, we would be able to produce 110,000 jobs which would result from the construction of the homes, on the one hand, and also from the goods purchased to go in the homes and the services related to the construction of the homes. It would mean 110,000 additional men and women working who want to work; 110,000 men and women would be paying taxes instead of collecting unemployment insurance and welfare. This makes economic and social sense to us. This is a practical and just proposal, a proposal which ought to be implemented right away.
Having made the point about the social sensitivity and economic incompetence of Liberals, I want to turn to the movers of the motion today. If the Liberals have been insensitive to Canadians in the budget, it seems to me that the motion before us demonstrates that at best Conservatives have forgotten their own record and at worst, to be blunt, are hypocritical. I remind the Conservatives present in the House that under the government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) its monetary policy was precisely the same as that of the Liberal government today.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No way.


John Edward Broadbent: Under the government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, interest rates rose not once, twice or three times, but four times. If they had been in office longer than nine months, no doubt they would have risen as frequently and as rapidly as they have under the Liberals.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They were less than the American rates, but now they are more.


John Edward Broadbent: I hear a Conservative member jeering in the background. Now that they are back in opposition, at least one Conservative member has been consistent. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the former finance critic, said as recently as June in a television interview that he was speaking for his party and that they would support Governor Bouey's high interest rate policy. At least the hon. member has
High Interest Rates
been consistent, but I say to hon. members of the Conservative Party that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot in one motion single out the negative human effects of a ridiculous high interest rate policy and simultaneously advocate a high interest rate policy. The cannot have it both ways.
I conclude my remarks this afternoon by saying that I have repeated in my speech what is well known about the negative effects of the high interest rate policy and the indifferent government. Also in this context I have proposed in a straightforward manner a partial solution to an important problem. If we look at the banks honestly and fairly and make them perform fairly, we could deal with the present housing situation and produce some jobs. This is the precise, concrete action, instead of indifference, which we ought to be receiving from the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must admit that the amendment proposed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party is a clever one. Throughout his speech, the hon. member failed to address the root of the problem as was the case with the spokesman for the Progressive Conservative Party-and what he is proposing is a band-aid solution. Mr. Speaker, I believe that both the motion and the speeches made in its defence are deceiving, because the official opposition always tells only part of the story. The motion is also false because it does not reflect reality and confuses cause and effect. In addition to being false, it is fallacious, because it creates illusions, is misleading and obscures the real situation by confusing cause and effect. To put it in a medical context, everyone has been discussing symptoms without trying to establish what is really wrong with the patient and prescribing the appropriate medication.
Our main problem-and this was clearly pointed out in the budget-is inflation, which is still very much a fact in our society and in our economy. However, before making alarmist statements, it would perhaps be wise to remember certain facts. For instance, between November 1980 and November 1981, nearly 110,000 new jobs were created in Canada. During that same period, the same twelve months, the economy's real growth was 3.7 per cent. This is, in fact, a remarkable performance compared with the economic situation in the world today. However, although there has been a substantial increase in the number of jobs and the growth rate of our economy, the fact remains that inflation has remained at unacceptable levels, that the unemployment rate is still very high in Canada, and that interest rates are high as well. The government is not saying that the problem is easy to solve, and we are ready to admit that this is a difficult situation. However, we are saying that people should not delude themselves that they will be able to get through this difficult period

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
without paying a price. The real enemy to be beaten is inflation. High interest rates are a consequence of inflation and if we really want to bring down interest rates, we shall have to fight inflation and reduce inflationary pressures.
Since the seventies, inflation has become an increasing threat to our economy. Inflation is becoming a way of life. That is the root of the problem, and that is what makes it difficult to solve. We must get rid of our inflationary expectations and at the same time get rid of the causes of inflation. During the last decade, the average inflation rate was 9 per cent. If we look at the decade before that, the average inflation rate was less than 3 per cent. During the seventies, profound changes have unsettled the world economic situation and also our own. For instance, the price of oil products has increased by about 650 per cent. The Canadian dollar has depreciated by about 20 per cent compared with the American dollar. In other words, inflation is a serious problem and it is the problem we must fight. It is no use focusing on external or secondary causes. We must get at the root of the problem, bearing in mind that inflation and inflationary expectations are the cause of high interest rates and are therefore responsible for the consequences of high interest rates.
How borrowers reacted to what they thought were high interest rates this spring and summer is a good example of how inflation affects our behaviour. At that time, when mortgage rates were at a record high-about 16 per cent-housing prices in various areas in Canada, became artificially inflated as a result of speculation. Buyers were willing to pay more, expecting prices to go even higher later on. Similarly, general credit demand did not drop until recently, that is, sometime after interest rates peaked last August. So, instead of blindly concentrating on the issue of high interest rates, it is necessary to understand that as long as inflation stays above 10 per cent, interest rates will not go down. However, interest rates have dropped six percentage points since the month of August. On the other hand, we must realize that there is very little hope there will be a rapid progression in that decline, if inflation does not drop substantially.
What are the alternative suggestions in the main motion and the amendment proposed by the NDP? Would we rather have lower interest rates in the present economic situation? The Bank of Canada could probably take steps to reduce interest rates, but what would the consequences be? There would be a substantial increase in the rate of growth of the money supply. The Canadian dollar would probably drop in value on the foreign exchange market, and that would inevitably lead to a jump in interest rates in subsequent months.
It must be understood that increasing the money supply acts as a two-edged sword. In the short term, it expands credit and reduces interest rates. However, since the money supply is inflated in proportion to economic and production capacity, this creates an inflationary trend, leading to rising interest rates.
It would therefore be inconsistent to abandon a policy that is aimed at bringing down inflation and getting at the root of the problem, just to have two or three months' respite before getting into a situation that is even worse.
Do the supporters of this motion recommend that the government maintain its present monetary policy, while at the same time adopting an expansionary financial policy, increasing its expenditures, setting up new programs and even reducing taxes? That would go against the views of a number of economists who favour reducing the deficit as a means of fighting inflation.
The government recognizes that bringing down the deficit is a major element of the anti-inflation strategy which will alleviate pressures on the capital markets and thus bring about a decrease in interest rates. The alternative policies proposed in the motion now before the House fly in the face of an anti-inflation strategy. Since the supporters of the motion are not likely to really want to give up the fight against inflation, they might prefer that the government impose direct wage and price controls? Such a solution has already been suggested; it was even used temporarily in 1975 and had relatively helpful results in an emergency situation. However, I believe that such controls are generally considered as often resulting in inequity and as failing to strike at the roots of inflation. If opposition members are now suggesting indirectly that we impose wage controls, they should say so, but they should say so openly without trying to undermine the anti-inflation strategy in the eyes of the population. The government could tunnel-vision its approach to inflation as implied by the opposition party by pursuing expansionist policies and developing new programs which would put back for an indefinite period the return to an inflation free economy. In fact, such a tunnel vision would solve nothing and would only delay the solutions which would have to be found sooner or later and would then have to be much more drastic as the situation would have worsened.
In choosing to fight inflation, the government does not want to delude the Canadian people or to give them false hopes. It does not want to mislead the people into believing that inflation is not a problem. As you know, inflation could be compared to obesity. When an individual starts to gain weight, he does not necessarily consider this a major problem, but as he puts on additional pounds, his body loses flexibility and the obese individual will eventually realize that he must radically change his way of life. Of course, there are many degrees in the efforts made to lose weight. An overly drastic diet could make the patient's condition worse. I believe that the same applies to the economy. That is why the government has chosen a gradualist approach, a monetary and fiscal restriction strategy tempered by equity, and indeed an economic policy which fights inflation while avoiding the extremes which would cause more serious damage to those who have problems or which would simply feed the flames of inflation. If we truly
December 10, 1981

want to fight this economic ill which can be compared to obesity, we must reduce inflationary pressures as well as the total demand for goods and services. We believe that this first form of restriction must be applied by the government to its own activities. In 1982-83, the growth rate of government spending will go down to 11.7 per cent, which is lower than the inflation rate.
In other words, if we consider the inflation rate and the rate growth of government expenditures, in real terms there will not be an increase in public expenses. Now what about the reduction of the deficit? The deficit was $13.4 billion in 1981-82, it will be $10.5 billion in 1982-83. As a result of this lower deficit the cash requirements of the government will be lower, and there will be a very significant reduction in the borrowing needs of the government, from $9.8 billion in 1981-82 down to $6.6 billion in 1982-83. The direct consequence of such lower cash requirements next year will enable us to seek less capital on the markets. This partial withdrawal by the government will relieve pressure on interest rates and the declining trend we have been witnessing will continue.
In addition, it will be easier for the private sector to borrow on a less active financial market. This possibility of easier borrowings will pave the way for job-creating investments which will be a shot in the arm of our economy. I mentioned restrictive measures to fight against inflation. I also said that those restrictive measures are being taken while keeping in mind our concern for equity. It was in that spirit that the Minister of Finance announced in his budget speech that he would maintain full tax indexation, the indexation of basic exemptions of the tax rolls as well as the worthwhile indexation of social programs. The 1982 indexation rate will be 12.2 per cent. In terms of purchasing power, the indexation of the tax rolls means that Canadian taxpayers will get refunds in excess of $2 billion.
Therefore, through indexing, the government will be protecting the purchasing power of Canadians in 1982-83, by over $3 billion. It could have ended the indexing of such programs and cut back the deficit by an equivalent amount. But it considers that such a move would have disastrous social effects since the indexing of income tax and social programs is specifically designed to help those who are hardest hit by inflation. The theme of equity upon which, among others, the budget is based will also take the form of selective measures to help those who are hardest hit by high interest rates. Indeed, the Minister of Finance has announced the implementation of a program to facilitate mortgage renewal. The government is prepared to guarantee the terms under which financial institutions will defer part of the interests incurred when mortgage payments exceed 30 per cent of gross income.
Furthermore, in the case of home owners whose mortgage debt could reach unduly high levels as a result of interest deferral, the government proposes to provide assistance in order to reduce or completely eliminate this deferred interest.
High Interest Rates
The government will also be encouraging the construction of rental housing. It will provide interest-free loans of up to $7,500 per unit for 15,000 units allocated to tight markets across Canada. These units will be over and beyond the 25,000 units provided for by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under its co-operative and nonprofit housing program. The Farm Credit Corporation will also be able to offer loans at 5 percentage points below its normal interest rate through a special $50 million allocation set aside for this purpose.
The budget also contains a series of provisions for small businesses, and these provisions were described yesterday by the Minister of State responsible for small businesses in a very important speech. The government has been selective in distributing aid to various groups in Canada. It would be totally inconsistent of the government to set up subsidy programs for all groups that are affected by present interest rates. Such a policy would be very costly, while feeding inflation as well. On the other hand, if the government were to protect all those affected by interest rates by giving them subsidies, it would not be getting at the cause of our high interest rates and would only provide temporary relief. In fact, giving subsidies to all and sundry would merely create the illusion that our present inflation rate is not serious and that we can go on living as if it did not exist, since the government is going to compensate for high inflation. The government has decided to give selective aid, because inflation and the resulting high interest rates often affect those who can least afford such problems. In fact, the government has introduced the programs I have just described in order to eliminate cases of inequity.
The present monetary and fiscal policies are aimed at deflating inflationary pressures and are involved in a joint effort to reduce inflation. Reducing inflationary pressures is a prerequisite for reducing the high interest rates we are experiencing today. The government cannot fight inflation alone. The strategy for fighting inflation requires all economic partners to make their contribution. High interest rates are a temporary problem if we get at the root of this problem, namely inflation.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the most positive attitude the members of this House could take would be to support the policy of restraint described in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, a policy that is aimed at bringing down inflation and hence interest rates.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this unfortunately timely but very important motion by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I wish to focus my remarks on that portion of the motion which deals with the worst housing crisis since the Second World War, and specifically on the

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
presence of urea formaldehyde foam insulation in 100,000 Canadian homes and perhaps even more.
The presence of UFFI exacerbates an already critical housing situation. Since we are dealing with this housing crisis, particularly the crisis which affects those unfortunate enough to have had this foam put into their homes, I would like to make an aside here, that I realize it is difficult for ministers and, indeed, all Members of Parliament to be present in the House of Commons on all occasions when there is a crucial debate going on. I think that when the official opposition sets aside an entire day on a matter as crucial as the housing crisis Canada is going through, it would be courteous for the minister responsible for housing to be in his place to be able to hear some of the cases of hardship we want to bring to the attention of the government, and perhaps be able to get some information from the government on what it plans to do to redress these hardship cases.
This government has consigned at least 100,000 home owners, which could mean anywhere from 250,000 to 300,000, maybe half a million, Canadians, to the ranks of the untouchables, the lepers of the housing industry. For a great number of Canadians the presence of UFFI means not only a health crisis and a structural risk-because the unstable product does cause corrosion-but for many, many people it is an economic catastrophe.
My repeated questions in the House over the past few weeks and months on the UFFI matter may have sounded like a broken record, but this Liberal government has broken all records in terms of the home owners' misery index. There will be one million home owners with mortgages coming due this year. About 10 per cent of those home owners will be having genuine difficulty renewing their mortgages, getting them guaranteed, indeed, even trying to sell their homes.
Attempting to answer questions in the House on November 24, the minister for housing, who is responsible in the House for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, stated that nothing has changed with respect to CMHC housing mortgages. However, he failed to point out that CMHC had considered refusing to guarantee mortgages for homes with foam, according to one senior official, but found it necessary to continue insuring them. Then the minister of housing had the gall to suggest to the news media outside the House that it would be prudent of the legal profession and prospective home buyers to find out what kind of insulation is in those homes so as to know whether urea formaldehyde foam is in them.
I would like the minister to tell me who is buying those homes, since he must be aware there are homes in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, St. John's, London, Waterloo, Hamilton, St. Catharines, everywhere in this country, that are not marketable.
Let me read part of a letter, Mr. Speaker, from a home owner in North York, Ontario. This letter is from a large real estate firm and is addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Frank Spitzer, 20 Hilltop Road, North York. The letter says:
You have a lovely home with nicely proportioned rooms, and it is in excellent condition. While it would, under ordinary circumstances, be an extremely
desirable property, and hence very saleable, it is with regret that I must inform you that because of the urea-formaldehyde insulation you had installed, it would be futile for me to take the listing, as there would be little hope of selling it even at a price far below market value.
I am sorry that we cannot do business at this time, but it would be unfair for me to give you false hope about the marketability of your home.
Let me read another letter from Mr. Larry Gee of Point Clair, Quebec. This is from another large real estate firm, A.E. Lepage, and it states:
It is certainly unfortunate that although all of these indications suggest a market value of $42,000.00, I feel that because of the type of insulation (ie urea-formaldehyde foam) in your home it would be virtually impossible to market.
Later in the letter it is stated:
Since the insulation in your home appears to be impossible to remove without virtually removing the building, I would have to consider the building to be worthless. In fact it is a liability, as someone would have to spend money to effect its removal.
The land value in the area indicates that your lot because of its location should sell for $15,000.00; however, the cost of removal of the building may have to be deducted from this amount.
Our office has become sort of an ombudsman headquarters for urea formaldehyde foam home owners across the country. I guess one of the saddest cases has come to my attention through the good offices of the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), from the town of Pelham. There is in Fenwick a senior citizen who has been hospitalized from reaction to the substance UFFI, according to her doctor's findings, and has had to have her home completely reconstructed. My colleague, the hon. member for Erie, informs me that her whole lifetime saving, everything she has right now, is $8,000. The cost to have the foam taken out of her home and to restore it to its original condition was approximately $18,000. This is a senior citizen, and according to the mayor of the town of Pelham, Mr. Bergenstein:
For many, many people, as in the case of Mrs. Illes and several others in my Town, it is presently a personal disaster and I would urge all your respective levels of government to regard it as an emergency and respond appropriately- which means promptly!
That also means positively.
How will these people ever be able to sell their homes? How will they ever be able to obtain mortgages, even if they can afford them, when trust companies and banks such as Canada Trust, the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Toronto-Dominion Bank will not grant mortgages to those who want to buy UFFI insulated homes? In fact, the mortgage insurance companies of Canada will not underwrite any new mortgages on houses insulated with the foam. When the minister suggests that people are buying these homes, I wish he would tell that to the
100,000	home owners who have seen their lives' investments slowly sink beneath their feet.
Most Canadians insulated their homes to save energy costs and conserve the precious resources that we have in this world. About 100,000 to 125,000 home owners insulated their homes with urea formaldehyde foam, 40,000 under the CHIP program. It was a classic case of one arm of the government
December 10, 1981

advising people to use a substance which other arms of government had warned was an unhealthy and unstable product. This is the same government which had recommended its use and eventually banned it altogether as a hazardous product. Because people were concerned about conserving energy, they took the government at its word and insulated with UFFI. They have been hung up by the thumbs and left there by a government which does not seem to care what happens to these
100.000	people, and it could be as many as 200,000 or maybe
500.000	people.
Oh yes, we did have a test program of 2,400 homes out of 100,000. The tests were announced only when it became painfully clear to this government that those home owners across Canada could not be walked upon or pushed around. It is our understanding that the results of those tests are now in the hands of the government and indeed the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) suggested the other night that the preliminary results show a 13 per cent problem level in the province of Quebec and approximately 13 per cent in Ontario. My mathematical ability is lousy, but a rough calculation would indicate that 13,500 homes across the country could be affected. If that turns out to be the case, a 13 per cent trouble factor, that clearly is the group which the government should be considering giving financial assistance to now. Incidentally, the tests were conveniently scheduled to take place in September and October, after the summer heat and humidity but before the winter heating season is fully upon us. This is just at the time when the foam would be at its most relatively stable period. As I have said, at least 100,000 home owners are involved, affecting 250,000 people, and it represents at least 1.5 per cent of this country's meagre existing housing stock.
There is the possibility that on Monday the government may announce the second phase of its solution to the UFFI problem. A report out of Vancouver suggested that the government will look first to those people who identifiably have health problems, and then offer limited assistance to others who have foam in their homes. The report mentions a statement made by an unidentified official report of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It states:
The unidentified official says there is no doubt the federal government feels a moral obligation to assist home owners who took government advice and insulated their homes with foam.
He says the primary consideration for compensation will be medical, followed by some degree of financial help related to costs incurred in having the foam removed.
He also says home owners cannot expect full compensation because the costs would be prohibitive.
Well, that is not going to be good enough for those people who live in these homes, who have invested all their life savings and who expected to enjoy good health in their homes in the ensuing years.
The question is whether they will be able to sell their homes for what they were worth. I do not think so. I do think the government has a great moral, legal and financial obligation to compensate those people who are experiencing difficulties as a result of having UFFI in their homes. I do not think that those
High Interest Rates
people who have a clearly identifiable problem will be too happy at the announcement to come Monday, which could very well be too little and too late.
In closing, I would like to say that I intend to support the motion before us and to vigorously vote non-confidence in this government on behalf of 100,000 home owners who have UFFI in their homes and who would, if they were standing in my place tonight, also vote non-confidence in this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand today and address the opposition motion. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has raised a number of issues in this motion which deserve serious discussion. Unfortunately, when one reads the motion, one is somewhat appalled by one of the shortcomings in it. Perhaps it was not done intentionally and could be amended later on, but the fact is that although the hon. member talks about high interest rates, jobs, housing and the small enterprises of this country, he forgets to mention the root of the problem, which is inflation.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, inflation is running at a very high rate in this country. One of the contributing factors to high inflation is the deficit which this government is attempting to bring under control in a very reasonable way through its recent budget. It is my understanding and belief that by reducing the deficit, inflation will be reduced and will thereby have a direct impact on high interest rates. It should be said that members opposite, whether they come from St. John's East or from Oshawa, are not the only ones, nor are their parties concerned about high interest rates. We on this side of the House are equally concerned and I believe that we have now taken some action which will eventually alleviate inflation, bring it under control and impact upon high interest rates.
We need a lower deficit, Mr. Speaker. A reduction in the deficit will have positive effects over time on inflationary expectations through expenditure restraint and deficit reduction. The federal government is giving a clear signal that it intends to restrain the growth of its demands on the economy.
Another result from reducing the deficit is that the government will reduce its demands on the financial market, thereby making it easier for the Bank of Canada to achieve its monetary growth targets and restrain demands for credit in the economy. A reduction in the deficit, through restraint on government spending and increased taxes, directly leads to reduced demands for goods and services.


An hon. Member:: And recession.


David Charles Dingwall: As prices are typically marked up on costs, the maintenance of some slack in product markets puts downward pressure on mark-ups and restrains inflationary pressures.
In his motion, the hon. member for St. John's East mentions certain added pressure which is exerted on the small business
13936

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
community. One of the matters which has been raised in recent times is the question of interest deductibility. One of the criticisms is that investors in small businesses and those who invest in office buildings, factories and apartment buildings will be deterred by the provision restricting deductibility of interest rate expense from investment income.
There are a number of factors which deal with that particular criticism which I would like to state for the record. First, this measure does not deny a deduction. It only changes the timing of it, when it may be claimed. Borrowing costs on one asset may be offset against any investment income that the individual has from assets or other investments. The facts are that if the measure had applied in 1979, over 76 per cent of interest costs would have remained deductible immediately. Of the 1.3 million individuals who claimed the deduction, only
198,000	of them would have had their interest costs limited, and of these, 163,000 would have had their taxable income affected by less than $500. Only 7,000 persons would have had restricted interest expenses of over $5,000. For many of these people the tax rate cut benefits will offset the restrictions in interest expense deductibility.
Of the large number of individuals who invest in risky ventures or securities, most invest their own savings or have adequate investment income in total to be able to claim any interest expense on borrowed funds.
The revenues from this measure are being used to help finance reductions in tax rates which will reduce the top rate on capital gains from 33 per cent to 25 per cent on average and will increase the after tax return on risky investments. We must keep certain policy measures in perspective, and that is one matter on which I want to elaborate today.
The motion today alleges a lack of concern for home owners and renters in this country, but I think the minister responsible for housing as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) have provided a sizeable amount of money and directed it in such a way that I hope-and I am sure hon. members opposite hope-will help alleviate some of the hardships Canadians are facing at the present time.
For home owners, growth in income means that most Canadians are able to renew their mortgages by adjusting their spending decisions. But for those facing the potential loss of their homes, the Government of Canada is introducing a program to help. For those home owners whose payments would exceed 30 per cent of their household incomes and who wish to enter into a deferred interest plan with their lending institutions, the government is prepared to guarantee repayment of this deferred interest up to $3,000. For home owners whose payments would exceed 30 per cent of their household income and who have yet to build up sufficient equity in their homes to support interest deferral, the Government of Canada will pay 100 per cent of the interest deferred under the guarantee plan to a maximum of $3,000.
Hon. members opposite have very graciously referred to the measures the Government of Canada is taking in relation to
renters. A number of criticisms of government policies have been made. One particular criticism is that under the budget it will be more difficult for a small businessman to sell his business because it eliminates the so-called reserve provisions and thus imposes tax on capital gains at the time the business is sold, even if the buyer does not pay cash for the full purchase price. The fact in relation to that concern is that, as a result of the reduction in marginal tax rates, the maximum tax on a capital gain will now be only 25 per cent of the gain. The gain itself will invariably be less than the sale price of the business. Thus, the tax will be only a small proportion of the sale price, and the seller would normally receive at least some of the proceeds in cash, which he could use to pay the tax.
The seller may now choose to forward average the capital gain through the new budget provision so that it can be spread out and taxed in later years when his tax rate is lower. This provision will be of significant benefit to those who are selling their businesses on retirement and, with the lower tax rate proposed in the budget, will provide benefits similar to, and in some cases better than, those provided under the IAAC and reserve provisions.
In addition, the pre-budget rules provided a very significant tax deferral advantage to some taxpayers which was not generally available to all. This deferral advantage was of primary benefit to high-income taxpayers. The new forwardaveraging system will allow averaging of the capital gain over many years without also providing tax deferrals which resulted in a few high income individuals totally escaping paying federal tax.
Another criticism was that allowing only one-half capital cost allowance write-off in the year an asset is acquired will reduce the cash flow of small businesses. That, too, is a faulty criticism. The measure thus merely alters the timing of depreciation but not the total amount. The amount of depreciation not allowed in the year an asset is acquired will be deductible in subsequent years. An hon. member opposite is nodding his head in agreement; I am glad he concurs in what I am saying.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No.


David Charles Dingwall: The measure will not materially alter the rate of return on investment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague suggested I nodded my head in agreement. I nodded my head in amazement.


David Charles Dingwall: It is amazing that that head could be nodded.
Canada's rates of capital cost allowance for assets such as machinery and equipment will continue to permit a faster write-off than in the United States. Canada's investment incentive overall will remain better for both machinery and equipment and buildings.
It was not a right that a business could obtain a full year's depreciation on an asset bought part way through the year. The pre-budget rule, for example, turned the two-year write-
December 10, 1981

off for manufacturing machinery and equipment into a writeoff over as little as 13 months.
While the approach of basing depreciation claims on the exact month an asset bought is theoretically correct, the budget's one half rule on average gives the same results but is simpler for small businesses.
The thrust of the budget to reduce the deficit, and thus inflation and interest rates, is the best way to boost investment.
A number of inferences and assertions have been made by the hon. member from Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). As we all know, he stood in the House of Commons today and very eloquently and compassionately echoed certain sentiments about certain individuals in this country who are suffering grave hardship. However, the hon. member unfortunately forgot to mention some of the measures this government has taken to help the less fortunate in this country. For his edification and for the edification of some other members of his party, I would like to deal briefly with a few of those measures.
Tax rates will be reduced for taxpayers with over SI 1,000 in taxable income. The current 9 per cent tax reduction will be changed to a flat $200 tax credit for all taxpayers, and married taxpayers will be allowed to claim an additional $200 for their dependent spouses. This means that approximately
620,000	low-income taxpayers will have their tax credits doubled to $400.


David Orlikow: Tell us about the people at the top.


David Charles Dingwall: The Leader of the New Democratic Party unfortunately forgot to mention these measures in his remarks. His colleagues have forgotten that the child tax credit will increase from $261 to $293 per child. That was another measure included in the budget. Tax measures for 1982, including cutbacks in tax preferences and indexing, will bring reductions averaging $210 for almost 12 million taxpayers. A family of four will now be able to earn up to $15,000 without paying any tax. I think that is a commendable measure in the budget, and that ought to be recognized by hon. members opposite as well as by hon. members on this side of the House. Reduced unemployment premiums will increase the take-home pay of wage earners by some $200 million. This was referred to by the hon. member for Oshawa.
There are other measures to which I would like to refer (Mr. Dingwal). The hon. member from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) stood in his place today and said that the Government of Canada should be spending more money on shelter allowances to help those in need. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) has said that our main problem is inflation and that fighting inflation would reduce interest rates. The Progressive Conservative Party has sent out a letter across the country on its stationery asking people to contribute to that political party. In its letter the party says:
But if we're going to force him into reducing government spending and reducing taxes-
High Interest Rates
On the one hand the hon. member for St. John's East says we should spend more. On the other hand the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre says we should spend less. The fund raising chairman of the Progressive Conservative Party says he wants a reduction in taxes and a reduction in the deficit as well. You cannot have it both ways.
The hon. member for St. John's East, who unfortunately is not in the chamber, talked about job creation. For his edification, I bring to his attention that the Government of Canada has provided significant economic benefits to the province of Newfoundland to ensure employment in that province, to try to reduce the high unemployment in that province-


David Orlikow: Tell us about unemployment in Cape Breton.


David Charles Dingwall: That is true, there is a lot of unemployment in Cape Breton. I would say to that hon. member that it is the Government of Canada which is providing direct funds for the stabilization and continued operation of the Glace Bay heavy water plant and the Port Hawkesbury heavy water plant. The NDP at their last convention in a resolution said that the NDP support the phasing out of existing nuclear projects, including uranium mining. That is where they stand.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Charles Dingwall: Continuing with the various projects in Newfoundland, I bring to the attention of members the pulp and paper modernization agreement whereby the Government of Canada has provided $30 million to the economy of Newfoundland. The hon. member for St. John's East stands in his place, handkerchief in hand, but he does not mention the measures that this government has taken in a positive way.
The Newfoundland forestry agreement has provided an additional $47 million. The Newfoundland transportation agreement provided approximately $10 million to the economy of that province. My colleague from Humbert-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) just announced recently, in addition to the $26.5 million for the Canada Newfoundland industrial subsidiary agreement, an additional $5.5 million for that province.
Progressive Conservative members from Newfoundland have not recognized the great contribution that all Liberals from Newfoundland have been making in this House. They secured an extra $40 million from Parks Canada for road construction. Of course, large amounts of money have been deposited in Newfoundland for small craft harbours as well. In addition to these new agreements, there are some three or four existing agreements in tourism, agriculture and forestry, representing $13 million, $15 million and $14 million respectively, which have been directed to the economy of Newfoundland.
I object most strenuously to the charge that the Government of Canada doing nothing to assist in job creation or that it is not working to try and alleviate the housing problem and assist small businessmen. Unfortunately, the motion which has been placed before the House of Commons today is misleading and

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
deceiving and does not go to the root of the problem, which is inflation.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I may add, yes indeed, the member for Joliette, the only Progressive Conservative member for the only riding that, not long ago, decided to get its message across to a government that is causing a lot of suffering and will do so for a while yet, if we look at the replies we have had today. I feel that opposition days are an excellent opportunity for members to express their views and make comments and help the government side to correct its mistakes and clean up its act. Well, we are all convinced-and that probably includes members on the opposite side as well-that the present budget does not even provide the bare minimum. Businessmen in all sectors have lost confidence in the government, and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) is aware of it, the members are aware of it, I heard the hon. member from Newfoundland, I believe, who referred to projects in his province, but there unemployment is also unacceptably high.
Unemployment has reached unacceptable high levels in my province as well, and the outlook is not a happy one. It is not happy in Ontario either. There may be a few provinces in western Canada where the economic situation is a bit better. On this opposition day, we are to consider a motion of censure. How can we not blame the government, when so many Canadians are faced with a difficult situation they will not be able to solve in the medium term, and certainly not in the short term, and who will certainly not have a very happy Christmas or New Year? And earlier, the Minister of State for Finance definitely confirmed that interest rates would not go down and that it was not easy-we know that-but for heaven's sake, we have had this government in power for 15 years, and there has been a lot of discussion and they are trying to find a way to go to the root of the problem. Well, the root of the problem might well be-


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of State for Finance on a point of order.


Pierre Bussières: I just want to remind the hon. member that he left out part of my sentence. I made a connection between interest rates and inflation, and I said that as long as inflation remained high, it was unlikely that interest rates would drop.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, it amounts to the same thing. For ten years, this government has been promising us it would launch an all-out attack against inflation. The results are there for all to see today. Unemployment was created to reduce inflation, and now we have 1,300,000 unemployed, plus galloping inflation. That is what has been achieved by a government
that has long outlived its usefulness. And the minister has no new statements to make on the subject, and I must say it is terribly depressing for Canadians who are aware of the situation to listen to this kind of news today, and it is certainly depressing for people like myself who are trying to persuade the members opposite to at least have the guts to tell their Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen): But you have not found the solution yet. However, out of partisanship these people will once again have to support and defend their government tonight, even if they may not be doing so with much enthusiasm. During the budget debate, I was listening to the member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) and to the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) who severely criticized the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). As usual, however, they voted in favour of a budget that is seriously affecting industries in their own ridings, Mr. Speaker.
Once again this evening, the Minister of Finance, who is giving evidence of even greater incompetence than his predecessor, will be applauded. This seems impossible to me, but the Minister of Finance will once again be covered for this evening, and the Minister of State for Finance has given us the same old story that he probably repeats all across Canada but which does not meet our needs or suggest appropriate corrective action. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is being criticized simply for having shown that our housing policies are clearly inadequate to meet Canadian needs, and not a single government member can deny it. There will be a housing shortage and therefore a major problem in this area, and I am certain that hon. members opposite know as well as I do that there will be a shortage in the coming year. I must therefore congratulate the mover of the motion for having introduced this subject in the House of Commons, and I hope that the government members will force the Minister of Finance to show at least some sympathy for those people who are now or who will be soon without a home. I am not exaggerating, Mr. Speaker. Those are the facts. Some will say: It is not easy. Of course not, but this is the issue we wanted to discuss today in an attempt to convince government members that they should show more human feelings than they have done until now by doing nothing.
The hon. member for St. John's East was quite right to raise this issue in the House. We are not saying that everything in the budget is unacceptable, but certain omissions are inexcusable, and as responsible members of this House and as a responsible party, we want to ask the government to seriously think about such basic necessities as housing. Of course, interest rates have been harmful; they have been fatal to the building industry. The hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) is aware of it. It is obvious that interest rates have frozen the building industry and put thousands of people out of work. Consequently, there will not be enough housing units for all Canadians. Any self-respecting country or government should
December 10, 1981

be farsighted enough to provide at least this much. Not only are there more and more unemployed in Canada, but there is also an increasing number of people without a home because of an extremely dangerous product-and I shall get back to that later-but the government is doing absolutely nothing to help them except for a few tests with results to be published later. For the moment, some Canadians are without a home for lack of an effective housing policy, and matters have been made even more difficult because of high interest rates, as we must all admit.
The New Democratic Party accused us earlier of having nearly the same views as this government about economics. If the philosophies of our two parties have been somewhat similar, it still remains that on this side of the House, we have been able to make a choice when faced with the need to house Canadians. This is where we must make some choices and establish certain priorities to provide certain advantages to home owners, and this is what we had proposed. In 1982, home owners could have received a credit of $1,500 to help them face the present situation. But this government defeated us on this vitally important question for home owners, and it is important for home owners to realize it, Mr. Speaker. When we made that proposal, I recall quite clearly that our friends opposite blamed us, supposedly because tenants had been forgotten in the home owner tax credit bill. Obviously if this bill could have been implemented, home owners would have been quite embarrassed to talk about increases this year. But as they were left to cope for themselves, and as the Canadian public elected this government which then abandoned not only our proposal, but also their good intentions of helping tenants-
Renters have seen nothing coming from the floor of this House to help them cope with high interest rates. Thousands of home owners are losing their homes. Those who would like to buy a house cannot afford to, and the budget has no answer for them. Honestly, this must be recognized. The budget does not enable young couples to buy homes. And people are at a loss to keep the homes they have. Mr. Speaker, you are aware that the government will help some 10 per cent of the people affected, those facing bankruptcy. That is all. Their agony will be lengthened because their loan will be extended. What a solution! And there is nothing for renters in all that, Mr. Speaker. The government talks of 15,000 units when it is alleged that 265,000 units would be needed. This is ridiculous, utterly ridiculous.
It is important in my view that the issue be dealt with seriously, that we confront the government with it and urge government members to bring those responsible to their senses. I realize and understand that quite often, members of the House remain silent. I also realize their ineffectiveness about cabinet failures. But responsible members must confront some ministers with the problem. In Quebec also there are major problems. Quebec will account for 40 per cent of the bankrupt-
High Interest Rates
cies. I know some member from my province will say: The Quebec government is responsible for that. Out of the total number of bankruptcies in Canada, 40 per cent happen in Quebec. For a Quebecer this hurts. But this government has been in office for 15 years. I have been here for nearly 15 years, but today they are in larger numbers, they are now 74. For that reason, they decided long ago to speak on behalf of Quebec. But let them do something for Quebec here. More than talk is needed.
There is a large number of ministers from Quebec. There are also many backbenchers. Recently I was in Montreal. On Montreal island in these last 15 years-a Progressive Conservative has spent a few days, but otherwise there are 22 Liberal members out of 22, with seven or eight ministers. This did not prevent Montreal from losing its position as Canada's metropolis. Are Progressive Conservatives responsible for that? Are New Democrats responsible for that? Mr. Speaker, somebody here is certainly not doing his job. Somebody here is certainly not finding the answers. They claim to know what they are.
In the circumstances, this allotted day could give members in this House an opportunity to bring the minister responsible to his senses. I will not say too much about the minister in charge of housing. He has enough problems these days, and anyway the hon. member for Saint-Jean has amply demonstrated his utter failure and incompetence in that area.
My colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) also referred to the victims of urea formaldehyde, and all my friends in Quebec, all Canadians are aware of that major problem, but the government refuses to face the problem. I submit that this problem is of a social nature. We have a responsibility as Members of Parliament. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) told us: When the investigation is completed, we shall see who is responsible and we shall expose him. It is not so, Mr. Speaker. We are told that it will cost millions and this is why the government is unwilling to deal with it. In my view, this is unthinkable! If it is true that the problem is costly, how can you expect individuals, these poor home owners, the breadwinners, women and children to go through the winter? The government has a responsibility. I mentioned a special credit, a loan, but those people should be helped if the government is humane but it believes that as a result of that inquiry it will be in a position to find the culprit. It will make the culprit pay. However, the government is asking those individuals to fight against that terrible problem. A heartless government alone can speak in such a way, Mr. Speaker. I would like to convince the hon. members opposite that they should compel the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to assume its basic responsibilities and as the elective representation of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the time allotted to me has expired-not yet. Then the problem exists, Mr. Speaker, and it is the matter now under consideration.

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
To allow these people, and this is what I am seeking from hon. members on the government side, to advise the ministers of inadequate or unapplied measures, and these people are aware of it, according to the remarks we hear nowadays. Unemployment will increase. I challenge one of you to deny the unemployment rate will be higher next spring. I think everybody agrees that it will be close to 20 per cent. Nobody says no, and I do not think that I am wrong by much, Mr. Speaker. They talk about increasing by the hundreds and the thousands the number of housing units for Canadians... There are some of them who will realize soon that they have no shelter over their heads. In the area of inflation, they say that interest rates will remain the same. Therefore, the government should do something to help those who cannot afford these high interest rates. They talk about getting the housing industry moving again with these interest rates. When inflation comes down, so will interest rates. We have been hearing this tune for the past 10 years, but people are suffering in the meantime. For this reason, I think that this opposition day will make it possible for us to recommend very special measures to the government to help at least those who are suffering most. There is no remedy which could cure the condition overnight, that is for sure. But there are people, for instance, who cannot wait until inflation comes down to 6 or 7 per cent. These people are going to suffer. They will starve. And I think that we must assume our responsibility in this respect. It is with this in mind that I urge hon. members to meet these social problems head on. There are major social problems in all our ridings throughout Canada. I am aware of this. But now we are asking the government to consider them. We seek, during this opposition day, to convince the hardhearted government members to introduce adequate legislation, so that Canadians may sleep in warm beds, live in comfortable lodgings, and obtain mortgage loans at rates they can afford. Of course, interest rates could remain high for luxury goods and services, on the assumption that inflation would be more likely to come down if interest rates remained high. However, an ever-increasing minority of Canadians need a decent minimum to live decently. With interest rates approaching 20 per cent, Canadians and Quebecers by the thousands like those who are now in the House will be laid off and will no longer be able to cope with these problems.


An hon. Member:: Don't cry over that!


Roch La Salle: I am told not to cry over that. I think this is serious, Mr. Speaker. There are Canadians who take this seriously and there are members on the other side who should take this seriously as well. That is what I have in mind when I say that and I do so with the best intentions in the world; to my mind, we ought to be able to discuss politics with the utmost objectivity, but we also ought to do it emotionally, inspired by the feelings which enabled us to gain the confidence of our public. In all those ridings which are represented by government members, the electors put their faith in them. Those men and those women promised they would form a good government, a government of men and women who would show respect for their fellow human beings, but that is not what is happening. We will stand idly by while maybe 25 or 30 per cent of the Canadian population will be living the worst experience of their lives right in the middle of the forthcoming holiday season, Mr. Speaker. We should do everything we can to try and force this government to respond in a more respectful, more charitable and more compassionate way to those groups of people who cannot take it any longer. That, Mr. Speaker, is our problem in Canada right now. Let no one ask me to have faith in a government which has been failing so miserably for the past 15 years, which has inflated its deficit and boosted the number of people out of work; a great many plants are closing down and things are getting worse every day. They bragged about 110,000 new jobs, but they did not say how many jobs had been lost during the same period. We are moving backwards and people are suffering. This is an opposition day and once again I hope-I will not ask for a time extension-I echo from the bottom of my heart, Mr. Speaker, the wishes of thousands of electors in Quebec and in Canada. People tell us that the situation is bad and they wonder what is going to happen. We cannot answer that, but what we do know is that some people will not be able to join the festivities like the others, they will not be able to eat like the others; those are basic rights, Mr. Speaker, but they are being thwarted by an economic policy which has turned out to be a monumental failure. That is clear. Let us reassess our priorities and help the most needy. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau) agrees with me, I am sure of that, and in his riding as well there are people, farmers who are now worried because problems which should be solved are not being solved, and for the residents of Frontenac as well as those of Joliette I hope they will be solved. I would invite those people to put pressure on the ministers responsible and urge them to find some kind of solution; it may not be a component of an over-all policy but it will have to be modified because the over-all policy falls far short of the mark, something which Quebecers and Canadians, thousands of Canadians, are aware of, just as most members are, here in this House. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the other side has the majority and they would rather glorify a finance minister who shows such incompetence and lack of compassion for the Canadian people.


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


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask the hon. member for Joliette if he would allow me a question. With the unanimous consent of the House I would like to ask a question on what he has just said.
December 10, 1981


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time allotted to the hon. member for Joliette has expired. Is there unanimous consent?


Roch La Salle: I think the hon. member for Longueuil should address his questions to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, since he is the one who delivered the budget, not I.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. The hon. member for Joliette has not allowed the question.
The hon. member for Longueuil on a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette, whom I listened to, mentioned the hon. member for Longueuil twice in his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague, the member for Longueuil, will have a chance to rise on a matter of privilege tomorrow to raise the point he wishes to discuss. To the member for Joliette, I would like to say that I find it very stimulating to follow a Frenchspeaking member. It is the first time this has happened to me since I became a member of this House. Unfortunately, I think Quebecers have lost confidence in the Progressive Conservative Party and have never really had any confidence in the New Democratic Party. They do trust the Liberals, which is good for the province but makes it less interesting for us Liberal members, since we never have a chance to answer a francophone member when we take the floor.
Before discussing the motion introduced today, I will start with the small fry, the rump of the House, the New Democratic Party. I was listening just now to the eloquent speech by the Leader of the New Democratic Party who was launching his strongest arguments against the government's budget, its mortgage rate policies, and against every conceivable fault the government might have.
It seems that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is against the budget policy and the mortgage rate policy of the Liberal government. If he does not agree with the government, why wasn't the Leader of the New Democratic Party in the House on December 8 when we voted on the budget, in order to vote against it. I think this neatly characterizes the party. I am against but I will not vote against, or I am in favour but I will not vote in favour. Or else, I am voting in favour, but I am against, or I am voting against, but I am in favour. The epitome of indecision! A party that includes, among its members, people with a negative outlook, highly trained intellectuals who are supposed to bring this country to a certain kind of socialism which is not clearly defined and which flirts from time to time with communism, when their leader is meeting international communist parties or other kinds of communists when he is travelling in Salvador. We do not need that kind of
High Interest Rates
party! We do not need them because Canadians will not build a country for the future with that kind of help. I am very serious about this because for a long time, for 18 months, I have been watching this party that has no face of its own-


David Orlikow: Tell us about the unemployed in Lac-Saint-Jean. Talk some sense.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: I tell people who voted NDP in the last election to look at the vote on the budget on December 8, 1981, and they will realize that the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party was not present. That is further proof that that party is a no-decision party. When it is time to take action, they are not present.
[ Translation]
That is simply unacceptable. I also have a few words for a friend of the New Democratic Party, the leader of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. McDermott, who likes to visit Parliament Hill and who, as the leader of Canadian workers, is doing more than anyone else to harm their cause. Mr. McDermott is no longer a union leader, Mr. McDermott is now a politician-a politician doing what? He makes workers go on strike and lose money, and he comes here to support a political party that is decadent, has no positive contribution to make and would have us believe that it represents the workers of Canada. No, Mr. Speaker, we do not need such allies because the real challenge of this country will be to rebuild for the future. When we speak about inflation and high interest rates, what does it mean? It means aging industries. We need a new economic structure. There is sometimes talk of renewing our labour structure and relations. Can Mr. McDermott help us reorganize labour relations and find positive solutions? Certainly not! He has always clearly stated that he wants nothing to do with the government, that he is there to fight and that he is simply acting as a messenger of the New Democratic Party to try to manipulate workers so that they will vote for that party even though he never succeeds. This is something that I wanted to mention.
As for the motion introduced by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), this is what we find in the first few lines:
That this House censures the government of its perpetual, excessive, and ineffective reliance on a high interest rate policy, which has not only-
-and so on. Strangely enough, when we have these opposition days, no constructive suggestion is ever made saying, for instance, we, of the Progressive Conservative Party, would like to work with the Canadian government to bring solutions to the problems facing Canadians. Why are we being censured? The government of Canada is being censured because the dollar has not gone down by one cent in the last year in Canada while the currency has gone down by 20 per cent, 25 per cent and 30 per cent in the countries who form the Europe

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
of the nine and who are saying: There are nine of us and we are strong enough to resist the pressures of American interest rates. Who pays the bill when a currency goes down by 20 per cent, 25 per cent, and 30 per cent? How much would it cost to purchase ordinary consumer goods, such as automotive parts, oil, and everything that we import like sugar and steel, if our dollar had fallen by 25 per cent in 1981? Who is the hardest hit in such a case? Not the millionaire! It makes no difference to the millionaire if gas costs $2 or $4 a gallon. It makes no difference at the end of the month. It only means lower taxes.
But for the poor, the unemployed, the person on welfare, what would their position be if the dollar went down by 25 per cent like the French franc has done or even like the great German mark, which has suffered an incredible fall last year? These countries have tried to follow another policy than that which was needed in the interest of the population. They believed that the nine countries together were strong enough to withstand the import of American interest rates. Just look at the result. I believe that we have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that when we speak of interest rates in Canada, only the rich can afford to borrow. Do not try to borrow if you do not have any money, Mr. Speaker. If you try it, the bank will tell you: Even at 2 per cent, you will not get a loan. The rest of the population is forgotten.
I heard the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) speak earlier about over one million unemployed. Yes, but are you forgetting them? Ask those people if they are able to borrow, even at 2 per cent! Those are the people the government is protecting by telling the others: Even though for a while interest rates are higher, and you are facing the impact of a difficult policy to support our dollar, in so doing you are supporting your children because most of the time, unfortunately, the children of people with money do not work. The father has a job, a good income but the son is unemployed. This is the problem we are confronted with, because of our obsolescent factories, because of job security, because provincial governments, such as the friends of the honourable member for Joliette, put forward legislation as the one under which there must one apprentice for every five journeymen. How is it possible to think this opens opportunities for the young, Mr. Speaker? One apprentice for every five journeymen! No! What this government is trying to do is helping the people and getting allies to do so. And how are people going to be helped? The way the recent budget is doing.
Currently, farmers are entitled to the Small Business Development Bond program. This is one way of helping them. Those in difficulty are entitled to a five per cent rebate on the rate charged by the Farm Credit Corporation. And anyway, that rate is going to be revised downward as early as the end of December, and we are told that this five per cent rebate will be maintained. There have been many benefits: housing construction in areas where there is a need, the government will have build 7,500 new units.
People who are in danger of losing their homes, and I would like to say to my colleagues that I helped some of them recently, can now apply to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The government will help them to keep their homes. We are intelligent enough to realize that it would be costlier to build new ones instead of keeping those which are already there, We are not that stupid. However, I heard a while ago the speech of the member for Joliette and I thought that such a speech would have been more appropriately delivered not in this House but in the legislature where he tried to be elected. When the member said that Montreal was losing its international status, I found it strange because five years ago Montreal was still the metropolis of Canada but it now appears that it is no longer the case. Five years ago, Montreal was still an international city, the proof given being the Olympic Games of 1976. Why is Montreal no longer an international city? For the simple reason that during the past five years the government has done nothing to help Quebecers, but is only interested in one thing, and we were again aware of this during the weekend, to build a new country at any cost and it was the party in power, the Parti Quebecois, which during the weekend held its national convention Mr. Speaker. How long did they discuss the Quebec economy in the plenary meeting at that eighth annual convention? I give you a thousand guesses: They did not for one minute, not one second. Is not that weird? But that's the way things go under that government.
The government is trying to find partners to help it to solve the problems of Canadians. I heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) say that we had not done what should have been done to help as far as housing and interest rates on mortgages are concerned. Can anybody tell us what the Saskatchewan government has done? Neo-Democrats are allegedly socialists, but what have they done to help poor home owners? Nothing. I am eager to see what the new Manitoba government will be doing and I remember, I still go farther than those so-called socialists, that not so long ago, they were still discussing there whether the equality of sexes would be recognized.
One of the two premiers who dug in his heels up to the very end was Mr. Blakeney, a member of the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan. What kind of socialism is that? And the great discovery these governments have made, and I include the government of Quebec, because everybody in Quebec has heard this for the last five years, they have discovered that whatever goes wrong, the federal government is to blame. We, the provincial governments, are elected but we have no powers; you elect us for the sake of tradition because you have to have a leader, but all the power is in Ottawa.
Well, I have the impression that people are starting to get the message, but it is not exactly what they meant to say. The message is, I think, that when something positive is done such
December 10, 1981

as health insurance legislation, access to post-secondary education, hospital insurance legislation, it is initiated by the Canadian government which tells the provinces: This is what you are going to do to improve the wellbeing of your citizens. People are starting to understand, and I am reminded of the people in Montmagny who are having all kinds of problems as a result of the economic situation. And whom do they ask for help, whom do they ask to make their region a designated area? Not the members of the government of the province of Quebec, they know they won't do anything to help them. Those people are only interested in one thing, their nation and their flag. What happens to Quebecers does not interest them in the least. They went directly to the Canadian government which has proved, and is continuing to do so, that it is interested in taking action and helping individuals to develop in a liberal sense and to live without constraints in this country. It is really nonsensical that the opposition parties in this House should join the provinces in telling us that everything that goes wrong in Canada is the federal government's fault.
I would like to draw the attention of my hon. colleagues to the fact that there are several Conservative governments in place in other provinces. What are they doing to improve the economy? I will tell you what they are doing. The Premier of Newfoundland is very willing to come to Ottawa to sign agreements with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) when the federal government foots 90 per cent of the bill. But what kind of a budget do they fish out of their fertile little imaginations? Right now there are all sorts of suggestions and speculations being made over the fact that the Canadian government, through its budget, is hitting hard at this or that group, but that completely ignores the fact that 12 million Canadians will be paying less income tax next year.
Now, life insurance. What a terrible thing it is to defend the insurance companies, which pay 4, 4Vi or 5 per cent interest. If you pay $25 or $30 a month in insurance premiums, at 4'A or 5 per cent interest, it would take you an awful long time to reach the first $1,000 tax deductible. This will never be taxable. We are accused of the worst sins under the sun. The best advice I would be willing to give to my constituents, Mr. Speaker, would be for them to borrow on their life insurance, since they would get a loan rate of 6 or 7 per cent, which comes up to about the same as they get from the companies. That is one way of beating the high cost of money. The money is there, it belongs to everyone and anybody can borrow his or her own money at a normal rate, that is at a rate which allows the company to make a certain profit and which is related to the yield that money has produced for the individual.
Members opposite find this quite amusing of course because any constructive proposal makes them laugh. They are not here to represent their constituents, they are here to fling abuse at the government. They completely ignore the fact, for instance, that Canadian farmers, dairy farmers, have told the
High Interest Rates
government: "We think you have a good, an excellent dairy policy; let us have it for another five years. And it is very good". Members opposite would never dare tell that to their constituents. It would be sinful to say that the government has a good policy, because it would be awful to have to tell everyone the truth. That is the kind of attitude which undermines this country, which is responsible for the fact that we have a leader on the other side who is just an immature politician who is merely concerned with making trouble, having fun at the expense of everybody else, showing through childish antics that he is still the best.
What is even worse, and what I cannot fathom, is that after Canadians have told him that they wanted him no longer as their Prime Minister, that nine months had been long enough, that the labouring pains had been too unendurable and that the pregnancy had been too unbearable, the people who sit behind this man continue to endorse him. That is unbelievable! What will Canadians have to do to show them that they do not want their leader? Perhaps send them a series of telegrams or ask Mr. McDermott to come back, but this time to support his NDP colleagues against the Leader of the Opposition. That may be a solution for he enjoys travelling around. He cannot find time to review his files, but he does get around. That may be a solution.


An hon. Member:: Let's have an election!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Yes, an election. Let us talk about elections. Mr. Speaker, those people simply love elections. They were in office and could have stayed there for four years. They introduced a budget and said: The Liberals are bluffing, they will not vote against us, we will have them approve a budget as if we were in a minority position and, at the worst, we will call an election and do as the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker once did-after nine months we will be in a majority position. The people got the picture, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the members of the opposition got the picture as well: Canadians do not elect governments to call elections, they elect governments to look after the administration of their country. An election is a democratic tool, not something everybody enjoys because it gives him or her an opportunity to go on a campaign. We should not think that Canadians enjoy the fun of listening to politicians talking through their hats and making speeches here and there. No. Canadians accept the fact that politicians do exist and want to talk to them now and then, because they need people to administer their country.
Fortunately this country goes on growing, expanding and developing, showing ever more respect for the individual citizen regardless of his or her language, colour, race and religion; Canadians have been fortunate over the past 20 years because the Liberals have been in power in their country. The only thing I ask from the people is that they understand the nature of political liberalism. I would strongly urge them to elect Liberal governments in the provinces so that we will no longer

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
be alone to work for the wellbeing of Quebecers and of the other citizens of this country, so that we will have allies whose sole objective will be not to promote their own credibility or prove that they wield more power than the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). Let us elect Liberals everywhere in this country and we will see that problems such as the ones we have today will be much fewer and we will come up with solutions to help the most disadvantaged people come to grips with all those problems.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of having a Christmas break is that the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimatel) will be able to return to his riding to face the truth. He will have to face the unemployed and he will have to face the hardship that people are experiencing caused by high interest rates. He will have to face the cost of this stupid, incompetent budget, the kind of incompetence that was expressed this afternoon by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres). When hon. members on the other side are away from this place for a month of two, they will have to face what is going on out there.
Last night in Toronto the monetary policy of this government, financed in the green glass tower across the way on Wellington Street and sponsored by this government, was described to members of the Toronto Board of Trade. Over 600 very worried people were there.


An hon. Member:: All Tories.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: John Grant from the Toronto-Dominion Bank, who is not necessarily known as a Tory, classified the government's policy as kamikaze monetarism. There was not one economist there who forecast growth for next year. Some economists forecast a 3 per cent negative growth in real terms. The best forecast and the most optimistic was for only 1 per cent negative growth. That is what we have coming.
We have just finished taking a look at the budget which stated that Canada will have a balance of payments deficit of $9.1 billion. No one would forecast that small a deficit in our balance of payments. The current forecasts for this year are for a deficit in our balance of payments of between $11 billion and $12 billion.
Why do we have that state of affairs? Let us go back a little way. When the Progressive Conservative Party took over as the government of this country in June, 1979, the current account deficit for 1979 was forecast to be in excess of $7 billion. As we worked through the fall on improving business confidence, the current account deficit for 1979 turned out to be less than $2 billion. Interest rates were high in Canada during that period of time.


David Orlikow: They rose.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, they rose. They rose to 14 per cent.


David Orlikow: They went up four times.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Interest rates rose four times, but they remained lower than the interest rates prevalent in the United States during all of that time. There was confidence in Canada, and the dollar increased in value. But now what do we have? Since this government brought in its National Energy Program last year, there has been a massive outflow of capital from this country. Last year the outflow of capital resulted in a small balance of payments deficit. This year the balance of payment deficit will be nearly $12 billion.
What did we have to do to replace that outflow of capital? We had to go to the banks, the hot money lenders of foreign countries, to borrow, borrow and borrow, and we had to let our interest rates rise higher and higher and higher.
Let us take a look at where interest rates are today. The Americans can place T-bills on their market at 10.3 per cent. We placed our T-bills on our market today at 14.93 per cent. We pay 4.63 per cent more than the Americans do.
Let us look at what commercial borrowers have to pay on bankers' acceptances. Commercial borrowers in the United States borrow money at 11.6 per cent. Borrowers in Canada pay 16.85 per cent, or 5.15 per cent more interest than borrowers do in the United States.
Let us look at the European Eurodollar market. It costs 12.5 per cent to borrow money on the Eurodollar market. But the prime rate in Canada is 17.25 per cent. Why is that? You can borrow money on the LIBOR market for 12.75 per cent, but the prime rate in Canada is 17.25 per cent.
Yesterday I asked the minister in charge of this debate why he could not do something about this prime rate problem. He said "You have to understand banking. You are too ignorant. You do not know any better".
I want to tell you what is wrong with the government. Business has lost confidence and the banking community cannot borrow money in Canada for any less than about 4 per cent to 5 per cent more than it can in the United States. The government cannot bring American money, European money, German money or money from whatever country to finance loans in Canada cheaper because people do not have confidence in Canada. People are taking their money out of Canada. That is what is happening.
The only way we can keep money in the country is by keeping a high interest rate policy to balance off that horrid balance of payments problem that the government's incompetence has created. It has been created because of the lack of business confidence, first, in the National Energy Policy and second, in this budget.
This budget again attacks business, entrepreneurialship, growth, progress and job creation. Our economy is damaged by political divisiveness in this country. The government is always trying to have a war with the provinces, and now it has one going again with the province of Quebec. Statements coming out of that province are again hurting and driving business and capital from Canada. On the whole front, politi-
December 10, 1981

cal, economic and business, this government is driving money out of the country, and the only way we can keep money in the country is by raising our interest rates higher, higher and higher.
The government says it is doing this to maintain the value of the Canadian dollar. We are maintaining the value of the Canadian dollar all right, but we are maintaining it artificially high, because on any realistic interest assessment on world interest rates, our dollar, unless we are prepared to pay the premium we are presumably being forced to pay, would have declined and declined considerably.
This government tries to hide its incompetence in management by artificially keeping the dollar higher than it would normally be, and that situation will continue if this country is managed the way this government wants to manage it. There is no reason for our dollar to go below 84 cents or 85 cents. Managed properly, there would be an inflow of capital into this country to take advantage of the resources of Canada, the real wealth of Canada, and to make this country grow. Surely there are people who are hungry in the world; surely there are people who need our forest products; surely there are people who want the products we create. They are afraid to come here and create, afraid to come here and develop opportunities. We drive out the people who would explore and develop our energy wealth. We drive them out by expropriating, by double-taxing and triple-taxing them. We tax away entrepreneurialship and then we wonder why we have unemployment. We wonder why people have to pay enormous amounts on home mortgages.
We drive up the value of our currency artificially with our interest rate policy. We do not need to drive it up artificially. Our currency would rise with a decent economic policy, as it did when the Conservative government was in power. With these people in power, we are now paying nearly 5 per cent more than is being paid in the United States for equivalent money.
The government says the high interest policy is needed to curb inflation. How does it curb inflation? I suppose it curbs inflation by driving beef farmers to sell off their herds so that some people can find cheap meat temporarily, or by forcing businessmen into bankruptcy so there are bankruptcy sales. I suppose that is how they do it. I suppose they cut prices down by putting storekeepers out of business so they have to sell off their stock cheap. Maybe you can cut prices that way for a day or two, but the only real way to cut prices is by increasing productivity, and you cannot increase productivity by making it more difficult for a businessman to buy a new piece of capital equipment. You do not increase productivity by making it more expensive for him to raise money. You do not increase productivity by preventing interest from being deductible or by preventing a person from investing, or making it unattractive for him to invest in an insurance policy. That is the kind of thing we have coming from this government. We have a government that is against increased productivity.
What this government says is that it is going to force prices down and force inflation down by increasing interest rates. It says we have to build a new country so it is going to destroy
High Interest Rates
everything we have and then start building everything again from scratch. You do not build by destroying and you do not build by putting people out of business. That is what this government is doing with its interest rate policy. It is putting people out of business and home owners out of their homes.
We wonder why wage rates are high and why we have demands for higher wages. I was talking to the president of International Nickel the other day and he said: You know, our people in Thompson, Manitoba, have been on strike for a big wage hike. I do not know what we are going to do. We will have to pay them more. I do not blame them for wanting more. After all, their mortgage payments have gone up $100, $200 and $300 a month in some cases, so they need more. How do I pass that on in the international nickel market? What can I do about it?
The government says high interest rates cut inflation. I will tell you what they do. They put people out of work and on unemployment insurance. I suppose they think productivity will increase when people are not working and are being paid not to work. The only way to attack inflation is to increase the productivity of the country, to produce more goods and services, and to have more things available, reducing the cost of producing things by using more machinery by more adequate distribution systems and by a better transportation system. Unless we have a government that is prepared to understand that this is the way we have to go, we will always have higher inflation.
As the government raises interest rates, the inflation rate will go up. That is what has happened. The inflation rate this year is higher than ever at 12.7 per cent. That is the highest rate the country has faced in ages. Interest rates are higher than ever. It is true that they are a little lower today than they were in August, but they are higher today than they were a year ago. Has this government done anything about these high interest rates over the years to bring inflation down? Not on your life. Inflation a year ago was running at about 10 per cent, and now it is running at nearly 13 per cent. We have had another full year of high interest rates and kamikaze monetarism. The government wants to destroy the whole system in order to make its theory work, but it is not working. It is about time the government woke up to the fact that it is not working and woke up to the fact that you cannot drive business out of the country, cut down on productivity and expect all of a sudden to improve our inflationary position. Unless these interest rate policies are changed, sir, we are going to have a very hard time in Canada for a long time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.

December 10, 1981

High Interest Rates AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) had the floor. I understand he may have completed his remarks. Accordingly I will recognize the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove).


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will begin my remarks this evening by referring to the Speech from the Throne, as I have done on a couple of earlier occasions in this session, in speaking on the matter of housing. It was from the Speech from the Throne that the government took its mandate and made certain commitments to the electorate in an expression of that mandate. Some of those commitments dealt specifically with the issue of housing. I will quote these words, which deal clearly with the issue of housing, saying that the government would:
.. . act to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation so that the spectre of foreclosure will be avoided.
It was an undertaking that we, as a government, would act in these abnormal circumstances to prevent foreclosure. As I indicated, that was the undertaking and that was the action taken by the government in the budget provisions. We have done exactly what we said we would do. We have introduced, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) the Canada mortgage renewal plan which was designed specifically to respond to our undertaking as a government.
There has been criticism in the last few days of the design of the program. One criticism has been that we have not offered enough funding for the program. The Leader of the New Democratic Party has called for an expenditure of $750 million. He stated that we have not really met our undertaking. However, as I have indicated, the program is designed to implement what we have undertaken. It is a two-part program, a deferral of interest and a grants provision. The deferral of interest provision is a design feature of the program whereby those people who have sufficient equity in their homes are able to draw upon that equity to assist themselves, but with the assistance of the federal government backing the financial institutions across the country, thus enabling Canadians who heretofore were not able to use that device to avoid foreclosure by deferral of interest to a point where interest rates, as we all hope, will be lower than they are now. Certainly we hope they are at a lower level than they were during the months of August, September and October.
The other part of the program is the grants provision. It is part of the program that recognizes the difficulties for Canadians who have newly-acquired homes and who have entered into home ownership plans recently and have not built equity or have gone into home ownership in some markets where the equity in the home or the value of a particular project has not increased and they are unable to respond to their problems. In those cases where interest deferral does not apply, the government will provide an outright grant of up to $3,000 to assist those people who apply and qualify under the terms of the Canada mortgage renewal plan.
As well, the budget addressed a problem which has been raised by many members of the House. I would respectfully submit that it was raised by me early this summer in material prepared for my cabinet colleagues in which I expressed my concerns about the housing situation in Canada and envisaged where the concerns and the hazards would be the greatest in the next few years. After identifying the priorities in our concerns, the Minister of Finance responded by supporting the construction of modest rental accommodation across the country in those markets which have the lowest vacancy rates at the present time.
There is also support available for the construction of rental accommodation in areas where Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation local officials and provincial ministers and their officials identify specific needs and anticipated growth, and in areas where it is obvious that rental accommodation will have to be supplied to meet specific circumstances. For that reason, the Minister of Finance introduced through the budget the provision of $350 million in funding for the Canada rental supply program. I had the opportunity of explaining these two programs to the provincial ministers of housing over the last ten days. I met with them in their legislatives offices, in their communities, in the various regions and in the various provinces to explain the planned provisions respecting mortgage deferral. I explained the intentions of our government with respect to addressing tight rental markets. I wanted to receive input from the provincial ministers as to how these plans would meet the problems they might have identified and priorized in their regions.
This morning I had the opportunity to meet with the hon. Neil Windsor from Newfoundland. Although I had previously visited his province on a trip to see the maritime ministers, he was not there. However, this morning Mr. Windsor indicated that if the rental supply program responded to his particular market, it would be a welcome program. He indicated that the mortgage renewal plan had what he felt were shortcomings. He would have preferred a program lasting longer than one year.
As many hon. members have done, he also commented on the fact that the program calls for people to use the equity in their homes to deal with the problem of high interest rates at renewal time. I think I have addressed that problem. The design of the government is to have a modest program to help Canadians help themselves in these abnormal times.
In a budget which shows a reduction in the deficit next year of some $3 billion and under a very controlled program of government expenditures, why did the Minister of Finance commit $350 million toward these housing initiatives? Unfortunately the Conservative housing critic is not in the House this evening.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: And you weren't here this afternoon.
December 10, 1981


Paul James Cosgrove: It is unfortunate that he did not join me, the chairman of the Quebec caucus and some hon. members from the province of Ontario when we met with a delegation which came to Parliament Hill on September 15. For over an hour we listened to the many stories of Canadians facing the problems of high rollover costs and the disruption of meeting interest rates much higher than those in effect when they took out their mortgages. If the hon. member had been there, I am sure he would have realized that through its programs the government was responsive to the needs that were expressed.
It is unfortunate too that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) did not join in the debate in which I had the opportunity to participate in London, Ontario, a few weeks later. At that meeting, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), a colleague of the hon. member for St. John's East and I debated housing problems and solutions thereto before an audience of some 2,000 people. The 2,000 people there were very concerned about mortgage renewals. Present at that meeting also were Members of Parliament from the London area, and they also witnessed the concern. I might say that on that occasion the people expressed their concerns in a heated fashion. I had the delightful experience of being booed off the stage when I could not offer any facile answers and when I could not say, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party could, that I had a solution for every person in Canada with a housing problem. I was also booed while on the stage because at a time when my colleagues in government and I were considering our response and when we were in the process of preparing the budget and the government response about which I have talked I could not speak of those things. That was indeed an awkward time. However, as I say, if the housing critic of the Conservative Party had joined me on those occasions, he would have realized what it was that motivated the government to move in the areas I have described.
The finance critic of the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), did participate, and I found his words to be reasonable. I would go so far as to say they were supportive of the position of the government. On that very day the finance critic of the Conservative Party appeared on CTV's "Question Period", and this is what he said in response to the representations made by Canadians on that day:
I would like to say that we can come up with a program that would help all Canadians who are hurt by high interest rates. We can't, it's too expensive, the government can't afford to do that, so what we can do is help that broad group of Canadians the government can't afford to help by bringing in programs that would reduce over-all levels of interest rates.
He went on:
I think that the government should be helping a spectrum of people, but not the broad spectrum. We can't afford to do that in this country-
He went on:
No, I don't think you can legislate the banks to do it because it's not just the banks . .. But I think that we should be trying to encourage the financial institutions to play a role here-
As I have indicated, our program is designed to enable Canadians to take advantage of equity built up in their homes
High Interest Rates
to address their own difficult problems. For those who are not able to do that, we have a grant program-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer Your Honour to page 117 of Beauchesne. It is very clear that it is not proper to quote from a newspaper during a debate in this House. I suggest that by quoting from CTV's "Question Period", and perhaps not doing so in context, it is as if he had quoted from a newspaper. According to Beauchesne:
-a Member quoting a newspaper in debate was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker who said: "The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the House, either directly or indirectly is entirely out of order, because Members are here to give their own opinions and not to quote the opinions of others-"
If the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre were here and were able either to substantiate or disagree with the minister responsible for housing, I respectfully suggest this procedure would be entirely correct, but only the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre knows whether the quotations being read by the minister are entirely within the context of what was said.
I suggest that any further quotations by the minister would be out of order and that the ones he has already made should be ruled out of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief on this point of order. I hope Your Honour will rule on this point with tongue in cheek in the same way the intervention was made.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If I may, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The difficulty is that the hon. member ought not to speak twice on the same point of order. If the hon. member strongly wishes to speak again, perhaps I could recognize him on a different point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Fine. It seems to me that the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) raises a valid point, subject to the continuation of the quotation in Beauchesne to which he referred. He referred to Citation 332. To continue from where the hon. member left off, it reads:
-(Members) may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any discussion in the House, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order.
The question is whether or not the quotations made by the minister qualify under the terms of a commentary on any proceeding or discussion in the House. The Chair will now take into consideration the hon. member's point of order and listen carefully to the minister to determine whether his remarks fit into that specific category. The hon. member rises on a fresh point or order?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If I may-


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) places me in a very difficult position. In the first place he asks me to apply the rules rather rigidly. In the second place he asks to speak twice on the same point or order, which is not permitted. I offered him the floor on a fresh point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On a fresh point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will take this into account. The quotation is referred to in the Debates of March 17, 1933, far before the time of TV.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, the reason for my reference to the position taken by the finance critic, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre was to say that I had the opportunity of engaging in a radio discussion with the hon. member for St. John's East to discuss housing matters earlier this fall. The point I wanted to make was that that call, request or admonition was that the government, in response to conditions at that time in September, should undertake, and I recall the words he used, a massive government intervention in housing.
I said in the House before that I have had a very difficult time reconciling, on one hand, the position of the Progressive Conservative housing critic with, on the other hand, the words of their finance critic which I have just quoted. 1 found it very difficult to reconcile this approach. Nonetheless, that contradiction does not surprise me at all. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, in speaking in the House, referred to that very area of government intervention. On budget night he said "It is not Conservative Party policy to support government intervention and certainly not massive government intervention".
Finally, in that vein, I am not surprised at the contradiction. I have before me a document which was requested by the Conservative government when in office not that long ago. I tabled it in this House in November of last year. It was the major thrust of that party when it had the responsibility for leading in the area of housing and all other government matters.
I refer to page 2 of the document. This shows what the government of the day, the Conservative Party, thought about housing. I quote as follows from the "Terms of Reference" of the document which I tabled in this House:
Cabinet has directed that the task force study the potential for privatizing at least certain of the activities (as opposed to privatization of the corporation as a going concern), or encouraging the private sector to take a larger role in certain of the activities of CMHC. The task force report would focus on:
(i)	The policy implications of privatization in each case;
(ii)	The legal and financial implications of privatization;
(iii)	Alternate modes of privatization in each case with a discussion of a
preferred modality;
(iv)	A proposed strategy and timetable for privatization.
What were the recommendations to the federal government which ordered the study for privatization? They read:
Public Housing
That the government commence negotiations with the provinces with a view to eliminating subsidies by January 1, 1982.
Residential Rehabilitation
That no further funding be considered for landlords until this section has been carefully reviewed.
'Non-Profit and Co-operatives
That funding be withdrawn from both the public and private non-profit and co-operative programs with the thought of developing a more efficient delivery system of benefits-
I have daily representations from members on all sides of the House to increase this program. The government has increased the production of non-profit housing, or co-op housing to serve Canadians on modest income, multiple accommodation equivalent to rental accommodation from one side of the country to the other. When I met with the provincial ministers of housing, the request of the ministers was almost universal that this government, rather than withdrawing from the provision of non-profit housing, should in fact increase it. I introduced these comments to show that the approach of this government, in response to the representations that were apparent to all Canadians, has been to respond in a sensitive and sensible way to the housing need of Canadians at this time.
Criticisms and statements have been made by members opposite that we have the worst crisis since World War II. That is not true. The over-all vacancy rate for rental accommodation was lower in this country many times in the last few years.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Give us the years.


Paul James Cosgrove: Nineteen sixty-seven, 1974, 1975 and 1976. The criticism is made of 100,000 people facing the risk of losing their homes and only 12,000 receiving contributions. As the Minister of Finance indicated, as the budget papers demonstrate and as I, as the minister responsible for housing for this government, say, the Canada Mortgage renewal plan is available to any Canadian facing the difficulty of mortgage renewal who qualifies for the assistance we have promised in that document.
The comment was made that $3,000 is scarcely enough to keep the sheriff from the door. I would point out that $3,000 equates with five or six points of interest rates.
In summary, the response of the government to a difficult problem has been a sensitive one. We have indicated that the government is listening. The government is addressing people, particularly those in need, and helping them in a way that involves not only the federal government, but provincial and municipal governments and the private sector.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, today we have heard from two cabinet ministers and a number of Liberal backbench members who have told us how great the economy is, what a wonderful budget we have had, how stupid and ignorant the members of the opposition are who are critical of the budget or the economy. In the almost 20 years I have been here, I have never seen such unanimous opposition to a budget from every group in society in our country. Can any member tell me an occasion when the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association have agreed on anything? When did both of them agree with the
December 10, 1981

Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Independent Businessmen's Association? All of them are unanimous in their condemnation of this budget. It is not surprising that the minister for housing, who just sat down, said that we have been in worse situations since World War II than we are in today. We have the largest number of unemployed and the highest rate of inflation that we have had since the "dirty thirties". Hon. members on the other side are trying to tell us that things are really quite good.


Paul James Cosgrove: Just check the facts.


Ian Deans: These are the facts.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, these are the facts, and I shall come to them in a few moments.
I listened to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bus-sieres) this afternoon. What did he say? Inflation must be opposed. He did not use that famous, immortal phrase of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who said a few years ago that we have wrestled inflation to the ground. No, he did not say that. Inflation is the main enemy. We must beat inflation. He argued that the government is opposed to an expansionist policy. It has adopted a gradual first approach. In order to fight inflation, the government will have to cut back on the levels of goods and services that it provides. Next year's rate of growth for government expenditures will be reduced to 11.5 per cent, which the minister pointed out, quite correctly, will be less than the rate of inflation. In other words, the minister is admitting that we will have at least 12 per cent inflation. That is a great thing for the Canadian people to look forward to!
We have heard these arguments before. We have heard these arguments in the 1930s. What is the response of the Conservatives? They want more cutbacks and greater restraint. I think they should both look at a very interesting situation which happened a couple of weeks ago. We had an election in the province of Manitoba. For the first time in the history of Manitoba a government was not re-elected.
The reasons for that are pretty obvious. The Conservative government that was elected in 1977 pledged to the people of Manitoba that it would be a government of restraint, that it would cut back on the activities of government and it would let the free enterprise system run its natural course. It would free the free enterprise system from the heavy hand of government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they cut back all the programs one can think of. They cut back on daycare programs; they cut back on programs for senior citizens; they cut back on programs for native people; they cut back on hospitals; they cut back on pharmacare. The people of Manitoba had four years to look at this. They said, "We do not want this". Therefore, they did not re-elect the Conservative government. That Conservative government believed and adopted the same kind of policies that the Thatcher government later adopted in Great Britain and which President Reagan has adopted in the United States. Those governments, in Great Britain and in the United States, will suffer the same fate as the Conservative govern-
High Interest Rates
ment of Manitoba because people are not prepared to accept those kinds of conditions.
What is the policy of this government? The policy of the government has been very well explained by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I have tried very hard during my years as a Member of Parliament not to deal with individual people but to deal with policies. I should like to say publicly, Mr. Speaker, that it comes with ill grace from the Governor of the Bank of Canada who has his office in an $80 million glass tower, who was receiving a salary of $95,000 a year and who in the last week or so received a 10 per cent increase. For him to lecture the ordinary people of this country and to tell them that they have to pull in their belts and that they will have to do without in order to beat inflation is saying, "Do as I say, not do as I do". I think that the people of Canada deserve better than they are getting from the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Bouey is the Governor of the Bank of Canada because this Liberal government and the short-lived Conservative government wanted him there. They wanted him there because they believe the policies which he implemented and in which he believes, are the right policies. What are those policies? The Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance believe in those policies, even though it is obvious to everyone, except the governor, that the high interest rates that we have at the present time are driving us further into a recession. They have destroyed the construction industry; they are destroying the automobile industry; they have destroyed the farm equipment industry. But the Governor of the Bank of Canada believes, despite all the evidence that we have, that in order to get out of this recession and to beat inflation we will have to keep the interest rates high. He claims that this is necessary in order to fight inflation. He says that this is just a difficult period of transition and that it is needed in order to lower inflation. Again, I say that it is other people who will have the difficult period and not the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
A few days ago, in a speech he made in Montreal he said that we are in a weaker economic phase and that it does not mean that we should stop worrying about our underlying problem of high inflation and concern ourselves solely with the immediate problem of unsatisfactory economic growth over the near term. Then he said that present interest levels, the bank prime lending rates and the mortgage rates are at about 17 per cent and that this only looks high compared with past levels. If one has to buy a house and one is earning $100,000 a year, one can live with a 17 per cent or a 20 per cent interest rate. The continued high interest rate policy will do two things. It will add to the inflationary pressures in the economy and it will reinforce inflationary expectations. Any worker faced with a 12 per cent inflation who has any ability to negotiate his wages, will ask for a 12 per cent increase to enable him to hold his own and stay where he is. It will also cut deeper into our economic production, close down factories and throw workers out of work.

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
I should like to spend a couple of minutes on comments made by two Liberal backbenchers whom we do not often hear from. I heard the hon. member from Cape Breton-East Richmond extolling the virtues of the government and all the good things they have done. When I interjected and asked him to tell me about the rate of unemployment in Cape Breton, the hon. member did not answer. He did not give me the figures, Mr. Speaker, although I am sure he knows them better than I do. He answered me by taunting me with the fact-and this is true and I do not apologize for it-that the NDP is opposed to nuclear plants and to heavy water plants. That is true, Mr. Speaker. We are not worried, as are many people who are not in politics, about the effects for a year or two. We are worried about the effects of waste products from the production of power in nuclear plants for thousands of years to come.
I am pleased that the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is present in the House, because the rate of unemployment in Cape Breton is now 13 per cent, and I say to that member that it is a disgrace and it is unnecessary for unemployment to be at that rate in any part of this country. I say to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that, instead of criticizing the NDP for opposing the heavy water plant, he should get after his Liberal government and the provincial Conservative government in Nova Scotia which between them have not put in the money necessary to modernize the steel plant at Sydney so that it can be a viable economic operation.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order so that the record will show very clearly that the New Democratic Party would like to see the Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury heavy water plants closed, thereby throwing 900 people out of work. For the hon. member's edification, the Government of Canada provided moneys to the Sydney Steel Corporation to the tune of $96.2 million for renovations to that particular industry in my constituency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The hon. member raises a point of debate; it is not a point of order.


David Orlikow: That is not a point of order, and I hope Mr. Speaker will take into account the time the hon. member used, when taking into consideration my time. The Liberal Government of Canada and the Conservative government of Nova Scotia put enough money into the Sydney Steel Plant so that it will not close down. The hon. member knows the point I am trying to make, that they have not put in the kind of money which will make the plant a modern, economic and viable unit. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimalel) asked what kind of socialistic party the NDP is. He made some references which I will not even attempt to answer. He suggested that somehow we are akin to a communist party. If the hon. member wants to know what kind of socialist party we are, he should look at the socialist government of France. President Mitterrand has made it very clear that fighting unemployment is more important than fighting inflation. President Mitterrand increased the minimum wage and the old age
pension benefits in France. This is the kind of party we are. We are happy to be associated with the present government of France.
Let me turn to what I think is the most serious problem in the country, the fact that, according to Statistics Canada, in October 1981 the number of unemployed was 989,000. This was an increase of more than a 100,000 over the same period in 1980. The seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment was 8.3 per cent, an increase of eight-tenths of a percentage point over the same period last year. I wish the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean were present because he would know that the number of unemployed in the province of Quebec in the month of October was 320,000. That is a disgrace.
We must keep in mind that those figures do not tell the entire story. Between October and November in the province of Quebec 69,000 people disappeared from the labour force. They found that it was useless to look for work, and they just stopped looking for it. Once they stopped looking for work, they were not included on the list of unemployed because the figures of Statistics Canada are based on people who are not only unemployed but who are actively seeking work. There was no point in looking for work, so close to 150,000 people across Canada disappeared from the labour force. We have often talked about more than one million people being unemployed. Some hon. members of the House on both sides, depending upon whether they are in government or in opposition when they make the argument, frequently hear from professors who have good positions with tenure and fairly decent salaries and from some newspaper editorial writers who say that being unemployed is not very serious because there are unemployment insurance and welfare programs. They indicate, for example, that if a husband is not working his wife is, and that people are really not hurt or are trying to look for work.
During the Christmas-New Year's break last year I took the opportunity to meet some of the unemployed people in my constituency in an attempt to discover just what it meant to be unemployed. I should like to put a couple of illustrations on the record. First, 1 met a 57-year old man had worked for a milling company for 35 years; he never had another job. At the time the plant closed down he was earning about $8.61 per hour or $344 per week. His union had negotiated a good severance agreement, so he received one week's pay for each year that he worked, or approximately $12,000. Of course he received his unemployment insurance benefits, but his pension plan was not very good; his pension was very small. Let us assume that the severance pay and unemployment insurance would carry him fairly reasonably for a year. At age 58 he would be left with virtually nothing until he reached the age of 65 when he qualified for old age pension and the Canada Pension Plan. I should like one of the ministers to rise and explain to this man what he should and could do until he reaches age 65. The job opportunities for a man who is 57 or 58 years old are virtually nil.


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps Gerald Bouey should explain it.
December 10, 1981


David Orlikow: Yes, I would like Mr. Bouey to explain it. Second, I met a man who came from Portugal to Canada in 1959 because he heard it was a great country. Of course it is a great country. He worked as a labourer for approximately 15 years. From 1959 until a few years ago he was able to work between 8 and 11 months of the year. In 1980, thanks to a slowdown in the economy and thanks to the stop the then Conservative government of Manitoba put on the building of senior citizens homes, nursing home facilities and public housing, there was virtually no construction. In 1980 he worked only eleven weeks. His wife went out to work although she was not well. When I saw him last he did not know how he would manage. He was thinking about moving from Winnipeg, which he liked very much, but there was nothing for him to do there. These are the kinds of problems about which I wish ministers would think when they try to tell us that things are not very bad. There are people whose lives are being wrecked.
I cannot remember whether it was the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) or the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean who told us about how the budget proposals would help hundreds of thousands of poor people, the kind of people they represent. I know they will not believe anything hon. members on the opposition side say because, after all, supposedly we are partisan and will oppose anything they say. But I should like to refer to a position paper which was not developed by the NDP or some radical trade union. It was developed by the Canadian Council on Social Development which takes in almost every private and public organization in the welfare system. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from its analysis of the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). The first paragraph reads as follows:
For taxpayers in the $50,000-575,000 income group, the government will take an additional $105.6 million, but will lose $191,125,000. This means a net gain for this income class of $85,525,000.
In other words, the minister proposes to take from the middle class and give it to the rich. I wonder how many of these rich people live in the constituencies of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond or the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el). The council states further:
When we consider all taxpayers earning $40,000 or more, 98 per cent of the increased federal taxes resulting from the budget are redistributed within the same income category.
While there is some equity in eliminating tax advantages that do not apply equally to all income groups, we must question the wisdom of this expenditure of tax revenues. For these upper income categories, the government is giving a whopping handout of $735 million, which is
-almost half of the current federal contribution to provincial and municipal welfare programs;
-almost as much as the proposed cutback of funds to health and post-secondary education;	#
-and which by comparison would be enough to increase the Child Tax Credit by about $200, which would give additional assistance to Canada's working poor.
This is the analysis of the budget, in just a few sentences, of an organization which is not political or radical but which
High Interest Rates
represents people who work with the people in Canada who need assistance because they are sick or old or poor.
Again and again we are told by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, "We cannot afford it", and we are asked, "What do you propose?" One of the simple proposals which we have made is that the government receive a good part of the money from those who have it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I thought I had been indicating to him that his time was running out. Does he wish to seek unanimous consent of the House to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That permission is usually given for a moment or two.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the offer. Let me be very brief and put on the record the fact that the profits of banks have never been as high as they are at the present time and that bank profits have increased by over 37 per cent in the last year. After taxes, the big five banks made profits of $1,640 million in 1981. That is an increase of about $500 million over what they made the year before. Not only are their profits very, very high, but they have also been permitted by this Liberal government to pay taxes at a very low rate. We say that to begin to meet the needs of people and to begin to find the money that the government needs to provide services for the people of Canada, it should be done by taking from those who have the money and those who are making exorbitant, unconscionable profits. It should be taken from the banks, as they can afford it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), I should first want to note that few among us would argue that Canada is somehow immune from the inflation and other economic ills which have overtaken every western industrialized country. Indeed, Canada, with its heavy reliance on its export trade for its prosperity, is particularly vulnerable to the adverse economic developments that we have seen elsewhere in an increasingly interdependent international marketplace. If one considers the economic situations of our trading partners and other industrialized countries, Canada is to be seen in an enviable position. Nevertheless, there are obvious economic challenges facing Canadians today. They require a determined effort on the part of all sectors of our economy to overcome them.
While it is true that world circumstances have a major impact on our economy, there are things we can do at home to meet the economic challenges, and the government is doing them. For example, the government has concluded energy agreements with the western producing provinces. Those agreements provide not only a promising climate for massive

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
investment in the oil and gas sector, but they will also bring benefits for the economy as a whole, including the manufacturing sectors.
We have recently forged a made-in-Canada Constitution which, among other things, will provide for the free flow of goods, services, capital and labour which are so essential to a strong and vital common market. We have also tabled a budget which is committed to overcoming the root cause of our present economic problems, namely, inflation. The budget is not a quick fix. It is a determined effort to minimize the difficult economic challenges we, as Canadians, face in the near future. At the same time, it will maximize our economic potential in the medium and longer term.
It would seem, judging from the motion of the hon. member, that some hon. members opposite have neglected to consider the broad economic benefits provided by the energy agreements reached with the governments of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Those agreements have created the underpinnings for our economic strategy for the decades ahead. Those accords not only provide for the further development of the petroleum sector, but for many other sectors throughout Canada as well. Indeed, the enormous economic spin-offs from the petroleum sector will provide for the greatest wave of capital investment in our history. Recent projections place investment at $1.5 trillion over the next decade, the great majority of which can be generated here in Canada.
We want all Canadians to share in the benefits and the economic opportunities of those accords. Accordingly, it was necessary not only to encourage Canadians to invest in their own petroleum sector, but also to strengthen the basic structure of our economic union. That, too, has now been accomplished with the approval of a made-in-Canada Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The social and political ramifications of the charter are more obvious than its economic ramifications of that charter. Those economic elements will do much to ensure that all Canadians in the future have the opportunity to share in the material benefits of our economic growth. The charter provides for a national common market unhampered by artificial internal barriers erected by regions or by provincial governments. The charter encourages the free flow of goods, services, capital and labour which are so essential if we are to maximize our true economic potential. The new Constitution does something more. It also provides investors with a more stable and understandable economic environment. This reassurance of our economic union will, in turn, create a higher degree of investment and provide more jobs and opportunities for all.
The realization of our full economic potential and the resolution of many of our current economic challenges can be achieved when large capital investment is matched with greater productivity and more sourcing of Canadian goods and services. The new Constitution accordingly provides our business community with the assurance of a greater domestic market for its goods and services.
Underlying the energy agreements and the Charter of Rights is the concept of sharing and the belief that all Canadians, from every province and territory, have the right to share in the benefits which both nature and technology have bestowed upon us. The more equitable distribution of Canada's vast wealth among all regions has been a goal of this government, and it continues to be a goal in the economic program submitted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) earlier in this session. However, equity is only one aspect of our total economic program.
If one is to appreciate fully the broad elements of the government's commitment to meet the economic challenges now confronting Canadians, one must consider its fundamental objectives. The most important of these objectives is our pledge to reduce inflation. We cannot be satisfied with living with inflation. Such complacency will only hinder growth and create more unemployment. The recent budget abjures piecemeal measures. This is seen in the budget's commitment to match monetary restraint, that is, restraint in the growth of the money supply and credit, with a greater measure of fiscal restraint, including federal government spending.
In recent years, members opposite have strongly criticized the government for what they called fiscal irresponsibility, deploring in particular budget deficits. Such members were quick to argue that the budget deficit had to be reduced significantly if inflation were to be brought under control. Accordingly, I find it strange that these same critics, who now attack the budget, have suddenly forgotten what to them was, only a short time ago, so important.
Fiscal restraint proposed in the budget is part of the government's commitment to reduce deficit spending. Measures included in the budget will reduce the government's borrowing requirements from almost $10 billion this year to $6.6 billion in 1982-1983. The budgetary deficit is projected to drop from about $15 billion to about $10 billion over the same period. This reduction in such a short period is substantial. It will contribute in a major way to strengthening the government's financial position which, in turn, should relieve the pressure on capital markets and thus contribute to lower interest rates for both corporate and private investors. This objective will be reinforced through increased revenues deriving from energy agreements and a more equitable structure in our tax system.
The belief in the soundness of the government's attempt to reduce inflation through a balanced application of restraint on expenditure and some increase in revenue is shared by many Canadians. For example, a recent article in The Globe and Mail stated:
Finance Minister Allan MacEachen's budget was a good one. Its broad strategy is fundamentally sound. A greater degree of fiscal restraint can indeed take some of the pressure off monetary policy and interest rates in resisting inflation and pave the way for future growth.
The government shares the concern of all Canadians during the current period of sluggish international economic growth. However, there is no alternative that would produce better
December 10, 1981

short term results without harming the medium and long-term prospects for sustained growth in our economy.
Concern over the short term has prompted some to question the desirability of pursuing a policy of deficit reduction at present because of the danger of accentuated recession. Such critics argue that if one takes into account distortions introduced by inflation and the fact that revenues of the provincial and the national governments together are in surplus, there is no need for deficit reduction.
Superficially, that argument is attractive, relying on a basic Keynesian belief that fiscal policy should be the chief element in the government's arsenal for managing short term output and employment. Our budget strategy is, however, more farsighted. It is based on the belief that fiscal and monetary policy working together can produce sound economic performance with regard to inflation and its concomitant of unemployment.
Certainly, we must be realistic about the present economic situation when deciding what approach to adopt. It is clear that inflation remains a long-term problem. It cannot be reduced quickly. There are too many international pressures and too much built-in inertia in the inflationary process itself for that to happen. Therefore, while proposing certain shortterm remedial measures to help those most in need, the government is creating the circumstances for medium to longterm future growth for a stronger, more stable economy.
The government has had to work under considerable limitations in developing such economic strategy. Essentially, the question is how best to resist an increase in inflation without at the same time committing the economy to a deep, prolonged recession. The federal government deficit reduction is clearly a fundamental element of an over-all strategy best suited to meet this difficult dilemma.
National economic renewal, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has asserted, is the overriding priority of this government. "Economic renewal must be accomplished within the restraints required to reduce inflation", as he has noted. Indeed, if Canadians are to reap the tremendous opportunities for growth and development in all regions, we must reduce inflation as well as to increase investment, modernization and development.
The federal government has an important leadership role to play in managing and exploiting opportunities and ensuring that the benefits are shared equally by all Canadians. The government, as part of its over-all fiscal plan, is allocating $42 billion to economic development and over $18 billion to energy development over the next five years.
There are many large capital projects planned for the next two decades. The recent major projects task force, composed of business and labour representatives, estimated that the total value of identified projects is approximately $500 billion to the year 2000. Projects in the field of industrial development, resource development, the transport of bulk commodities and export promotion, all hold great promise for our economic future. The savings made through the pursuit of a policy of
High Interest Rates
deficit reduction and fiscal restraint will find countless outlets for productive use.
As the paper on "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s", included in the budget documents, states:
Close co-operation between governments, business and labour will be needed to permit Canada to develop the industrial capacity to build the machinery and other products needed for resource development in Canada and abroad.
For example, a private sector export trade development board has been created to give the business community a greater opportunity to contribute to the formulation of trade policy, a major priority in the government's current economic strategy. And seeking greater co-operation between the public sector and the private sector, the government is also committed to a careful examination of our regulatory systems to ensure that the rules are clear and the procedures efficient so that they guide business enterprise rather than inhibit it.
We also seek in our economic planning to overcome the mismatch between skills and available jobs which has emerged as a key constraint on economic development and a serious problem for working Canadians. As the budget notes, as the pattern of economic activity changes so does the availability of job opportunities in terms of both their location and their skill requirements. Here is a challenge for greater consultation and co-operation between the public and private sectors. The result of these and other initiatives will be a stronger, investment-led economy, yet one which is more internationally competitive. I would ask hon. members opposite whether this is not preferable to an economy with an over-extended current account deficit paralleling a large federal deficit. This is why the economic program announced by the Minister of Finance is sound and, in the circumstances, the most sensible for dealing with our current economic challenges.
Clearly Canada, like all western industrialized economies, faces difficult economic decisions. In many respects Canada is, indeed, in an enviable position with its enormous resource and industrial potential. However, our sheer territorial size, our small population, the distances to markets and our reliance on export trade pose many difficulties to our growth. Nevertheless, our economic future is bright.
As I have noted, we have set the essential foundation for sustained economic growth by reaching energy accords with the western producing provinces. The direct and spin-off effects of those agreements will set the stage for massive new investment in Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of the Constitution creates a true common market, an economic union which provides for the free flow of goods, services, capital and labour, unrestricted by internal barriers. That move will help to ensure that all productive factors are used as efficiently as possible.
The budget attempts to take advantage of our basic strengths. It does so by promoting a balanced application of spending restraint and increase in revenue. The necessary restraint required to reduce the federal deficit so as to counter

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
the forces of inflation and to promote economic growth is being broadly shared by government, business and private individuals to ensure a healthy economy.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure in joining my colleagues to speak to this motion. I support the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in the motion which states:
That this House censures the government for its perpetual, excessive, and ineffective reliance on a high interest rate policy, which has not only created the worst economic recession in Canada since the 1930s, but which also continues to threaten the survival of thousands of small enterprises, adds more Canadians daily to the ranks of the million already out of work, and confronts home owners and renters alike with the worst housing crisis since the Second World War.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) rose in the House earlier this evening and said this is not the worst crisis we have had, and he mentioned other years when we had worse crises. I do not care whether it is the worst crisis, all I know is that it is a terrible crisis in relation to housing, inflation, interest rates and unemployment, yet the Minister of Public Works can quibble over whether this is the worst crisis we have had since the thirties.
On December 3 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in Toronto that the blame for high interest rates lies with the banks, the market economy and individuals who want good returns on Canada Savings Bonds, not with his government. This Prime Minister never takes the blame for things he does. Who controls interest rates in Canada? Are they controlled by the market economy, by individuals or by the banks? Surely there is not one person in the House who believes that any of these can control interest rates. Only the Bank of Canada can control interest rates, and the government controls the Bank of Canada. There is no question as to who is controlling rates and stopping those interest rates from coming down. Anyone with any experience in the marketplace or who has been in the investment business can tell you that the Bank of Canada is controlling the treasury bill rate.
If the government believes the banks are responsible, then let them release the banks from the regulation that prevents them from moving interest rates down freely. I challenge the government to do that. I challenge the Bank of Canada, through the government, to get out of the treasury bill market and find out how fast interest rates will come down. They would come down very fast. The banks do not like the rates going up and down. Anyone in the finance industry will tell you that any financial institution needs steady rates. They do not care what the rates are, how high or how low; it is the spread between deposits and loans that is important. Unfortunately the government continues to spread the big lie that the banks are solely responsible.
No one is innocent, but the banks are not solely responsible. It is the Bank of Canada that is mainly responsible. Everyone knows that the Bank of Canada can drop interest rates if that is desired, but not the chartered banks. The chartered banks take their cue from the Bank of Canada and no one else.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said in the House today that he had the support of the House for his budget. If he had said he had the support of the majority of
the House, the Liberal members, that would have been a valid statement, but to stand up here and say he had the support of the House is ridiculous.
The Minister of Finance said that interest rates are going to come down and the government is going to beat inflation. Quite frankly we know they are not, because he said in the budget what he expects. All one has to do is to read the budget which says that the government expects interest rates to come down by 1 per cent per year over the next four years. That is what the government expects, and that is what the average person out there is faced with. That is what the average person has to contend with over the next four years-more high interest rates.
We may not have the worst economic recession since the 1930s, but it is awfully close. We are not going to argue whether it is the worst, but I do not want to see anything worse than this. Some 140,000 Canadians have lost their jobs in the last short while and 50,000 have stopped looking for work. There are almost a million people in Canada out of work.
Let me put to rest once and for all the question as to whether the Prime Minister cares. Twenty-eight years ago when the Minister of Finance came to the House of Commons, the average unemployment rate in his riding was 25 per cent. Today, 28 years later, the average unemployment rate is still 25 per cent. Let him stand and deny that. He would not dare. He keeps getting elected by giving special grants in his riding, and he has been doing that for years. Any member who does not agree, let him please stand up.
What has this government offered small business? The minister says he is offering something to small business. At page five of the budget he said that abnormally high interest rates have had a particularly adverse effect on many small businesses. So what does he do? He guts the Small Business Development Bond. He extends it for one more year, but the only way that businessmen can get it is if they are going bankrupt or their business is failing. After these businessmen go to the banks or to the FBDB and are not able to get any money, they finally go to the government and apply for a Small Business Development Bond. The Minister of Finance, being as generous as he always is, says they can have the Small Business Development Bond at an excellent rate of interest.
But what does the budget say about the rate of interest? Under the former provisions of the Small Business Development Bond, money could be borrowed at one half of prime plus up to 3 per cent, based on the marginal tax rate of the particular bank. For example, if the prime rate is 18 per cent and you borrow from the Small Business Development Bond, it would be 9 per cent. Based on the marginal tax rate of the bank, you could be borrowing at a rate of 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent. Under the provisions of the budget, the deal that the minister is now offering sets out that if, for example, the prime rate is 18 per cent, you must subtract 6 per cent because the banks will be taxed on that. The rate is back down to 12 per cent, and half of that is taken away, leaving 6
December 10, 1981

per cent. The other 6 per cent on which the banks will be taxed is added back on to bring the rate back to 12 per cent. Based on the marginal tax rate of the bank, one per cent is added to that, and it is back to 12 per cent, 13 per cent or 14 per cent. In effect, what the minister has done and is afraid to admit is that he has not only gutted the Small Business Development Bond, he has raised the interest rates on it by 2 per cent. He does not have the courage to stand up in the House and say that that is what he has done.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen are up in arms, and why not? The government will never again get support from that association. All that business will do is to march to Ottawa when the government passes legislation to plead with the government to roll back certain provisions of the legislation. They have to take this course of action with this budget.
Thousands of letters are being sent to the government from the small insurance companies which say that the government is driving them out of business. But the government does not care. The companies are lining up to try to get concessions. What does the Minister of Finance do about this situation? Of all things, he offers jobs to a group of unemployed miners from Cape Breton in Fernie, B.C. in February of 1982. They accepted that offer on the condition that they get a housing subsidy from the employer, and the employer agreed. Now these miners are telling the employer that perhaps they do not want to move because that subsidy becomes a taxable benefit. All the minister can say is that he will consider that problem.
The housing requirement in Canada is for 220,000 units. Until recently we expected to have 170,000 units for 1981. This is a shortfall of 50,000 units. We have now discovered that CMHC projects that the number of completed units for 1981 and into 1982 may be as small as 135,000. The government says it has a solution for this also. It will provide a benefit of $350 million to ease the crisis. When this figure is dissected, we find that $150 million is provided for the first year and $200 million for the second year. The government will provide an interest-free loan of $7,500 for 15,000 rental units, and this figure of $112 million must be subtracted from the $150 million. That leaves $38 million for home owners who are in trouble. This means that 13,000 people in Canada can receive assistance for their mortgages from the government this year. The statistics suggest that over 900,000 people are renewing their mortgages, and CMHC statistics reveal that one in 11 will have difficulty in paying his mortgage, but yet only 13,000 will be helped.
Of the 220,000 units needed in Canada, 110,000 are rental units. What is this government offering? It is offering help to 13,000 people. The Minister of Finance and other Liberals continue to say that they will help Canadians, but they are providing no help. The vacancy rates in many parts of Canada are zero. The minister stood up in the House to say that he would extend the MURBs, and then in a whisper he said, "until December 31, 1981." The minister is obviously not aware that many investors in rental housing require up to eight years to recover their investment. The soft costs were not
High Interest Rates
important until the interest rates went up to a critical 13 per cent, 14 per cent or more. The soft costs were of exceptional benefit to those investors who were building rental units, but the Minister of Finance introduced his budget in isolation. He now says he would like to consult with business after the fact.


Mr. Taylor:: Then he left for Scotland.


Ian Deans: What's wrong with Scotland?


Frederick William Wright: This government has eroded business confidence, and very few businesses are going to increase capital spending next year. As I have indicated, unemployment is not going down. The minister has admitted in his budget that unemployment will not go down but will remain at above 8 per cent for the next year. If inflation does go down, it will only go down by one per cent.
In 1973, the government said that inflation was beaten. However, it is still with us. In 1975, the Bank of Canada said it had solved the problem of high interest rates and that it would control the money supply to prevent the problem of high interest rates. That has not been solved. In 1973, the government said that Canada would have oil self-sufficiency. We do not have it. The government indicated in 1974 that government spending would be under control. Some control! This government ship has so many leaks that if it becomes unshoaled, it will sink fast and deep. The only way for it to survive is to remain on the shoal.
It is my intention to support the motion which was moved by my hon. friend from St. John's East. Hopefully the government will come to its senses and remedy the mistakes pointed out in the motion. It is my hope that the government will withdraw the budget, which will cause problems for the Liberal backbenchers such as they have never before experienced. The thirty members who met with the Minister of Finance are concerned about their seats, and so they should be.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They voted for the budget.


Frederick William Wright: Then, as my colleague says, they voted for the budget. And what a budget! The Minister of Finance stood in the House and said he would not withdraw the budget. He said he might make some changes if we pleaded with him. If we beg, he might make some changes, but will he be like the Minister of Public Works, who said that if people send him letters and telephone him, he will help them with their problems? The Minister of Public Works sent letters to hon. members on this side of the House saying that he would not provide assistance to people who are having trouble. He told us to wait for the budget. The Minister of Finance is the same as the Minister of Public Works; he is long on promises and short on deeds. We cannot go on presenting legislation and forcing business and the population to react to it. The government must come forward with legislation which business agrees will help. In order to do that, we have to consult with business before the deed is done and not after. We must consult before rather than after the budget.

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates
This budget has been formulated by a group of civil servants. The minister must stand up and answer for that. He and other ministers must stand up and defend the budget, but they do not know how to defend it. It is a terrible budget to have to defend. They hope that in two years' time, in a year's time or whenever an election is held, the people will have forgotten.


Mr. Fretz:: But they won't.


Frederick William Wright: They certainly will not. We will not let them. Only God knows how anyone could forget the horror story of this budget.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: What do we have here, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), a couple of good Tories, are proposing that this government reduce interest rates. That is it. Those wonderful Tories now have an instant cure for interest rates. These are some marvellous people who brought us the Jerusalem embassy situation, the stimulative deficit and the Petro-Canada two-step.


An hon. Member:: Come on.


Roger Simmons: They are back with a brand new show appropriately dubbed the Tory interest rate magic. And boy, is it a winner! It is a seat filler. This time they have something for everybody. Do you have a problem meeting your mortgage payment? Don't worry about it; the Tories have the answer. Are you having trouble carrying inventory in your business? Relax; the Tories have just what you need. They have the Tory interest rate magic. They have your problem all figured out.
Or have they? Did they bother to tell the people of Canada that the people on this side of the House have mortgages too? We too would dearly love to see the interest rate reduced a few percentage points. I am sure the Tories have told the people that this government has the power to reduce interest rates, today or tomorrow morning, to 12 per cent, 10 per cent or 8 per cent, but did they bother to tell the people of Canada some of the consequences of such a decision? Did they happen to tell us about the people who own the money, the investors? Perhaps those investors might just put their money where they get the greatest return on it? If an investor can invest his or her money in Canada at, say, 10 per cent or in the United States at 16 per cent or 18 per cent, where is he or she going to put it?
I have a mortgage too. It is due in February, and as it now stands, my bank manager is going to say to me either "I have some good news for you" or "I have some bad news for you". The good news will be that the interest rate is down a percentage point or two since last February, or the bad news will be that it is up a percentage point or two. He will also say he can lend me money for my house at the present rate, if I am willing to pay that rate. He will have the money. However, let us suppose the United States rate remains high. Let us also suppose that this government decides today or tomorrow morning to reduce interest rates to 10 per cent or 12 per cent so that the Canadian rate would be substantially below the American rate. Imagine my situation in February when I walk into my bank manager's office to try to renew my mortgage. He would probably say to me that he has some good news and some bad news. The good news would be that the mortgage rate has dropped several percentage points. It would not be 16.75 per cent as it was last year; it would be down to 10 per cent. That would be good news, but then he would go on and tell me the bad news. The bad news would be that he does not have any money to lend. He would go on and tell me the reasons, which would be quite straightforward and easy to figure out. The investors who own the money would have taken their money to where they could make the most on it and where they could get the greatest return. They would have taken it out of the country to where the interest rate is higher, and that would be to the United States.
If I were asked whether I wanted a high interest rate or a low interest rate, my answer would be easy: of course I want a low interest rate. I am a mortgage holder too. I want a low rate, and so does every mortgage holder in the country. However, if my choice is renewing my mortgage or not renewing it and if my choice is keeping my house or not keeping it, that is really not a choice at all. Like every other mortgage holder in the country, I want to be able to renew my mortgage, which means that there will have to be money available for that purpose. It will not be available if the investor has taken his or her money to the United States where he or she can get a higher rate of return.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are sending oil rigs out of the country.


Roger Simmons: If my good friend from Bow Valley would listen, he might learn something.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Where is Bow Valley?


Roger Simmons: I ask the gentleman from Bow Valley, did the Tories-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Where is Bow Valley?


Roger Simmons: If the hon. does not know where Bow Valley is, I will tell him. It is in his constituency of Bow River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Did the Tories bother to tell us the consequences of their magic interest rate solution? They did not because if they did, that would put the lie to their argument.


Ian Deans: You tell us.


Roger Simmons: That would expose the deception they are trying to perpetrate on the people of Canada. They wanted to privatize Petro-Canada, they wanted to move an embassy and they wanted to have a stimulative deficit. They thought then they had magic solutions. They have the same kind of magic solution tonight, but it is a solution that is all full of holes. It will not stand up to scrutiny. It will not fool the people of
December 10, 1981

Canada. It will not fool the mortgage holder who wants to have money to renew his mortgage.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The budget is putting people out of work and driving them out of the country. What is wrong with you?


Roger Simmons: I did not expect the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) to take this lying down. If the page would be so kind, I have a little ornament in my pocket which the hon. member might want to play with to occupy himself while I speak to the people who are trying to listen. Some people like to hear two sides of an argument. I am giving one side of this one. I have heard the other side from my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East. Is it not interesting that of all the people on the Tory side of the House it was he who was the annointed one? It was he who was chosen to move this particular resolution.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: And he will win his seat back too.


Roger Simmons: I remember as far back as 1958 or 1959 when the hon. member for St. John's East was first elected to the House of Commons. He was on the radio almost every day in Newfoundland, and he became known as one of the great consumer advocates of Newfoundland. People used to say, whatever their partisan affiliation, if that member ever gets in government, he is going to do great things for the consumer because he has such a grasp of the issues. He talked about the kinds of programs children were exposed to over television. He talked about all kinds of consumer issues.
I watched when he got into government, as he did ever so briefly. I watched him and the Tory record for nine months. The record clearly shows that this gentleman, the mover of this resolution, my fellow Newfoundlander from St. John's East, did not, in his brief term in government, take one single initiative to address any of the consumer concerns he fought for for 20 years before he got into cabinet. There was not one issue, not one tittle, not one bit of legislation, not one item during the time he was in cabinet that he addressed. Therefore, we put the lie to his crusading. He is great on words and he is long on words, as he is in this resolution. However, he is terribly short on action when he gets in a position where he can do something about it.
I want to refer my good friends, whose blood pressure is rising unjustifiably, to another of their friends in a very friendly fashion. I am going to talk about their finance spokesman, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). We on this side think this man really has his head screwed on right. I refer to his interview in the November 7 edition of the Financial Post. I ask those on the Tory side of the House, the permanent opposition, to compare the spirit of that interview with the spirit of the resolution moved by the hon. member for St. John's East. I submit they are mutually exclusive. One says one thing and the other says the opposite. Here in the public record is the finance spokesman for the Tory party as being
High Interest Rates
largely in support of the interest rate policy pursued by the Bank of Canada at this time. I refer to the Financial Post of November 7.
If that is not enough, let us put all the Tory Newfoundlanders together. Let us look at what my good friend, the junior member from Newfoundland, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), the one-time Tory finance critic, had to say. He conceded outside the House that Canadian interest rates "will have to follow to some degree" rates in the United States. He said that in November, 1980. That was at another time when he had another incarnation. He was still wearing the finance hat. That was before his demotion to other matters. When the hon. member for St. John's West was still speaking for the Tory party on this issue, he was saying that we have to follow the United States interest rate. That, in essence, is what I have said tonight, not that we do it anxiously, happily or with any degree of satisfaction. We do it because we do not believe in fooling the people of Canada into thinking we can live in glass houses, bury our heads in the sand, ignore what is going on around us, ignore our trade relations with the United States, ignore that we live on a continent which has a very densely populated country many times the population of ours. We do not pretend to the Canadian people that we can somehow have artificial solutions to the problems we face in this country.
We have levelled with the Canadian people. We have been responsible to the Canadian people. I say to my hon. friend from St. John's East that this resolution is dishonest. For that reason I and members on this side will defeat it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 9.45 it is my duty pursuant to Section 10 of Standing Order 58 to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.

December 10, 1981
High Interest Rates


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The question now is on the main motion in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members. Can we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

[ Translation]


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10c, CANADIAN UNITY INFORMATION OFFICE-PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
Donald James Johnston: That Vote 10c, in the amount of $8,900,000 under the Department of Justice-Canadian Unity Information Office-Program expenditures, in Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, be concurred in.
Estimates


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those who are opposed to the motion will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bell?


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: The vote has already started.


Erik Nielsen: With great respect, I think all the Chair does now is to put the motion on the amendment of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), and that is the only vote that is taken. If the Chair will refer to a similar vote taken on June 22, 1978, where the division was called on a motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), it shows at page 6687 of Hansard that the vote was called on a motion of Mr. Andras, who was then a member of this House. A vote is taken only on the motion of the member in whose name the motion stands before the House.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows the normal procedure in cases of votes on estimates. If a member wants to vote against the estimates, he gives notice to the House. That notice of wishing to vote against one item of the estimates is transformed, for the purposes of our procedure as adopted, and what is followed, as far as we can see from the precedents, is that that notice is transformed into a motion to concur in that particular item of the estimates. Therefore, if hon. members want to vote against that particular item in the estimates, when the motion to concur in that item is put to the House, they may vote against it.
I will cite a precedent in which one of my predecessors said the following about the exact situation which has been raised by hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
A Member wishing to vote against an estimate would be required to give notice-
This has been done.
-and motions for the adoption of unopposed estimates could be consolidated into a single question. Indeed that is the situation we have before us. The hon. member... has given notice that he would like to oppose a particular item and

December 10, 1981
Estimates
vote against it. Having given that notice the estimate is put in the form of a motion to the Chamber at which time hon. members have the right to vote for or against it.
On that occasion the notice was standing in the name of Mr. Andras. The division was on that particular vote, in this case 10c. The same thing happened on June 22, 1978, when the motion was in the name of-
We are following a procedure which has been followed and established in the process of voting the estimates. I think it is quite plain to hon. members that-


Mr. Lambert:: It is wrong.


Madam Speaker:: No, it is not wrong. As a matter of fact, it is quite right. Only the government can put motions to create expenses. That is why the notice to vote against it has to be transformed into a motion to concur. Therefore, my duty is to put to the House the motion to concur in that specific item of the estimates, which I have just done. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot hear what the hon. member has to say.


Erik Nielsen: With great respect, Madam Speaker, I may have misheard. When I heard Your Honour put the question, the question was put on the bill that is before the House. It was not put on the motion of which notice is contained in today's Order Paper at page XI. The motion, Madam Speaker, is put on the notice standing in the name of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member can help me, because there is no need to confuse the House. The hon. member was rising to tell me that I had not put to vote this specific item which the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe had intended to oppose. But I have read to the House that Vote 10c in the amount of $8,900,000, etc. That is what I have put to the House.
It is on this specific motion that I asked the House to vote. The hon. member is telling me now that this specific motion which one member has the intention of opposing should be voted on first. That is exactly what I am doing. It is what I am asking the House to do. That is normal.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, that is exactly the procedure which I believe should be followed and which I did not hear, perhaps mistakenly so. My hearing was-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I am going to take a page out of your book, Pierre. My hearing was that the Chair put the question on the bill, and the notice of the hon. member was not put. The procedure of taking the vote on 10c is the proper procedure.


Madam Speaker:: The member is quite mistaken. I suppose he was distracted when he was reading the motion, but I can understand that.


Madam Speaker:: If we can have a little bit of order we
>
might get on with this particular task.
(Division No. 140)


Erik Nielsen: I make my point because of the difficulty which we have encountered with this procedure before, and it has been done in different ways before in the two most recent precedents. One was when the Speaker was in the Chair on June 22, 1978, when a similar bill was before the House. If one examines the record, the Speaker said on that occasion:
Therefore, the motion is that Vote 20 be concurred in. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
That is the motion, notice of which has been given by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe. It occurs at page 6687 of Hansard:


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
MR. SPEAKER: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it...


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House prepared to take this vote without further ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Then this occurs:
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Andras)-
++YEAS
Messrs.
Allmand
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.) Cousineau Cullen Cyr
Daudlin
Dawson
Demers
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Northumberland-Miramichi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
December 10, 1981

Estimates
Lapointe	Messrs. McRae	Rossi(Beauce)	Nicholson	RoyLefebvre	(Miss)	SavardLoiselle	Olivier	SchroderLonsdale	Ostiguy	SimmonsMacBain	Parent	SmithMacEachen	Pepin	TardifMackasey	Peterson	TessierMacLaren	Pinard	TobinMacLellan	Prud'homme	TousignantMalepart	Regan	TrudeauMaltais	Roberts	TurnerMarceau	Robinson	VeilletteMasse	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	WatsonMasters	Rompkey	WeatherheadMcCauley	Rooney	WhelanAlthouse	NAYS Messrs. Gamble	Yanakis-126. McLeanAndre	Gass	McMillanAnguish	Gilchrist	MitchellBaker	Greenaway	(Mrs.)(Nepean-Carleton)	Gustafson	MurphyBeatty	Halliday	MurtaBenjamin	Hamilton	NeilBlaikie	(Qu'Appelle- Moose	NickersonBlenkarn	Mountain)	NielsenBosley	Hargrave	OberleBradley	Hawkes	OgleBroadbent	Heap	OrlikowClark	Hees	Paproski(Yellowhead)	Hnatyshyn	ParkerClarke	Howie	Reid(Vancouver Quadra)	Jarvis	(St. Catharines)Cook	Keeper	RoseCorbett	Kempling	SargeantCrosby	Kilgour	Schellenberger(Halifax West)	Lambert	ScottCrouse	Lawrence	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	Lewis	ShieldsDeans	Lcwycky	SpeyerDinsdale	MacKay	TaylorEllis	Malone	ThackerElzinga	Mayer	ThomsonFennell	Mazankowski	VankoughnetForrestall	McCain	WenmanFraser	McDermid	WilsonFretz	McGrath	WrightFriesen	McKnight	Young-84.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
(D)
Donald James Johnston: That Supplementary Estimates (D), 1981-82, laid upon the Table, Thursday, November 26, 1981, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.

Mr. Johnston thereupon moved that Bill C-86, an act to grant Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1982, be read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Johnston thereupon moved that Bill C-86, an act to grant Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1982, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Madam Speaker, we do not have the bill.


Madam Speaker:: It was distributed today at 3 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon. Mr. Francis in the Chair.
Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



[Stage Direction]
(C)
Donald James Johnston: That the Supplementary Estimates (C), 1981-82, laid upon the Table Monday, November 16, 1981, except the Item disposed of earlier this day, be concurred in.


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


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to on division. Schedules A and B agreed to on division.
Clause 1 agreed to on division.
Preamble agreed to on division.
Title agreed to on division.
Bill reported.
Donald James Johnston: that the bill be concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: On division. Motion agreed to on division.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
13962______ COMMONS DEBATES	December 10, 1981
Estimates


Some hon. Members:: On division!
Motion agreed to on division.


Donald James Johnston: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Speaker:: It being 10.55 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.55 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 11, 1981