1982-02-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the November 12 budget taxes benefits from health care and dental programs; kills a large number of company benefits such as leased cars and subsidized housing loans; disallows interest deductibility for retirement savings plans; threatens charitable organizations; introduces negative taxation measures for small businesses and discourages Canadian equity ownership, etc., etc., I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House, in the interests of keeping Canada together, urges the government to withdraw this disastrous budget. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have no mandate to reign over the dissolution of this nation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BOY SCOUTS OF CANADA
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on the occasion of International Scouting Week.
The theme chosen by the Boy Scouts of Canada for the 75th anniversary of scouting is "The Spirit Lives On". During International Scouting Week, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the members of this House join the Boy Scouts of Canada in following the example of their founder, Lord Baden-Powell, and extend a fraternal and joyous message to all.


Madam Speaker:: I invite the members to join me in offering our congratulations to the Boy Scouts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE GOAL SCORING RECORD
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, Number 77, Number 78, and then Number 79. The Great Gretzky scored, and scored, and scored again, and rocketed his way into NHL history at the age of 21. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), and on behalf of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) and the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House, on behalf of all Canadians, notes with pride the heroic hockey of Wayne Greztky, and that his Number 99 stands as a symbol of great sportsmanship for today and for younger generations to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the House will want to applaud Number 99.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, the budget of November 12, 1981, as brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), restricts the farmers in Canada and is threatening the very existence of farming. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House call on the government to stop its action to remove the statutory Crow rate in view of the fact that farmers are faced with the highest production costs in the history of farming.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 25, 1982


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas in July, 1981, when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) announced the go-ahead for the Norman Wells-Zama Lake pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley, he promised a commitment of $10 million for training local people in the Northwest Territories so that they might be able to take advantage of the job opportunities associated with this project, and whereas seven months later not one red cent of these promised training funds has seen the light of day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House insists that for once the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development keep his word.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the usual provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas this House has passed a resolution drawing attention to the contribution of Armenians to the development of Canada, whereas this House wishes to express its abhorrence of all actions which violate the basic standards of human rights and decency embodied in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and whereas Canada's Armenian community has respected these high basic standards of the United Nations Declaration, I move, seconded by the hon. members for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) and Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That the outstanding differences and problems between the Turkish government and the Armenian communities in Canada and throughout the world be resolved in a peaceful manner.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the said motion?


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


DISASTERS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that labour has participated in the past in commissions established to investigate injuries and health risks to workers, including the Burkett commission in 1980 which was a joint federal-provincial commission into safety in mines and mining plants in Ontario, the Wright commission in 1978 which investigated safety in metallic mining in Manitoba, and the Hamm commission in 1974, which was a royal commission on health and safety for miners, and since labour expertise has been invaluable in these commissions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make provision for labour representation on the inquiry into the Ocean Ranger tragedy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. According to a recent report in the U.S. News and World Report, the Soviet Union is now flying arms to Nicaragua not only through Cuba but also directly through Newfoundland. Apparently Russian Aeroflot transport planes fly to Gander, Newfoundland, refuel, and continue on to Central America to deliver arms supplies to the revolutionary Sandinista regime. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That in conjunction with the announced sanctions on the Soviet Union over martial law in Poland, and in the interests of stability in Central America and the world, this government announce its intention to ban totally Soviet transport aircraft from landing on Canadian soil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 25, 1982


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that extra billing in Alberta is back up to 44 per cent, with some specialities as high as 88 per cent, that nurses have been forced to go on strike in order to get better working conditions, and that regressive premiums continue to be used as well as increased in amount every year in Alberta, one of Canada's richest provinces, thus showing that medicare is as much a matter of philosophical commitment as it is of money, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House reaffirms the commitment of all parties in the House to a national health care system characterized by universality, comprehensiveness, accessibility, affordability, and public administration.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, in view of the ability and willingness of the Government of Canada to extend credit to Algeria for a monument, and $1 billion at 10 per cent interest to the U.S.S.R to build a gas pipeline which will be invaluable to the war machine of that country-this loan costs Canadian taxpayers $198.5 million and irritates our allies who are applying sanctions on the U.S.S.R for occupation of Afghanistan and the bludgeoning of Poland-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That (a), the Minister of Agriculture make immediate arrangements with his cabinet colleagues to supply the Farm Credit Corporation with capital to loan to farmers at less than 10 per cent-surely our farmers deserve better treatment than foreigners-for the economic production of food and
(b), failing success in (a), he resign immediately as a protest to the government's giving interest rate preference to foreign governments and failing to extend equal or better treatment to Canadian farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


CALL FOR REINSTATEMENT OF DISMISSED KINGSTON PUBLIC SERVANT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact an official of the Revenue Canada department was dismissed from his position, and in view of the fact that he was dismissed for an alleged breach of conduct which was not even in a written code, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That Mr. Neil Fraser be immediately reinstated in his position and that the government conduct an investigation to discover how such an unjustified action could have been permitted to take place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It deals with the fact that three more partners have withdrawn from the Alsands consortium, putting that project in serious jeopardy. What is the minister doing about it?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, last night I had a meeting in Toronto with senior officers of Shell Canada, and today officials of the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada are meeting with officials and technicians representing the companies concerned. I expect there will be a meeting between the parties at the political level also-the level of ministers-in the very near future.


REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN PROGRAM
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the national energy policy says at page 94:
The National Energy program will spur oil sands development. The positive impact of the program on oil sands development can be illustrated by its effect on the commercial viability of the Alsands project-

February 25, 1982
Oral Questions
We now know that that statement is about as accurate as other statements the minister has made. Would the minister tell the House what changes he will make in the National Energy Program to ensure that at least this project goes ahead?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, with respect to the National Energy Program I draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that there has been an agreement with Alberta which provides that we pay the international price for oil from the tar sands.


Mr. Crosbie:: So what?


Marc Lalonde: My very knowledgeable friend who was the former minister of finance and who is a great specialist on taxes on oil and gas says, "So what". Does he suggest that we should ask the taxpayers and the consumers of Canada to pay more than world price for tar sands oil? That is not the view of this government. This government has taken the view that we should pay the world price or the international price for oil from those projects. The government of Alberta and the Government of Canada have also made provisions for very generous fiscal arrangements for those projects.


John Carnell Crosbie: Bunk.


Marc Lalonde: Those fiscal arrangements seem satisfactory to some of the partners. They do not seem satisfactory to some other partners. The remaining partners in the consortium are at the present time consulting with other potential partners. I myself have had discussions with such other potential partners, and in the next few days and weeks we will see how these negotiations will be concluded.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the minister did not attempt to defend the National Energy Program, which is hopelessly wrong.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ADMIT PROGRAM NOT PERFECT
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, this project would generate thousands of permanent jobs and billions of dollars in investment. It would help our trade balance by at least $3 billion a year. It would increase our security of supply. In the words of the Economic Council of Canada, it is one of the only good things the economy has going for it in the 1980s. Given those stakes, would the minister not admit that he must do everything possible to ensure that this project goes ahead, even to the extent of swallowing his pride and admitting that the National Energy Proram, the resulting taxes and so forth, perhaps are not perfect?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have never pretended that the National Energy Program is perfect. The best evidence is that we have made changes to it. As a matter of fact we have an
agreement with the three producing provinces which is satisfactory to those governments. This also made some changes. I will say to the hon. member, however, that the National Energy Program is far superior to anything the Conservatives put forward in their day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: It is a program which will ensure that during this decade the people of this country will own and control their oil and gas resources, rather than leaving them in the hands of the major multinationals, as the Tories were doing when they were in office.
With respect to the point raised by the hon. member, I want to draw his attention once more to the fact that both the government of Alberta and the Government of Canada have provided very generous fiscal incentives with regard to those projects. Some partners are satisfied with them; others are not. There may be other partners who will come in and who will be satisfied.


Harvie Andre: Who?


Marc Lalonde: My friend asks who. I suggest he wait for a little while and be patient. There will be developments, I hope, in the next few weeks.


Mr. Shields:: We have been waiting two years now.


Marc Lalonde: I remind my friends on the other side that the Syncrude project in 1975 ran into the same types of problems, and they were resolved at the time by this government.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It pertains to the spending estimates tabled in the House on Tuesday. I would like to ask the minister why in heaven's name the government is going to cut back on job creation in 1982-83 when we already have over one million people unemployed in this country.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I understand the hon. member's concern. If he had looked at last year's estimates he would have found that the job-creation estimates included at that time were considerably less than the actual amounts that were expended on job creation. As the hon. member may know, the job market is assessed in the course of the year and often additional sums are made available, so he should not draw the conclusion that there is less priority to the job-creation function of the government.
February 25, 1982


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO CREATE JOBS
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the estimates must surely speak for themselves; the facts are there for everyone to read. We are going from $318 million spent to $216 million spent. That is a loss of $102 million for the creation of new jobs. When is the government going to understand that its job is not to continue to create a depression in this country but to begin to create jobs and give people some hope in the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, that question has previously been addressed to me in the House and 1 have indicated that 1 am prepared to undertake appropriate measures as required. Certainly the field of job creation is one area that is receiving careful attention.


John Carnell Crosbie: Buncombe.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in his speech in New York he said that the government had rejected all pleas to embark on a course of economic stimulation, and indicated that the government was quite prepared to sit back and wait for the recovery of the United States economy. At the same time the Prime Minister was standing up in this house telling us that the government was considering the possibility of lowering interest rates to provide stimulus to the economy.
Now that the minister is under pressure from the people of Canada, the ten provincial premiers, members of his own caucus and even the Prime Minister, is he prepared to abandon his disastrous high interest rate policy, or will he continue to refuse to take any independent action that would allow the country to lead its own economic recovery?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is true that I stated in New York yesterday that I did not see the solution to our problems to be spending our way out of the recession, and add to the deficit and add to the inflationary pressures in the economy. That is my view, and it is the policy that has been endorsed on three separate occasions in the House since the budget was presented.
I want to tell the hon. member that the comment which I made yesterday, to the effect that we are opposed to the suggestion that interest rates can be forced down significantly if only we accept the depreciation in the value of our dollar, is a statement of our policy. It is a policy that is not at all altered
Oral Questions
or changed by any comments made yesterday in the House by the Prime Minister.


DEFICIT IN TRADE IN MANUFACTURED GOODS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, that will not be welcome news to the millions of Canadians who are unemployed and the small businesses that are going bankrupt.
The minister also stated in New York yesterday that he would resist any pressure to protect this country's manufacturing industries. How can he continue to advocate that Canada remain the international boy scout of free trade when we racked up a $21 billion trade deficit in manufactured goods last year and lost over 300,000 jobs in total, in this vital sector of our economy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, what 1 said yesterday is that it is not our intention to join in a policy of increased protectionism at the present time. That is a very strong temptation in every country-to put up trade barriers and adopt "beggar-thy-neighbour" policies. We know from past experience that that would be very dangerous to Canada because we depend on a very dynamic international trading system. If we did anything to impair that, we would be putting ourselves at a very grave disadvantage.


CUT IN JOB-CREATION BUDGET
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the position in the New Democratic Party is that, if they want profits, it is necessary for companies to provide Canadians with paycheques as well. Although the government continues to restate its concern for the unemployed in Canada, the weakness of its commitment became clearer than ever earlier this week when the estimates came before the House. In the face of over a million people unemployed, the government actually cut $102 million from its already meagre job-creation budget. On the one hand, how can the government keep telling the unemployed of Canada that it recognizes and is greatly concerned about their plight, but on the other hand callously cut 35 per cent from this portion of the budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should repeat the answer I already gave, because it is very important. Never have job-creation figures in the main estimates ever represented the total amount of money spent on job creation in a particular year. If the hon. member reviews past history he will see that the amounts included in the main estimates are usually greatly exceeded by subsequent commitments of the Government of Canada. That is the answer for the second time today.

February 25, 1982
Oral Questions DISASTERS


SINKING OF &quot;OCEAN RANGER&quot;-LACK OF RESCUE CRAFT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I am told that 1 can only ask one question. Perhaps because of the importance of it you will let me put it in two parts. My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister tell the House why in the early hours of February 15, the critical hours, there were no fixed wing aircraft on the ground or no surface vessels in the area of the sinking of the Ocean Ranger, and what rescue operations there were, were not being directed by the Air-Sea Rescue Centre in Halifax but by the Mobil Oil company?
Could the minister also tell the house how he could find $22 million for two executive aircraft but could not find money to instal weather radar in the rescue helicopters in Gander?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I understand very well the concerns of the hon. member for St. John's East about the Ocean Ranger incident. I can assure him that I share his concern about what happened in this case. First of all, I do not think any orders were given by any of Mobil's people to the rescue centre. The co-ordination centre in Halifax is the lead centre and it gives whatever orders must be given concerning search and rescue. As far as improvements in Newfoundland in search and rescue capabilities are concerned, I can send to the hon. member a list of what we have done since 1976. We have stationed three helicopters in Gander and two ocean vessels since then. I think we have improved tremendously the effectiveness of search and rescue operations in the area.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION IN UNITED STATES CONGRESS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. First 1 would like to congratulate the government for its belated recognition of its responsibilities. I think it has announced a joint inquiry into the terrible Ocean Ranger disaster with the province of Newfoundland. I hope this six-member commission will do the job of thoroughly exploring the issue. It now realizes that no ultimatum was given by the province of Newfoundland, and it has co-operated with them in this endeavour.
In Washington today, the Congressional merchant marine subcommittee headed by Mr. Biaggi is examining a bill to remove the right of non-American workers on United States-owned oil drilling rigs or vessels to recover damages from U.S. companies in U.S. courts for injuries suffered outside U.S. waters. The legislation will not be retroactive, but it is very important in view of the fact that the Ocean Ranger was a U.S.-owned rig operating outside U.S. waters. Has the government appointed representatives to appear before the committee to oppose the passage of the bill or to make representations on behalf of Canadian citizens and the Canadian government? If
so, who are they and what are their instructions? Will we do everything we can to see that that legislation is not passed by the United States Congress?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, indeed we are well aware of the bill of Representative Biaggi. It was introduced on October 29, and therefore was not introduced in contemplation of this accident. It would not have the effect of barring completely law suits by aliens in United States courts, but it would make them seek remedies in other courts first before it would allow them to have recourse to United States courts. Of course we are watching it very closely, and there is some uncertainty as to legislative jurisdiction over semi-submersible rigs, depending upon whether they are to be classified in international law as ships of a country or as projections of a coastal state.


PIPELINES
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Maritime Council of Premiers and the Association of Mechanical Contractors have expressed concern about maritimers being able to supply goods and services for the natural gas pipeline being constructed in the area. What measures is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources taking to stop the delays in construction in the TQM Pipeline, and what is he doing to see that people from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are given a fair chance to work on the project and to supply goods and services when it is under construction in the maritimes?
Will the minister confirm the commitment of his government that the spin-off from energy megaprojects like this will be used as development tools in these provinces that suffer from regional disparity?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker.


J. Robert Howie: Marc, they won't think you that smart down east.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board will know that he was advised
February 25, 1982

of the difficulties being encountered by Consolidated Computer Inc. in a letter to him dated June 23, 1980, from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he was advised that the company lost $10 million on $22 million worth of sales in 1979. Will the minister confirm that no action was taken by him to terminate advances to Consolidated Computer Inc. until he wrote to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on May 12, 1981, advising:
1 am not convinced that CCI prospects warrant further government investment.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I answered a question with respect to Consolidated Computer Inc. based on the leaked documents. I think I made it clear, and I think the history of this company, which goes back to the late 1960s or early 1970s, made it clear, from the leaked reports on which members have been relying, that there was a history of losses. This government, when it came into office, inherited the situation from the Conservative government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Don't be so dishonest.


Donald James Johnston: I replaced the hon. member for York-Peel in this position. I think this government, through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, took steps to bring the unhappy situation to completion-


An hon. Member:: Grovel in the dirt.


Donald James Johnston: -and for that purpose it went so far as to appoint independent specialists, outside of government, Mr. Bill Rosenfeld an attorney from Toronto, and Mr. Terry Godsall from Shieldings Investments, in order to determine what was the viability of that company. When the data was available to government, steps were taken immediately to ensure no further losses would be incurred by the taxpayers of this country.


John Carnell Crosbie: Only $125 million.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: What is $125 million?


DISASTERS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the Newfoundland government and the federal government have finally agreed to a joint commission of inquiry into the tragic sinking of the Ocean Ranger, could the minister inform members of this House or provide us with the details of the terms of reference of that inquiry? In addition, can the minister assure both sides of this House that the report will be made public immediately upon completion of the inquiry?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed there has been an agreement reached between the government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada on a joint inquiry to be chaired by Mr. Chief Justice Hickman, and composed of six outstanding Newfoundlanders. The two governments have agreed that there will be indentical terms of reference. The exact drafting is not completed but I expect no difficulty in this regard. It has always been the intention that the report will be made public and this will be done once the commission has completed its work and it has submitted its report.


ALSANDS PROJECT-REQUEST THAT FURTHER TAX BREAKS BE DENIED TO CORPORATIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday Dome Petroleum and Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas announced that they were pulling out of the Alsands consortium project. This morning Shell Explorer Ltd. followed suit, bringing to five the number of oil companies that have pulled out of the agreement in what looks, at least to the cynical among us, like a well orchestrated effort to force the government to sweeten the pot for the private companies involved in the project.


John Carnell Crosbie: What nonsense.


Mark Willson Rose: Similar tactics were used in the mid-1970s to force a different kind of financing for the Syncrude project. The government paid 70 per cent of the cost and only got 30 per cent of the equity. Will the minister assure this House that he will not submit to this type of blackmail again by offering these corporations more and more tax breaks, unearned equity, or higher rates of return at the expense of the already well gouged taxpayer?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed there has been some withdrawal on this particular project. I have indicated repeatedly in the House that there is a limit to how much the taxpayers of Canada should be asked to pay for any project. The two governments are working hand in hand in this respect. We are eager to see this project proceed, but again not at any price or at any cost to the taxpayer. We will have further negotiations and I will be very happy to inform my colleague about the development of those negotiations once they are completed.


FUNDS TO EXPAND EXISTING OIL PRODUCTION
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I wish the radiant minister of energy would feel the same way about nuclear projects. In light of these tactics being employed by private corporations, will the minister give serious consideration either to running this project as a public utility, as has been suggested, or rechannelling a lot of the funds that were

February 25, 1982
Oral Questions
intended for this project into enhanced recovery programs for old oil and heavy oil, oil that could become available at one quarter to half the price of these marginal projects?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I do not think the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta have excluded any possibility on the basis of any doctrinaire position. But I think both governments are of the view that the best way of realizing this project is on the basis of a mixed project, including public and private participation. We certainly hope that there will be major private participation in the construction of this particular project.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for International Trade. It has to do with the ailing auto industry. As the minister well knows, it has suffered the loss of 50,000 Canadian jobs in the last year alone. Because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce sounds like a broken record on this subject regardless of what the question is, I would like the Minister of State for International Trade to tell this House and, more important, tell the industry, which is waiting in limbo out there, whether or not it is government policy to implement, by way of legislation if necessary, Canadian content regulations for automotive parts in Japanese vehicles sold in Canada. The industry can no longer depend on vague statements regarding delegations and meetings. Is it government policy, or is it not?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in reply to a question posed by an hon. member opposite, in our meeting with the Japanese we will be initiating discussion on some form of a content proposal. But obviously we do not want to carry on the
negotiations here in the House.


BASIS FOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH JAPANESE REPRESENTATIVES
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, 1 would have expected that answer from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but not from the Minister of State for International Trade. We are not asking for vague comments, nor is the industry. The industry wants to know, and we want to know, whether the government wants to implement these regulations or not. If it does want to implement regulations by way of legislation if necessary, at what base level is the government going to start negotiations? If the government does not want to make that a policy, why is it not a policy when it cost the Canadian public 50,000 jobs in the last year alone?


Walter David Baker: Give us a straight answer.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I would have thought that my hon. friend with his expertise in the business community would know that it serves no purpose to carry on negotiations in the House prior to sitting down with the two principals involved.


FINANCE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who must know that his proposal to terminate the temporary remission order affecting the northern living allowance will lead to mass unemployment in the resource producing industries of Northern Canada. In Labrador and northern Quebec alone, the United Steelworkers' locals representing over 10,000 workers have already told their employers that they will be forced to negotiate salary increases in the range of $4,000 to $8,000 a year as a result of the November 12 budget. The mining companies are not able to meet these extra salary demands, so northern communities are faced with the spectre of prolonged strikes, shutdowns, and thousands of additional lay-offs.
Will the minister undertake to extend the remission order for as long as it takes through a serious process of consultation with the union and mining companies to find a mutually acceptable solution to this critical problem?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in the budget statement I did, in response to representations from the north, extend the special remission order for an additional year. In that time I expect it will be possible for the government to consider what alternative system ought to be put in place rather than rely on the tax system. So the remission order has been extended and it is the intention of the government to replace it with a more appropriate system.


MEETING WITH UNION AND COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of National Revenue who will know that the taxation of northern benefits will take at least $40 million out of northern communities next year and will lead to widespread demands for higher wages, strikes and lay-offs. Since the Minister of Finance has so far refused to meet with those affected, including more than 10,000 steelworkers in the Minister of National Revenue's riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, what alternative program of benefits does the minister have in mind, and why is there no provision for such a program in his own departmental estimates, which program will require between $30 million and $50 million for 1983 alone? Who is he trying to kid?
February 25, 1982


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the question is, who is the opposition trying to kid? First of all, the remission order as it presently stands is unfair to the majority of people in the north because it applies mostly to those people in higher income brackets. It is a typically Tory position, Madam Speaker, to support the remission order as it presently exists. Many of us have been saying that it is not equitable and not fair because it does not address low-income people. I feel that is what we should be addressing over this year, and not simply prolong a measure which is inequitable.
As far as meeting with steelworkers is concerned, the Minister of International Trade and myself have a meeting on Saturday afternoon in Labrador City with the union and companies in that area. We are looking after our people, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, we see that the Minister of Agriculture has been out on the range again, prowling in southwestern Ontario earlier this week. My question is to the Minister of Finance because when the Minister of Agriculture was in London earlier this week he met with the Canadian Farm Survival Association. He encouraged that association to make representations with reference to the government moving forward on a moratorium on farm bankruptcies and foreclosures. Is the minister contemplating any action in this regard? Was the Minister of Agriculture speaking on behalf of the government in London earlier this week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Agriculture makes the representations alleged I will give them consideration. However, I understand from the minister that these statements are not quite in line with what he actually said.


QUERY RESPECTING FARM CREDIT LEGISLATION
John Wise: Madam Speaker, there must be some misunderstanding because, under questioning this morning in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the minister indicated that he made that comment. Well, Madam Speaker, we will check to see what the record shows. However, another statement holds more ramifications, and certainly indicates a need for clarification. In his second statement the minister indicated that his government anticipates reviving the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. That statement obviously, as the Minister of Finance will know, raises some real problems with reference to the financial difficulties farmers
Oral Questions
face today. Was the Minister of Agriculture speaking on behalf of the government, or was he speaking through his big green hat as he usually does?


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Beatty:: Put the bull back in the pen.


Mr. Whelan:: It is on that side of the House today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, when the policy is announced in this matter I will be glad to make it available to the hon. member.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Alsands project is threatened because of a very ill-conceived national energy policy. We all know that the economic impact of that project across Canada will be $450 billion during the life of the project. The minister knows that $81.8 billion will go into Ontario and $13 billion to $14 billion into Quebec. When is the minister going to make the necessary changes in that policy which will allow the Alsands project to proceed, along with the other projects needed for energy selfsufficiency?


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Madam Speaker, in regard to the question asked previously by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, I would like to indicate that I have raised the issue of the gas pipeline several times with my colleagues in the maritimes. I have urged them in the last two years to take steps to appoint distributors to try to make sure that they will show interest and provide leadership in this regard. I am happy they are finally doing so. I also invite them to help me


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question was asked by the hon. member for Athabasca.


Marc Lalonde: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I thought it was a speech rather than a question. I want to tell the hon. member that the governments of Alberta and Canada and the private companies remaining in the consortium are working hard at trying to make this project go forward.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CHANGE POLICY
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, since the national energy policy was introduced by the minister's department, oil exploration activity in Canada is down, Alsands is jeopardized, the Cold Lake plant is on hold or dead, production of oil and gas is down, 2,000 fewer wells were drilled in Canada this year than last, exploration expenditures are down, and the expansion of Syncrude has been cancelled.

February 25, 1982
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jack Wendele Shields: When is the minister going to put the economic health of this country ahead of his own pride, and reverse some of the decisions he made in the national energy policy? When is he going to put the people of Canada ahead of his own pride?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: You think that is funny, but the people of Canada don't.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would invite my hon. friend to look at reality rather than his own rhetoric. I would remind him that this year planned expenditures in the oil and gas sector will increase by close to 40 per cent, as compared to about 7 per cent last year. They will increase at about twice the rate of expenditure in the manufacturing industries. Over the next five years it is foreseen that expenditures in the oil and gas industry will be very substantially higher, proportionately, than the increase in the manufacturing sector in this country. There is a lot of action taking place. I am afraid my hon. friend must be wearing blinders.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board is in the other place, and the Minister of Transport is not here, so this question has to go to the Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Last year the minister responsible for the Wheat Board did not announce the initial prices for grain in the early spring, when it assists farmers in their seeding plans. Since the government was condemned by the industry for not doing so, and since the government always does what the western farmers' consensus indicates, can the minister assure the House and grain producers that the government will announce the 1982-83 initial price for grain in March when it helps, rather than in July when it does not?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has answered his own question by the very fact that, as it was announced late, it did not have very much bearing on what the farmers planted last year because it was one of their biggest harvest or production years in the history of western Canada. Therefore, it had little
bearing on what they were going to plant or what they were going to do.


REQUEST THAT PRICE COVER INCREASED PRODUCTION COSTS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: The western Canadian farmer wants to know, right now, if he will seed enough to reach the 35 million metric ton target which has been talked about by the government. What is the minister telling the farmer today, by word and by action? Because if it is, "Yes, grow more grain", then will he give the House a commitment that the farmers will get enough prices for their grain so that they can pay for the increased costs which are going into production? Will he also indicate that farmers will get transportation at a cost which will allow them to have an income which might be somewhat similar to what they got last year in an extra production year? For a group that remits several billion-


Walter David Baker: Order.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: -$4 billion in foreign exchange, they should have some commitment as to what they grow.


Mr. Kempling:: Now, my question is-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to discredit farmers for having the ability to make up their own minds, themselves, concerning what they should plant and how much they should plant. Yesterday I answered a question by hon. members opposite from the other party concerning the need for proper financing. I stated that I agreed to that. But the hon. member should also remember that the crop year shows that last year was the largest year ever for shipping and exporting grain.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Smallest price.


Eugene Whelan: Over 26 million tonnes were involved. Therefore the farmers have the ability to produce and to do these things on their own. However, the announcement the hon. member spoke about does not have a great bearing on what they will do, because last year they made up their own minds concerning what they would do, and they will do that again this year, regardless of when we make that announcement.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRINCE SALMAN BEN SAUD BEN ABDUL-ARIZ FROM SAUDI ARABIA
Madam Speaker:: 1 should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery today of Prince Salman ben Saud ben Abdul-Ariz of Saudi Arabia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 25, 1982


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Acting Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I would like to ask when we can expect to find some tangible measures taken to assist industries in depressed parts of Canada, which have export as well as domestic capabilities. I wrote to the minister on February 4 and sent copies to the Minister of Finance and Senator Olson.
I have not, as yet, received any response. Two specific industries are very important to areas of Nova Scotia, that is to say, Sydney Steel and Hawker Siddeley in Trenton, Nova Scotia, both of which need orders, orders which could very well be allocated to these industries without in any way incurring extra expense.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Gray), I shall review the hon. member's correspondence and try to provide a reply as soon as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the uncertainty, to which he just added, concerning the status of the Ocean Ranger as to whether, in fact, it was a free-floating ship or whether, because it was attached to the ocean floor, it might conceivably be thought of in terms of an artificial island, I was wondering whether the minister has received legal advice concerning the status of that particular body within the 200-mile limit beyond Canada's shore.
Also in view of this uncertainty, will he say whether the Canadian government will make representations or has asked to make representations to the inquiry being mounted by the Coast Guard of the United States, because the status of that particular object out there, within the 200-mile limit, could be within Canadian jurisdiction, or could not?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, we certainly do not want to take any steps at the present time which will in any way affect the status of any Canadian litigant. However, I must say that while there is some uncertainty in international law as to jurisdiction over such a semi-submersible rig, whether it is
Oral Questions
rightly classed as a ship and jurisdiction therefore belongs to the flag country, or whether it is considered to be within the 200-mile zone and therefore within the jurisdiction of the coastal state, our position is that it is within our jurisdiction.


QUESTION OF CANADIAN JURISDICTION
Donald W. Munro: The minister has not answered the second part of my question as to whether, knowing that the United States Coast Guard is also mounting an inquiry, representations or at least a listening brief was being considered by the Canadian government on that other inquiry. If it is within Canadian jurisdiction, is the minister excluding the Coast Guard from carrying out its inquiry?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we are, of course, watching the U.S. proceedings; but, just as we would not want to take any step which would prejudice the rights of Canadian litigants, so we would not want to take any steps which would prejudice our claims as a government under international law. Therefore we certainly have no present plans to make submissions before the U.S. inquiry.


THE PERFORMING ARTS
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State in charge of art and culture. We on this side are very pleased to see that some of the lottery money which the government is getting back from the provinces is going into art galleries here in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: However, I would like to ask the minister a question. The Edmonton Symphony needs $84,000 and the cheque is long overdue. I would like to ask the minister if he would be so kind to give it to Charlie Lynch who will be there this weekend with the Allied Jazz Band, which is doing a benefit for the Edmonton Symphony, so that he can present it for a truly good cause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I would First like to point out to the hon. member that the moneys which were announced last week for the National Gallery and the Museum of Man did not come from the lotteries fund but, rather, from a commitment by this government to arts and culture in this country.


An hon. Member:: You are anti-Lynch?


Francis Fox: As far as the Edmonton Symphony is concerned, it will, of course, benefit from the deficit reduction program which was developed by this government. This cheque has now

February 25, 1982
Oral Questions
been issued and has been forwarded to my colleague, Senator Olson, in order that he may give it to the Edmonton Symphony.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Robert Howie: What does Olson play?


Steve Eugene Paproski: We are very pleased, Madam Speaker, but 1 say to the minister that the last minister who was presenting money to galleries here six years ago was the Hon. Hugh Faulkner, and he is no longer here in the House.


EDUCATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. For the past ten years Canada's universities and schools have been trying to obtain access to CBC broadcasting materials that could be useful in our schools and universities across Canada for educational purposes. Our educational institutions require the films for short periods of time only, and are willing to pay a nominal fee, but they have met with limited success to date. Will the minister inform the House of what he has been doing to assist our schools and universities in solving this problem?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, basically, if the hon. member has thought about the National Film Board, there is a distribution system which makes the program production of the National Film Board widely available throughout the country. I am told that the hon. member is referring to the CBC. If he has any specific programs he would like to see made available to our schools, I would be delighted to raise the matter with the president of the CBC.


ESTABLISHMENT OF GUIDELINES
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, the British government has worked out a satisfactory solution to this problem, and the U.S. government has appointed a committee made up of publishers, educators, radio and TV artists and broadcasters. This committee is establishing guidelines for off-air recording of broadcast programming for educational purposes. Will the minister appoint a similar committee so that we may work toward a solution to this problem that has been with us far too long?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: As the
hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, the field of education in general is a matter of provincial responsibility. The question to which the hon. member refers is one which relates to the
copyright laws of this country. My colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I, have set up task forces within our departments to look at this whole question. The task force in my case is made up of eminent Canadians very knowledgeable in the area; Andre Raynauld of the University of Montreal, John Hylton, the former vice-chairman of the CRTC, and Claude Brunet of Montreal, an acknowledged copyright expert. 1 would be delighted to draw the hon. member's concern to their attention. I already know that this is the type of issue with which they will be dealing. Perhaps in closing I might add that I expect this group to report to me in early summer.
&edl760;-l
[ Translation]


PETITIONS
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 eighty-third report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) on Wednesday, February 24, 1982, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, this being Thursday, I would like to ask the government House leader to give us some indication of the House business for the next few days.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to be asked the question by my colleague. I want to confirm that tomorrow, Friday, will be an allotted day. Later on today we will resume debate on second reading of Bill C-89, the National Housing Act.

Next week, Monday we shall resume second reading of the bill dealing with the National Housing Act, and depending on the outcome of the division on the motion today, there will be a division on second reading Monday evening. From Tuesday until the end of the week, that is until Friday, we shall be considering a major bill we intend to introduce tomorrow. The bill concerns energy security and a notice appears in the Order Paper. Once again, the bill will be introduced tomorrow but consideration of the bill will not start until Tuesday, so as to enable hon. members to study the bill in detail during the weekend.
February 25, 1982


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I might ask the House leader for the New Democratic Party if he wants to comment on the allotted day motion presently on the Order Paper.


Mr. Deans:: Thank you very much. It is not often I get asked a question. The hon. member is doing a better job than his boss!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I might indicate that although we have a motion standing on the notice paper with regard to an opposition supply day, it is my understanding that the opposition supply day tomorrow will be a Conservative day. While we would like to leave the motion stand on the Order Paper, we do not want to create any conflict. We do not ask that the Chair rule on which of the motions is acceptable. We are prepared to accept debate on the motion put down by the Conservative Party for tomorrow.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is fine, Madam Speaker. That is all I wanted to establish with respect to that motion.


ENERGY SECURITY ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
February 23, 1982-The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-Bill intituled: "An act to amend and enact provisions related to the Petroleum Administration Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Canada Business Corporation Act, the Petro-Canada Act, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act; to repeal the Energy Supplies Emergency Act; to amend an Act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act; to amend the Adjustment of Accounts Act; and to enact the Petroleum Incentives Program Act, the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act, the Energy Monitoring Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act".
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am in a bit of a dilemma. The government House leader announced that tomorrow he will be introducing the energy security act for first reading. Based on the title alone, as indicated in the notice paper, we have some concern about its propriety with regard to its form. We would ask the Chair to examine the propriety of its form and, under Standing Order 69, make a ruling.
The dilemma is that the appropriate time for the decision of the Chair is at first reading. That is confirmed by a decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux reported in Journals of January 26, 1971. Obviously we cannot have a reasonable debate as to the propriety of the form until we have the bill. We do not have the bill until it is given first reading and is printed. Therefore, we have a Catch-22 situation. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux dealt with this on January 26, 1971, when he said:
Business of the House
In my view it should be the responsibility of the Chair, when such bill is introduced and given first reading, to take the initiative and raise the matter for the consideration of the House by way of a point of order-
My suggestion to the Chair is that the Chair permit a caveat on first reading to allow us the opportunity over the weekend to examine this bill to find out if in fact our concerns are legitimate, and on Monday, if it is deemed desirable, to discuss whether the bill is in order or not, allowing the opportunity for the Chair to exercise its discretion in a way that is not prejudiced by the fact that we will have completed first reading.
I am not sure if I have made myself clear in this Catch-22, chicken and egg situation. I am asking for an opportunity to see the bill and then have a discussion of the point of order as to whether or not the bill is in order. I think this needs a decision by the Chair.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the same request was put to you not long ago in connection with a borrowing authority bill, because it included several other tax measures, and because of this omnibus aspect you were asked the same question at the time by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). On that occasion I said that if the hon. member thought he had a good case, he should raise his point of order at the appropriate time, that it was not up to me as government House leader to decide whether his argument was justified or not, and finally, that I was always prepared to debate the issue. I should like to point out that in the case we have here, a draft bill was published in July, that a very detailed notice of ways and means motion was published in the Order Paper, that the bill will be very similar to the draft bill I have just mentioned, and that the content of the notice of ways and means motion will be reflected in the bill. We are going to introduce the bill tomorrow, and if my hon. colleague is here tomorrow, I shall try to send him a copy beforehand, which means later today or some time tomorrow morning, which will be helpful if he again wants to argue a point that was unsuccessfully debated not long ago.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to rise again. There is a matter I wanted to clarify with regard to the House business. We have been meeting, as you are aware-perhaps you are not aware and you are not even supposed to be aware-to discuss the terms of reference for the referral of the matter of bank profits to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
It had been my understanding that that reference, as amended, would be moved today. I notice that the reference still stands on the notice paper in its original form. Is the House leader in a position to tell me whether he in fact intends

February 25, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
to move the reference, and whether he intends to move the reference in an amended form or in the form it now is and has been for the past two days?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we had a House leaders' meeting yesterday and we did come to an agreement. If it is the will of the House, I am prepared now to move the motion with the small change to which we agreed-it will be very brief-or I could wait until you call notices of motions.


Madam Speaker:: Perhaps the minister will not mind waiting until I call notices of motions.
* # *


ENERGY SECURITY ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Introduction of Bills:
February 23, 1982-The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend and enact provisions related to the Petroleum Administration Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Canada Business Corporation Act, the Petro-Canada Act, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979 and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act; to repeal the Energy Supplies Emergency Act; to amend an act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act; to amend the Adjustment of Accounts Act; and to enact the Petroleum Incentives Program Act, the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act, the Energy Monitoring Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act".
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I listened to the undertakings given by the government House leader about dealing with the bill you are about to speak to on the question raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). The problem may very well be a problem only if the undertaking is accepted as solving the issue because the bill, even by its title, seems to go beyond the terms of the [DOT] notice of motion.
If I may say so, I think that the suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre is a good one, that the caveat be entered, that time is given and the Chair take the time to review this matter over the period suggested by the hon. member.
I am sure that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) was acting in good faith-I am not suggesting that he was not-by giving that undertaking. However, the problem still exists, and I think it is implicit in the title of the bill which seems to go beyond the notice of ways and means motion. That is why there is some good sense to the suggestion of the member for Calgary Centre.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the impression I have is that my hon. friend is afraid to be afraid. As a matter of fact, we have said that we will introduce a bill tomorrow. This bill will look like the draft bill which has been given to the opposition last July. It will reflect the ways and means motion. Once the bill is introduced, if they have a point of order to raise, that is their right. We will argue that. The matter is very simple; if
they do not agree with the omnibus aspect of the bill-we say it is according to practice-we will argue that in due course. The opposition will have the weekend to study the bill, as well as Monday, and we will debate it on Tuesday.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, we have an unusual situation here. There has been a draft bill circulated. The government House leader has just indicated that the bill which he intends to introduce, which no one on this side of the House, at least, has seen, will look like the draft bill. He has not said it will be precisely like the draft bill. We do not know the precise nature of the bill which will be introduced and we have some very real cause for concern that the bill which will be introduced will not be allowable and acceptable in the House, for various reasons which we will not burden the House with at this moment.
As you know, the dilemma is that we will not be allowed to debate at the time of its introduction for first reading. What we are asking seems to me to be straightforward and reasonable and is also backed up by a precedent decision of one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. What we are seeking is that the Chair indicate now that first reading would be a caveat, with the caveat being that the bill proposed to be introduced, which none of us has seen, is a bill which is, in fact, acceptable to the House of Commons.
In summary, that is the situation as put forward by my colleague from Calgary Centre. What we would ask is for you to act as your predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, has acted and have the House give a caveated first reading.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, you proceeded in a definite way previously. We do not object to proceeding the same way but it is not for the House to give its consent, it is for you to exercise your discretion.


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me the House has already dealt with this problem very recently. It seems to me that the caveat is not really necessary because I will certainly rule diligently on this matter which has been brought up by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. I will do that some time before second reading, so points of order may be brought up and I can hear those points of order. We have dealt with this before. I feel we can solve this particular problem in the same manner.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, perhaps that does clarify it. If the Chair is acknowledging that we can, in fact, raise a point of order between first and second reading which the Chair will hear and base a judgment on the assessment and evaluation of those arguments, then we have no dispute. My concern was that the Chair might have indicated that since first reading had been completed there would be no opportunity to address any points of order which may be raised. That was my only concern and perhaps the remarks of the Chair have cleared that up.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as far as I am concerned we will be ready to argue any point of order on this bill tomorrow.
February 25, 1982


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rose on a point of order yesterday to request a change on the Order Paper to alternate or switch to the motions that are on the Order Paper in my name. Yesterday, the House leader of the Conservative party indicated a reservation with regard to a member sitting as an independent being permitted the opportunity of switching two motions. 1 wonder if the acting House leader is now prepared to tell us what his decision has been and perhaps why such a decision has been made?


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to renew his question, which I assume he has done, to switch the order of his motions, 1 will ask the House again if it gives its unanimous consent to the changes which are asked by the hon. member for Edmonton East. Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member does not have the unanimous consent of the House to change the order of those motions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, concerning government notices of motions I can say that there is unanimous consent, which my colleagues will undoubtedly confirm, to the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to review the profit situation of the chartered banks.
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
"And that the committee be empowered to engage necessary expert staff."


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that our party welcomes the opportunity for this parliamentary committee to study the interest rates policy and review the profit situation of the chartered banks. The government House leader has confirmed to us earlier and to the House, I believe, that this inquiry will be given the widest terms of reference possible. We agree with the addition to the motion of the provision to hire staff.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the unanimous consent that is given is, of course, to a motion to have the inquiry. In fact, there is not only unanimous consent to have the inquiry; it is eagerly sought by members of this party.
Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs
I am disappointed, I must say, that we were not able to convince the government House leader and the Conservative House leader to include a review of federal government legislation on some other matters which we felt were essential to the conduct of a proper inquiry. However, the government House leader and the House leader of the official opposition indicated that as far as they were concerned the committee had the power to ask for, and would likely receive, the opportunity to travel, if that became necessary, and it could hold public hearings. Knowing my astute colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), we will be able to find a way, during the committee's deliberations, to investigate the federal government's complicity in the high interest rate policy of the banks which has resulted in the inordinately high profits.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, 1 would just like to comment that it was the government House leader who made the comments on travel. At no time did we make any comments about travel in inquiries like that.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the committee is the master of its own procedure. If it desires to come up with an interim report to request permission to travel, then, as I told the hon. member, it will be seriously considered. In the meantime, the committee will decide what objective to attack first. It comes under the terms of reference which are broad enough to allow a very serious debate about the concerns expressed by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Therefore, I seek unanimous consent of the House to adopt without debate the motion 1 have just read.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, may I ask for a point of clarification. The motion of the House leader uses the term "Canada's chartered banks". He may recall that the last Bank Act provided for the incorporation of many banks. There are 30 or 40 already incorporated via letters patent. Were those banks operating as foreign banks in Canada prior to the new Bank Act and since then to be excluded from examination by the committee?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think the terms of reference are very broad. It is not our intention to limit at the level of the House of Commons the terms of reference of the committee. The committee will look into this and make a decision. If it is not clear and if the committee feels it should come back to seek further power or an order of reference which is more specific, we will consider that. However, at this stage I think the terms are broad enough to include the profits of the chartered banks and, I suppose, the banks about which my hon. colleague has just spoken.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 1982
Time Allocation BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Charles Joseph Clark: Shame!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, it was three months ago almost to the day that I first asked for the support of all members of the House to consider the urgency of the measures in Bill C-89. The last two paragraphes of my comments on that day were as follows:
The task now. Madam Speaker, is for the House to translate into action its expressed concern for housing matters and Canadians thereby affected. I will soon table a bill to amend the National Housing Act. This legislation is important. It will enable the government to assist households renewing their mortgage; it will enable the government to assist first-time home buyers through modifications to the mortgage instrument; and it will enable additional stimulus to be provided to rental production by allowing CMHC to insure higher loan amounts on rental production.
I trust and pray. Madam Speaker, that just as my confidence in the government was vindicated by the budget, so too will my confidence in the good sense of the hon. members of the House be vindicated by their speedy passage of the housing legislation so sorely needed by many Canadians today.
I wish that confidence had been borne out.
In April of 1980 the Speech from the Throne set the basis- and should have alerted this House-to the general intentions of the government with respect to housing. The Speech from the Throne stated 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.
We described how this would be approached by the government. We were convinced that the government could do this:
-without the government embarking upon a major subsidy program.
Those signals were sent to the opposition many, many months ago. The Canada mortgage renewal plan introduced in the budget on November 12 did just that. It followed the intentions of the government I have laid out. It is a plan to assist Canadians who are unable to help themselves with guarantees, through interest deferral or grants up to $3,000 per household.
This legislation was tabled in this House prior to December. I had copies of the draft legislation hand delivered to the housing critics of the opposition parties. In January prior to the return of this House to its normal business I sought the cooperation of the parties through their respective spokesmen- in the case of the New Democratic Party, spokeswoman.
We have been discussing this legislation now for five days. What is particularly perturbing to me-and a disappointment-is the fact that hon. members opposite asked in October and November that I or my office use what influence we
had to assist Canadians who were troubled about mortgage renewals. I received nearly 400 requests for assistance from hon. members opposite. This legislation is required in order that I can indeed assist not only hon. members opposite but also the many Canadians who have sought the assistance provided in the programs in Bill C-89.
In addition to that, when hon. members opposite returned in the fall, they tabled many petitions containing thousands of signatures of concerned Canadians. I personally signed responses to over 10,000 Canadians advising that the government would take action and that it would be in accordance with the principles I have enunciated in these brief remarks. This legislation is required to assist many of those Canadians.
I would like to stress that the commitment of the budget was $350 million over the next two years to encourage the construction of rental accommodation. One third of those units promoted by that budgetary commitment are what we refer to as rent-geared-to-income accommodation. Any hon. member who has any experience in the housing field knows that that program through the years in most of the provinces of Canada has been one of the most effective ways of providing affordable accommodation to Canadians at lower income levels. The delivery of that accommodation to Canadians is being delayed by the delay of this legislation. Without this legislation we cannot proceed with that program.
There has been the complaint that this bill is not enough, but I point out, as I did to the new critic for the New Democratic Party, that the 15,000 units are a minimum and that after we receive proposals and responses from the building community the $350 million could result in many thousands of additional units over and above the 15,000. The many jobs which will be created through the construction of that rental accommodation will be the result of this legislation.
Hon. members have recounted in this House the experience in their communities, and they have asked for government programs. That was done today by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). Hon. members have been seeking government programs to create employment across the country. The legislation before us, Bill C-89, for which we have sought co-operation, is one of the tools which addresses that problem. There is a potential of 70,000 person years generated through the expenditure of $350 million. I felt that would have motivated more support and a speedier response to the legislation and possibly would have obviated the necessity of the government's proposing the motion I am proposing today.
In conclusion, I remind hon. members that the blueprint for action of this government in the Speech from the Throne in April, 1980, addressed not only the needs of those in this country who need help most and the intentions of the government to respond in a real way to those who need help most, but it also addressed the posture of the government in terms of how it goes about general government business. One of the principles is a recognition that Canadians do not necessarily want more government. They want more effective government.
February 25, 1982

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is dealt with in Bill C-89. From comments of hon. members on both sides of this House and from personal representations made by hon. members, I know that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has served Canadians and the representatives of Canadians well over the last few years. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation needs this legislation to make its operation more effective in the handling of claims, in the area of underwriting and in being able to support the lending institutions with the types of new mortgage documents which are now generated in our changing economic climate. Those provisions have not been attacked. In five days of debate not a single word of criticism has been addressed to those objectives.
1 will conclude by saying that 1 wish we had the support of hon. members opposite. I believe that the response of the government in this bill is a sensible and sensitive one to a difficult problem.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed what I consider to be one of the most outstanding examples of hypocrisy that I have seen around here in a long time. The minister who is responsible for housing pleads with us; he tells us how he tried to cajole us into getting on with the bill and then damns himself out of his own mouth. The very man who stands in his place today to bring in a closure motion talks about the business of Bill C-89 being incorporated in the Speech from the Throne in April 1980!
So much for urgency, Mr. Speaker. It did not see the light of day again until the budget of November 12, 1981. Again, so much for urgency, so much for discharging a promise to the home owners of this country in the budget of April 1980. The bill does not come before the House for second reading until February 8, 1982, three full months after the introduction of the budget. And still the minister talks about urgency.
Let us look at the record of debate on Bill C-89 since second reading debate commenced on February 8, 1982. Debate was continued on February 9, then was interrupted on February 10 because the government wanted to deal with Bill C-90, the Customs Tariff bill. It was picked up again on February 11 and then we did not get back to it until February 22.
What happened during the intervening days? There was an allotted day. The government could have set that aside; it manages the business of the House so it could have said that it wanted to get on with Bill C-89 because it was a matter of urgency. Apart from an allotted day, we had the labour benefits bill, the Canagrex bill, the taxation and borrowing authority bill, a supply day, the labour benefits bill again- everything but Bill C-89. Yet the minister has the unmitigated gall to stand in his place and say that the House has dragged its feet and that this bill is a matter of urgency. We have had five days to deal with this bill. That is the only opportunity we will have to examine the housing crisis and the government's response to it.
Time Allocation
It is worth looking at the record of those five days, Mr. Speaker. It is not only members of the opposition that have been carrying the debate; members of the government party have participated, as have members of the NDP. It was only when the minister felt that the debate was going on a little bit too long that he decided to pull his members back. But that is no reason for us to withdraw and not discharge our responsibilities to the people in this country.
There is not a member sitting in this House who is not faced with a critical housing crisis in his or her constituency.


Mr. Kelly:: Nonsense!


James Aloysius McGrath: Yet the government has the unmitigated gall to invoke closure after five days of debate-to invoke closure on a bill that will probably pass second reading with a nod. No one is opposed to the principle of the bill. What we have said in speech after speech after speech is that the bill offers a mere pittance; it does not go far enough; it does not significantly address the problems of home owners nor the acute shortage of rental accommodation in this country. But because of the pittance it provides for those in dire straits, no one in this House is going to vote against it.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) should know that this is a money bill and that the opposition cannot move amendments to it. All we can do is try to make the case and hope that the government will be sufficiently impressed that it will subsequently bring in amendments to the bill.
Another matter that gave us cause to hope that the government might bring in some amendments is the famous letter signed by the ten that was released coincidentally with the commencement of second reading of the bill. It was signed by eight backbenchers on the government side and, significantly, by two members of the government.
We all know the contents of that letter and the press release that accompanied it. It called for a new housing initiative; it called for 50,000 housing units to be commenced immediately. The bill makes provision for only an additional 15,000 units. Surely we had reason to suspect as a result of that letter that something might be forthcoming. If not, we had an obligation to make the case to the government that the bill does not address the critical housing situation in the country today.
I should like to quote from the leaked document, Mr. Speaker. Referring to the consequences of high interest rates, the problem that this bill is supposed to address, the document quotes from a memo written by the minister who is responsible for housing to his cabinet colleagues-to the effect that the prospect is not only for tight rental markets but for waiting lists and doubling up with family and friends. It goes on to say that we will witness a substantial regression in housing conditions following 35 years of gradual improvement.
That is not the official opposition speaking, Mr. Speaker, and it is not the New Democratic Party; that is what the minister was saying to his colleagues just a few short months ago. Now he has the nerve to get up in the House after five days of debate, knowing full well that the bill will receive
15388

February 25, 1982
Time Allocation
general support-albeit critical support because it does not go far enough-and deny members of the House the only opportunity they have to try to press home to the government that there is a critical crisis in the country today and that in the budgets of 1980 and 1981 the government failed miserably to address that crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is the responsibility we have, Mr. Speaker. All we have to do is take the minister's own projections. For this year we need 77,500 apartment units, but how many will we get? We will get 15,000 units because, according to the minister's own statement, no rental housing will be built in Canada this year other than that which is publicly assisted. We know that the only assistance for people building rental accommodation this year, for those who qualify, is the $7,500 interest-free loan. There will be a net decline in the number of social housing units built this year. The minister will find that information in the budget. Last year we built 30,000 units but this year the government intends to build only 25,000 units.
I am surprised that the Minister of Public Works, a sincere, honest and honourable man, would carry the can for the government's mismanagement of the economy. The government may have some excuse for mismanaging the economy of this country, Mr. Speaker, but it has no excuse for mismanaging this House!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled, because whenever I happen to speak in the House after one of the former ministers of the previous Conservative government, they have been trying to teach the Liberals a thing or two, and it is especially surprising in this case, since the hon. member supported the government that in 1979-80 had decided to get rid of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. At that time, privatization was the order of the day, and responsibility for housing construction was to be transferred to the private sector. The hon. member supported that government. Should he be taken seriously today, when he tells us that they are probably going to support this bill, Mr. Speaker? I think it is absolute hypocrisy. They have kept this bill in the House for six days, which includes today's debate, plus one more day next week, on Monday, which makes seven, and then he has the gall to tell us that they will probably vote in favour of the bill, Mr. Speaker.
It is hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, and I think Quebecers and Canadians are going to realize this. After all, what the minister is proposing is to stimulate the construction industry, not only through government assistance but also indirectly by assisting the private sector. I am from a basically residential riding, Mr. Speaker, and I am well aware what this can involve for the private sector and for developers and contractors in my
riding. Thanks to this government we have had several housing projects for senior citizens which were built with government funds, with the collaboration of the private sector. These projects included apartments for senior citizens and apartments built in collaboration with the co-operative housing program. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have any lessons to learn from the hon. member and his party. When they were in power, they proved that they were unable to govern, and Canadians have judged them accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be allowed to do so too. 1 am pleased to have a chance to discuss the measures that have been tabled in the House and to consider the proposals made since they are of vital importance to Canadians. For weeks I have been hearing members opposite complain that the bill does not go far enough. I heard them reading letters in which constituents described their particularly unfortunate circumstances. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. members opposite are really concerned and are prepared to act responsibly and listen carefully to the distress signals they are receiving from their constituents. This is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. We have stopped talking and we are taking action. If the hon. members had been more receptive to the needs of their constituents, they would have voted to adopt this bill without further delay, because it is what Canadians want. If they were responsible people, they would stop pushing this incredible proposal to have the bill provide for additional funds we do not have. The same opposition is saying that the government is spending too much. They said it this week when the estimates were tabled, but they still keep rising in the House to ask us to spend more money. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a team that is paying attention to the needs of Canadians, while at the same time realizing it has a duty to enact effective legislation, in other words, to propose and support measures the country can afford and to be fair to the people who elected them.
Mr. Speaker, the impact of the Canada mortgage renewal and rental assistance plans could indeed be spectacular. Many of our friends opposite have spoken about the housing shortage that is affecting Canadians in all parts of the country. I shall be more specific and mention those Canadian families who are obliged to spend more than 30 per cent of their gross income on housing. It certainly is ironic to hear members opposite talk about this. The bill being debated in the House today is, in fact, aimed at amending the legislation and at providing help where it is truly needed. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why do the opposition parties insist on drawing out this debate? If they are so convinced of the need for this bill, they should have supported it when the debate began in the House. This bill provides for the spending of $350 million on housing projects to be set up for Canadians with the collaboration of the private sector, contractors and developers across Canada, in Quebec, and of course in the riding of Louis-Hebert, where the plan will be welcomed by my constituents, by people who are
February 25, 1982

looking for homes and people who are eager to build them. It will be a first step toward turning around the residential construction industry in Quebec and Canada.
I repeat, $350 million will be spent on helping Canadians who are seeking rental accommodation and those who are having problems with mortgage renewal. One of the spin-offs will be to create 70,000 jobs as a direct result of adopting these measures. Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are waiting for the hon. members opposite to take positive action deeply resent this contempt for their housing problems, and I think the Canadian people will punish the members opposite for their attitude to this problem. Changes are absolutely necessary. The proposed amendments to the legislation will not only help those who really need assistance, but will also enable the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to operate more effectively. They would allow home buyers to benefit from new mortgaging techniques providing more flexibility to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as far as the type of loans it can insure is concerned. Moreover, CMHC would be in a better position not only to react to the restraints of the market, but also to continue to play and to improve its leadership role in housing, a role it has been playing for 35 years with the support of this government, and will continue to play in the future. Of course, the direct result for Canadians as a whole is that they will be, as they already are, the best housed people in the world. The provisions contained in Bill C-89 focus government support on specific target areas so that the Canadian housing market can provide both a sufficient rental housing stock and reasonably priced housing for home buyers.
In my opinion, delaying this debate as the members of the official opposition are doing deprives Canadians of their right to obtain the support they need, and this should no longer be tolerated. The previous speaker mentioned his indignation, but what provokes the indignation of Canadians and of members on this side of the House is to have lost precious time on a bill which, for all practical purposes, the members opposite will probably support because they know that it is what Canadians want and what Canadians will have as early as next Monday evening.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to disillusion you. I think the bringing in of closure on this piece of legislation is an affront to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada, especially those who have gone through the last year looking for some assistance to meet rapidly escalating costs attributable to accommodation, resulting directly from the economic policy the government has followed. To suggest for one moment that because we have taken all of five days to discuss this piece of legislation, suddenly the government no longer requires the benefit of the views of hon. members from across the country with regard to the impact or non-impact of housing legislation on their communities, is ridiculous.
1 draw to the attention of the House the fact that we need an all-out attack on major housing problem areas in every corner
Time Allocation
of Canada. We cannot see that in this legislation. There were 15,000 or 20,000 people who demonstrated not so many months ago, telling us that they could not afford to live in the houses they presently occupied because of the high interest rate policy of the government. There were 100,000 people standing on the steps of the Parliament Buildings not three months ago telling us that they could not find accommodation in the country within their ability to pay. Then we obtained the piece of legislation brought forward by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) which perhaps will build 15,000 housing units. There is a demonstrated acceptable need for a minimum of 70,000 housing units per year more than we currently build. The minister agonizes that we have taken five days to discuss the housing problem, that we have taken this period of time which he cannot afford to spend in the House.
On this issue alone there is no room for closure. On this issue alone we should be devoting every single moment of the time of the House of Commons to discussing how we can build homes, how we can put people to work building homes, and how we can make available necessary mortgage money at a price people can afford, both in terms of their need to renew their present mortgages and in terms of making available additional moneys for new homes and new mortgages which are so necessary if we are to house Canadians in the way they are entitled to be housed. I am not talking about palatial surroundings. 1 am not talking about two or three-bathroom homes with five or six bedrooms on one acre lots. 1 am talking about modest three-bedroom homes in which families can be raised within the ability of those who work in that family to meet the cost.
I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, in the few moments that I have that it does not take a financial expert to see what has happened in this country over the course of the last two or three years. Some glaring examples of the mismanagement of this government as it affects housing are evident everywhere. But the one that comes to my mind most quickly is the high carrying costs attributable to home ownership and rental as related to income.
In 1978 in the city of Vancouver, based on an average income, it took 30 per cent of a person's or a family's, income to maintain housing. By the fourth quarter of 1981 that percentage had risen to 56.7 per cent of that same family's income. In 1978 in Toronto the percentage of a family's income spent to find accommodation was 32.9 per cent. By the fourth quarter of 1981 that percentage had risen to 47.5 per cent. In 1978 in Halifax the percentage was 29.5 per cent of a family's income, and by the fourth quarter of 1981 the percentage had risen to 38.5 per cent. In 1978 in St. John's the percentage was 27.3 per cent of a family's income and by 1981 that percentage had risen to 38.2 per cent.
This situation is evident in every single community in Canada. The outlay required from a family's income to find

February 25, 1982
Time Allocation
accommodation fit to live in is rising by leaps and bounds. The amount has gone up by no less than one third in almost every instance. I put to the minister in his absence that the only decent thing he has done since he took over the ministry is to be absent. His presence has afforded nothing in the way of any housing starts worth mentioning. In terms of being able to influence his cabinet colleagues with regard to action to reduce the high level of mortgage interest his representations have fallen on deaf ears.
I cannot believe the minister would have the audacity and effrontery to come here and tell us that this is it, that this is the message. He says to us: "Oh, there will be more". When will there be more and what will the more be? When will we see the housing program of the government? The government knows, as you know, Mr. Speaker-and I know you know it as well as any member in the House-that housing starts were down dramatically last year over the year before. We have unemployment in construction up dramatically this year over last and up last year over the year before. We have carrying costs for accommodation up in every single community from coast to coast.
We have a CMHC commitment to housing which you would expect to see rise in relation to the need we see develop. But what do we see? We see that CMHC's commitment to housing is down dramatically in the 1982 budget even in spite of the fact that the minister has paid lip service to the recognition that there is a housing crisis. Affordable mortgage financing is down in every single community across the country. Try to get a mortgage, Mr. Speaker. Try to refinance your home today. If it is a modest home, as 1 suspect yours is, 1 know you would have grave difficulty finding any mortgage company that would give you the money necessary. Perhaps that is not fair in your case, given the high salary that you have. But in the case of many average income people, that would be true. In my own community, a community shared by the Minister of Indians Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), who is listening intently or sleeping-no, he is listening intently. That was a joke by the way; I knew you were awake. Are you aware, Mr. Minister, that in your own constituency certain of the mortgage lending institutions have red-lined-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is aware of the requirement of the House that he address his remarks to the Chair.


Ian Deans: Let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, are you aware that the minister is aware that in his own community there are certain sectors where mortgage institutions will not lend money? They have red-lined them. They will not lend money to people even though those people have been paying their mortgages faithfully month after month. When you call Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and tell them there is a modest home with a mortgage of $30,000 that can be purchased and ask whether they can help, the answer is inevitably and invariably no, that there is no money. They are
not in the lending business any longer, even as a lender of last resort.
The reason we are so effronted by the legislative proposal of the minister and why we are so opposed to allowing it simply to pass is that it does not even begin to address the serious housing problems of this country. I tell the minister, who 1 know will be sitting reading this tonight when he gets home, that it is absolutely essential that we get on with the job of making homes available for people at a price they can afford, and that this kind of legislation we will not put up with.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few remarks on the legitimacy of ending this debate at second reading stage and getting on with trying to provide some assistance to those Canadians who are in dire straits with regard to mortgages.
First, 1 want to comment on what the hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans) has said. 1 was disappointed that he repeatedly referred to what was happening here today as being closure.


Ian Deans: It is closure.


David P. Smith: It is not closure. Anyone who knows the Standing Orders knows that closure is covered by Standing Order 33. Closure is a device that has been used on occasion since 1913 when it was brought in by the Conservatives. Notwithstanding the fact that we have been in office much longer than the Conservatives for most of the century, closure has been used more by Conservative governments than by Liberal governments. Be that as it may, this is not closure.


Ian Deans: It is so.


David P. Smith: We are operating under Standing Order 75C, which is time allocation. This is a reasonable and legitimate device when it is clear, obvious and evident that a filibuster is taking place. That is certainly what has been going on.


Mr. Miller:: Nonsense.


David P. Smith: Reference was made to this debate having taken up five days at second reading stage. In actual fact this bill was debated on February 8-


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary would not want to intentionally mislead the House, but if he looks at Standing Order 33 he will not find the word "closure" either in the heading or anywhere in the wording.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I hope that interjection will not be deducted from the time allocated to me. 1 can assure the hon. member that if he even took the time to read such books as the "Canadian House of Commons Procedure and Reform" by John Stewart, Beauschene's "Parliamentary Rules and Forms", etc., it is widely recognized that closure is in fact Standing Order 33 which was introduced by the Borden government in 1913. The hon. member might take a little
February 25, 1982

history course on that so he can make more meaningful interjections.
In any event, second reading stage of this bill was debated on February 8, 9, 11, 22, 23 and 24. So we have spent six days on second reading.
In addition, we have this debate today and there will be the allocated day on Monday, totalling eight days. On Tuesday, when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) delivered the estimates to the House, there was an exchange between him and the opposition House leader and an invitation was extended to the opposition to co-operate in getting this legislation through. An interjection was made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who said that up until then there had only been three and a half or four days spent on this bill, whereas in December, 1979, when the Conservative government brought in their mortgage deductibility scheme, seven days had been spent debating it and certainly we could expect an equivalent amount. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that did not clearly indicate that rather than trying to deal with the merits of the proposal there was a clear and obvious filibuster going on, for whatever purpose, I do not know what would.
What is clear is that when you include today as well as Monday, you will have had eight days spent in debate on second reading. Now quite apart from that, in view of the fact that this measure was included in the budget address, there was a fair bit of debate on this item during the budget speech debate. 1 think it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that what has been going on here has been a filibuster, particularly on the part of the official opposition. So what we really have to do is decide whether or not we are going to get serious and try to provide this type of program for people who need it.
Now, when 1 go down to my constituency office in Toronto for appointments, which I try to do pretty well every weekend, hardly a weekend goes by without someone coming in with a mortgage problem. I go through the facts and figures they have and in a number of instances-I would not, of course, give names because I would not want to embarrass anyone-I can assure the House that this program will in fact provide badly needed relief. I think it is unconscionable for it to be blocked. The NDP are saying, "Well, it just is not good enough." I am not quite sure where the official opposition are on it; that has not been made clear to me. But 1 do not think there are any grounds to believe that somehow the people of Canada will be better off by not having the measures this program would implement.
There are many people in this country who may well have budgeted for a house at a time when interest rates were lower, who bought a house which was well within their ability to carry, and who now, through no fault of their own, are in trouble. Perhaps some of them had at one point two family incomes. They may have had children since then and the wife had decided to stay at home, thereby reducing the family income at the same time as interest rates were going up. They
Time Allocation
need help. I think the time has come to get serious about this, to put it through.
There has been a lot of talk here today about amendments. Someone seems to have forgotten that this is second reading. We will have this bill dealt with in committee, we will have report stage, and if anyone thinks that somehow there will be no opportunity for amendment because of what is happening here today, 1 do not think they understand anything about procedure.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think today's procedure is reasonable and the sooner we get on with it, the better we will be serving the interests of the people of this country who need this sort of help.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remain silent in this debate, especially when we see a government that refuses to take our claims seriously. When 1 hear members on the government side accuse us of more or less taking advantage of the House by using up six days to debate an issue as vital as this one, 1 find that absolutely incredible and utterly scandalous. I remember when just two years ago, the same people on the other side of the House obstructed our property tax credit proposal for two or three weeks, and were it not for this obstruction, 900,000 home owners would not be faced with the problems confronting them today. It is nonsense to claim, as the minister would have us believe, that this bill is going to meet the needs of thousands of home owners who are living with the uneasy prospect that they may lose their homes in 1982. The funds allocated under this bill will cover about 10 per cent of those who really need the money, and the number of housing units is in no way adequate to meet the demand, owing to the lack of government measures and policies during the last two years.
Not long ago, Liberal members from Quebec, as the minister will recall, recommended a minimum of 50,000 housing units. The number of units recommended in the bill is nowhere near this figure. The minister is obviously afraid that his fellow members may be tempted to rise and publicly condemn his bill in the House. I think that is one of the reasons why he has asked his party to use closure in this debate, since the members opposite will be hard put to keep silent and let the minister responsible or the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) oblige them to betray their own signatures on a letter that has now made history.
I realize that the present government is in a difficult position, as it must face opposition members who are doing no more and no less than express the views of constituents in their various ridings. Could we ask government members to be as energetic and dedicated in seeking a solution to the problems with which they are confronted at the present time? Today, they have shown that they do not intend to do so, by limiting debate on an issue that deserves our attention. It is therefore the duty of members of the opposition to make every effort to

February 25, 1982
Time Allocation
defend the cause of reason and to make the minister responsible for housing introduce proposals that are more attuned to the needs of the Canadian people than they are at the present time.
The minister did not tell us, for instance, that last week, spokesmen for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation came right out and said that no changes could be expected in the housing sector until six months from now, and that at that point, a slow recovery might be possible. The minister knows perfectly well that hardly anything is going to change, considering the lack of adequate measures in, and the impact of, the budget brought down by the Finance Minister last fall. That is not the sort of thing the minister cares to tell us. All he wants us to do is to gulp down a pill that is not about to cure any of the housing sector's present aches and pains. The minister has carefully avoided mentioning what we can expect in the difficult period that lies ahead if he fails to get additional funds from the Minister of Finance or from cabinet.
I was listening to the member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson), who is from the same province as I am and who said he was proud of the government's record on housing and construction. Mr. Speaker, how can anyone be proud of a team that has dealt a mortal blow to the construction industry? I would be ashamed to be part of a team that was responsible for getting rid of a property tax credit policy that would have been very helpful to home owners today. I would be ashamed to belong to a team that is resolving the problems of only 10 per cent of Canadians who have a right to own their own home, and especially those Canadians who are faced with the very real possibility that they may lose their homes. The members of this team say they are proud of the work being done by the minister responsible for housing. No, 1 am not saying that the minister did not try to get a more representative and more responsible budget from cabinet and from the Minister of Finance. 1 am not saying he did not try, but if he did ask the minister responsible for additional funds, he failed to get them. The government members have failed, and now they are clearly betraying the cause of the Canadian people. Let them applaud on the other side! Meanwhile, they are trying to gag the opposition, because as members of the opposition we are trying, and this is the kind of leverage we have, to force the government to act and to act reasonably. No, they are going to keep on smiling, and the two ministers who recommended a minimum of 50,000 units, the eight members who at least had the courage to publish their letter and then disappointed many Quebecers last Friday when they sat down as usual, following the orders of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-it is really incredible, Mr. Speaker!
These people are trying to prevent us from speaking and from taking further action, while depriving themselves of a chance to make the minister listen to reason and force the government to respond more satisfactorily to the needs we are discussing here today. Of course, some will say they feel sorry for us because we have to make the recommendations and
representations that should be made in Parliament, but in any case, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept things the way they are now. 1 hope it is not ignorance on their part. Or is it perhaps malicious hypocrisy, this refusal to respond to a vital need? Today, they are accusing us of trying to deprive a few home owners of substantial assistance, while the same people refused to support a policy that was very well received and would have helped all home owners who at the time were faced with the same mortgage payment problems. Two years ago, for two whole weeks, the same people opposed a bill that would have remedied the situation and helped to stimulate the construction industry, thus preventing the loss of thousands of jobs. Those people are responsible for the present situation, and they are trying to gag us, to deprive us of our right to speak in the House, because we want to make the minister responsible take action and make this government understand, once and for all, what the vital needs of our society are. This would help to stimulate construction and enable thousands of Canadians to own their own homes. That is the kind of government we have and that is why we are continuing our opposition to this bill, because it does not provide an adequate response to the needs of our country. Of course, we cannot refuse to support a project of 15,000 units, but we want to make it clear to the government that it is not enough and does not respond to the present needs of Canadians. They know this, but they do not have the courage to get up and act responsibly. Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry, but we shall not stop as long as this Parliament is ruled by democratic process. Today, what we are seeing is a totalitarian gesture, an obscene gesture, and 1 would be ashamed to belong to a government that would act that way.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to discuss the Canada mortgage renewal plan in terms of the current situation in Newfoundland, and especially in terms of the ongoing obstruction of this bill by the opposition. The truth of the matter is that I have been looking over some of the mail from my constituents and have been speaking with some of my fellow MPs. It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the stalling tactics of the opposition have put some people in some real economic peril.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Academy Awards are next month, Roger.


Paul James Cosgrove: They think that is funny. It is a sad comment.


Roger Simmons: I am sure the opposition is amused by its stalling tactics, but I want to tell hon. members that there is a group of people in my riding who are not very impressed with the stalling tactics, because those tactics have meant some very real economic peril for those people.
February 25, 1982

I want to speak for a moment about a particular group of people which desperately needs this mortgage renewal plan. 1 am thinking about young Newfoundland couples who are faced with the loss of their homes.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Thanks to your interest rate policy.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Add the principal to the debt.


Roger Simmons: As Your Honour knows, residential construction activity in Newfoundland has seen an escalation in house prices, coupled with an influx of workers. In the last few years there have been many Newfoundlanders who, seeing the likely trend in housing prices, have gone out and purchased homes while they could still afford them. To Newfoundlanders, especially those in smaller communities such as the 135 communities I have the honour to represent here, home ownership is a very strong tradition. It is a way of life.
These people might well have gone a little further out on a limb than they should have, in financial terms, in order to get a home, but they felt, and I believe correctly, that it was their only chance, their best chance, for home ownership. Many of these people are now faced with mortgage renewals. Contrary to what many people say, they do not want government assistance. They prefer to go it on their own, to go it alone. However, these are not easy times. In a situation of very high unemployment, it is doubly hard to make ends meet.
1 may say that 1 represent an area in which there are two particular pockets of unemployment which are experiencing the highest unemployment rates in Canada, sometimes approaching 70 per cent to 75 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Liberal policy!


Roger Simmons: It is precisely the young couples who do not have the new, high paying jobs but who have those all-important houses that the Canada mortgage renewal plan will benefit. These are the people this plan is designed to benefit-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How?


Roger Simmons: -if we can ever get this bill through the House. It will not be with the help of the opposition, but we will do it over their obstruction. We have had to do it that way before, and if it means benefiting these young Newfoundlanders, these young home owners-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Is this for the TV at home. Roger?


Roger Simmons: -we are prepared to do what has to be done-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What a benefit!


Roger Simmons: -to override, to undo-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Undo what you have already done.


Roger Simmons: -the senseless obstruction of the opposition. It is the young Newfoundland couple who need some interest deferral at this particular time so that they can have time to
Time Allocation
reorganize their personal financial problems. It is the young Newfoundland couple or home owner who needs a grant of, say, up to $3,000-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Deferred dire straits.


Roger Simmons: -if their is little or no equity in their home.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That's good.


Roger Simmons: I know that the hon. members of the opposition do not like what we are saying.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: No, we do not like the bill.


Roger Simmons: They are afraid the truth will get through. They are afraid that the average home owner out there, the young Newfoundlander, will actually get the message-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: From you?


Roger Simmons: -that this bill will help them if the opposition will ever let it get through. This bill will help them with interest deferral. This bill will help them with a grant.


Marc Lalonde: They do not care.


Roger Simmons: That is the kind of information, the kind of hard, cold fact that hon. members opposite find to be something funny in this proposal, who find something amusing in this obstruction-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Just the speaker.


Roger Simmons: -who find something humorous and exciting in being able to sit here in this House, paid by the Canadian taxpayers, and obstruct a program which will help those same taxpayers.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I agree.


Roger Simmons: I cannot follow that sense of humour. To me, it is kind of warped. I do not understand the rationale behind it. I do not believe the young home owners who are waiting for the benefits this bill will provide will understand the logic behind the wise-cracking and the smiles on the faces opposite.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Something you would never do.


Roger Simmons: I do not take any comfort from or see any humour in the sad situation in which some of these home owners find themselves. I say to the hon. member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) that we are doing something for them now, if you will let us get on with it. We will provide interest deferral for them. Are you against interest-deferral for the home owner?


Mr. Orlikow:: Yes.


Roger Simmons: Then have the courage to stand in your place and say it. Are you against the grant for the home owner? If

February 25, 1982
Time Allocation
so, tell that to your constituents. Do not hide behind the camera, get in front of it. Tell the people who sent you here what you are doing to the programs which could be of help to them. It is easy to shout your lungs out when you are hiding from the camera. Tell your constituents what you really think about this plan.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 call to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Roger Simmons: I thought I was doing exactly that. I invite hon. gentlemen on Your Honour's left to level with their constituents and tell them that they do not want young home owners facing mortgage renewals to have access to grants or interest deferral.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What grants?


Roger Simmons: Read the bill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The grant is to the bank.


Roger Simmons: The grant is to individuals, up to $3,000.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: I know these hard facts come as cold comfort to people who want to undermine the program with all the red herrings which have been dragged into this debate. It is a good bill. This bill will alleviate some of the hardship that these young home owners I represent would otherwise face once we get it through, over the senseless, mindless obstruction of the opposition which is more interested in scoring points than representing the interests of their constituents.
Then there is the budget and the very real prospects for lower inflation. I invite members to look at the trend in recent months. The trend is that inflation is coming down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: That is another truth they do not want to hear. Inflation is coming down-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Coming down hard on Canadians.


Roger Simmons: I do not mind sending the figures to my good friend if he does not have them.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Your figures.


Roger Simmons: Not my figures, figures of independent analysts. Independent analyses in recent months show that the trend is downward. Let the hon. member deny that. These are truths which the opposition cannot stand to have voiced in this House. It punches holes in their theory that everything in this country is bad, that everything is going wrong. Well, some things are going right. Something that is going right is the inflation trend.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Would you like an election?


Roger Simmons: I will take the hon. member on in an election any day he is ready. Is my time up so soon, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, we have heard criticism levelled at the opposition today that we are mindless obstructionists, that we are filibustering this and other bills and that we are not co-operating with the government.
I would first like to point out that this is another closure debate. That is precisely what it is. Whether it is under Standing Order 75 or 33, it cuts off, or limits, debate. I would like to give a few figures from this session of Parliament to demonstrate that the opposition has taken its responsibility seriously. We have co-operated with the government when that co-operation was due.
In looking through the figures, I find that 84 bills have been given first, second and third reading in this single session of Parliament. In addition, 1 1 other bills have gone through first and second reading and some have gone as far as report stage. Others have been dealt with seriously in various committees.
The record shows that we on this side of the House have done our best to ensure that good legislation is passed when it is put forward by the government and passed as quickly as is reasonable and commensurate with a reasonable amount of debate on the subject.
I do not think on this or any other occasion in this session of Parliament have we acted irresponsibly or engaged in what members opposite so flippantly call filibusters. It is true on occasion Parliament has dug in its heels. For example, Bill C-48 would radically change the whole approach to oil and gas legislation in much of Canada. We did not like that. History will prove that was a bad law for Canada. In that instance we were fully justified in digging in our heels.
Had the government been prepared to show that it was willing to make some deals with regard to what other members in this House wanted and had it backed off a little, it would have had our co-operation on the oil and gas legislation, but that was not to be the case. The government wanted to ram it through at all costs.
Hon. members will notice that Standing Order 75C has been used in a number of instances, particularly on Bill C-48. Standing Order 33 has been used on a couple of occasions. I am becoming very concerned. In the past, closure was looked upon as something out of the ordinary. It only occurred when there was a real impasse. Governments were reluctant to use it. They respected the right of Members of Parliament to debate matters and hopefully arrive at sensible compromises. That is not the case with this government which uses closure as a matter of course. When the government now uses closure, members of this House and the public are not so abashed. It is like crying wolf. The first time a lot of people get upset and rush about. After it has been done 12, 13, 14 or 15 times, people get used to it. I am concerned that the people of Canada are becoming used to the government-imposed closure. I
February 25, 1982

think that this continual use of closure constitutes an abuse of Parliament.
As Members of Parliament we have to consider what we should be doing. Surely it is our function to engage in public debate on the major issues of the day. We are paid to consider these problems and to pose possible solutions to them. We are paid to engage in debate so that Canadians can follow that debate and present their views through us on a particular subject. The issue today is housing and it is a matter of great concern throughout the country. I, as well as many other members I am sure, have received a considerable amount of mail on this subject, not to mention telephone calls.
Particular issues on housing may differ from one area of Canada to another, as was illustrated by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) who just spoke. He expressed his views on how this bill would solve housing problems in one area of Newfoundland. I am not familiar with that part of Newfoundland and this bill may, indeed, help that area. I doubt it, but I can tell him that it will not solve the fundamental housing problem in my part of Canada.
In my part of Canada we are faced with the high mortgage interest rates which are uniform across Canada, and in addition we are faced with extremely high utility expenses. For instance, the electrical bill for an average home in my town, not including electricity to heat the home but just for basic uses such as lighting, fridge and stove, is approximately $250 per month. During the cold winter months when you must pay $1.50 per gallon for heating oil, since there is no gas in my area, the heating bill for the average house is approximately $350 per month. When you add the utilities and the heating costs together, it comes to more than $700 per month. This expense when added to mortgage costs makes it especially difficult for people to own their homes.
I have found this debate on the housing question interesting and useful. I have learned a number of things. I have discovered that the general approach taken by the three parties in the House is quite different. The approach of the government is to do very little. It is apparently satisfied with those policies which are in place. It proposes only to make a few technical changes and a few minor amendments.


Paul James Cosgrove: With $350 million?


Dave Nickerson: The approach of the government is to introduce camouflage amendments. It indicates that it will introduce programs to help certain groups of people, but only those at the very bottom of the heap will obtain any assistance at all and very few will be able to take advantage of them. It is providing a limited amount of money to them and only for certain purposes. I can understand why it is not allocating a great deal of money to housing because it has already brought a number of financial difficulties upon itself.
Time Allocation
The philosophy of the New Democratic Party is to advocate the expenditure of billions of public dollars to solve the housing crisis. I presume that they envision people living in all kinds of government apartments. We have seen pictures like that in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. They have some simplistic ideas which appeal to their simplistic minds, which includes reducing the rates of interest by fiat. They do not give any consideration to what the long term effects on inflation and the banking system in Canada might be.
We on this side have a mortgage interest and local tax deductibility scheme which I think is a very good one. It would be expensive because this year we would have given assistance to home owners in the amount of approximately $2.8 billion. But if hon. members had studied the Crosbie budget when it was introduced, they would find that we thought the matter through. We considered from where we would have derived these funds and in such a way that we could have reduced the federal deficit and therefore the rate of inflation, at the same time. I believe that if the Crosbie budget could have been put into effect and the election which was brought about by the Liberals and NDP in 1979 had not happened, the interest rate today would probably be about 4 per cent lower.
The main point I wish to make on this debate on closure is that I strongly take exception to the fact that the government uses closure as a matter of course. It will not allow policy and legislation to be developed in the House. Legislation has been developed within the public service, brought forward and Parliament is asked to rubber-stamp it. I, and I am sure all parliamentarians, do not want Parliament to become simply a rubber stamp.


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I do not really have the impression that hon. members have objectively examined the full meaning of the amendments to the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, as we have been told repeatedly over the past three weeks. This bill has several features designed not only to come to the rescue of Canadians who run the risk of losing their homes, but also to help Canadians who need rental accommodation or seek employment. It will also be a shot in the arm of the economic community.
Mr. Speaker, the comments we have been hearing in the past few weeks have a rather hollow ring. Members opposite say that we ought to be spending more money and get more involved. Those remarks come from a party which as recently as yesterday-and we have to include the hon. member for Jolictte (Mr. La Salle) who spoke earlier-was openly urging that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation be privatized; in other words, that it be run right into the ground. "Privatization"is the latest fad word. They keep saying that the private sector would manage to come out of it unscathed. Day in and day out we heard the same comments about Petro-Canada. Those words were uttered by that same group of members who now decry the limited scope of the amendments

February 25, 1982
Time Allocation
and argue that the government should pour more money into the programs envisaged under Bill C-89. Whatever happened to their sense of responsibility and their openmindedness?


An hon. Member:: They never had any.


René Cousineau: As my colleague is saying, they never had any, nor will they ever.
Mr. Speaker, dismissing for the moment the contradiction between privatizing the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and urging that additional funds be set aside for housing, I should like to put a precise question, namely, would the private sector have put up the direct subsidies which were offered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for social housing in 1980 and 1981? I am wondering if private industry, without government support, would have had sufficient financial resources to build, as proposed in our programs, an additional 15,000 units throughout Canada in areas where there are few or no vacant and available housing units.
I, for one, believe that one of the most significant aspects about which Parliament must now legislate has to do with the fact that, in our opinion, all sectors must get involved if we are to set the current situation on a more constructive course. It seems to us, Mr. Speaker, that our very first responsibility is to lend a hand to Canadian individuals and families that may be putting their house on the line because of the soaring interest rates they have to cope with when they renew their mortgage. Secondly, through the Canadian rental housing construction plan, the government calls upon private enterprise so that together we can face the challenge of providing rental accommodation in those regions where there is practically none. At the same time, we have proposed measures that will enable the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to operate more effectively, by giving greater flexibility to operations relating to the insurance regulations already provided under the act, measures which from now on will authorize the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to adjust premiums according to the risk involved.
This aspect of the amendments indicates once again that the government is very receptive to contributions from all sides and is in favour of team work. I wish I could say the same about the cooperation shown by some members of the opposition. Although we have observed that in some ways they are supportive of this important bill, it has now been three weeks since the bill was tabled in the House. They have wasted two weeks instead of acting right away to provide immediate assistance to Canadians across the country who need it most. We on the government side are convinced that it is very important Canadians should receive assistance through the Canada mortgage renewal plan, the Canada rental assistance plan and other amendments to the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, all of which will help the corporation to meet requests for assistance more positively and to operate more effectively on the market in question. Mr. Speaker, that is why we feel that we must get on with this business instead of wasting precious time on useless verbiage. It is time to act. Whatever our politics may
be, to all Canadians who today are waiting for federal housing assistance, actions speak louder than words. So, let us stop this empty chatter, let us stop indulging in petty politics to make the leader opposite look good. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if this is not another string of filibusters! We on this side are prepared to act responsibly, and that is why we have invoked Standing Order 75C, to limit debate on Bill C-89.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Well, Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Any time the government senses that we in the official opposition are getting our message across to the public and any time it senses we are getting a little too close to the bone and exposing the weaknesses of its policies, zap! Down comes the guillotine. It is not unusual for this government, however, to cut off freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the right of individuals to express what they wish against government policies, whether inside or outside this Parliament.
This government seems to be gathering momentum these past 48 hours, and the cutting off of free speech has now become a rather ominous hallmark of this government. That applies to individual public servants who, in their free time, see fit to criticize government policies which deserve criticizing, and it certainly seems to apply to Members of Parliament who are duly elected to speak on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of the people of Canada in this Parliament. We can be cut off just as quickly.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) attempts to split hairs and draw a distinction between Standing Order 33 and Standing Order 75C by suggesting there is a difference between time allocation and closure. With respect, Sir, the parliamentary secretary is a horse's foot if he thinks the public or we in the opposition are going to believe that. It is closure. Standing Order 75C or time allocation: closure is closure by any other name or any other number the government chooses to apply to it.
Closure has been used eight times-this will be the ninth- in the last year and a half. In July, 1980, closure was used on the pipeline debate for the summer recess. On December 4, 1981 closure was used at the third reading stage of Bill C-48, the Canada Oil and Gas Act. On June 8, 1981, closure was used at the third reading stage of Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act. On March 31, 1981, closure was used at the report stage of Bill C-59, borrowing authority. On February 12, 1981, closure was used at the second reading stage of Bill C-59, borrowing authority. On January 13, 1981, closure was used at the second reading stage of Bill C-48, the Canada Oil and Gas Act. On June 9, 1981, closure was used at the second reading stage of Bill C-30, borrowing authority. Today, February, 25, 1982, closure is being used at the second reading stage of Bill C-89, an extremely important piece of legislation.
February 25, 1982

When I first saw Parliament in action, it was engaged in an extremely emotional debate on closure arising from the pipeline debate of 1956. As 1 understood it, closure was only used when there was a flagrant abuse of the time of the House, and the onus was then on the government to prove, when it brought in closure, that there had been abuse of the time of the House. Nobody on the government side could possibly prove that there has been a flagrant abuse of the time of this House of Commons after five days of discussing one of the most critical issues facing Canada today and one of the most important pieces of legislation which has come before us, amendments to the National Housing Act.
There is absolutely no question that the subject uppermost in the minds of Canadians these days is housing. Uppermost in their minds as well are mortgage renewals. Not only are Canadians faced-indeed, crippled-with a housing crisis which has been exacerbated by high interest rates, but also know, because of my responsibilities as consumer and corporate affairs critic looking into the issue of hazardous products, about the nightmare people are facing in relation to urea formaldehyde foam insulation, a form of insulation which is hurting people. It is doing damage to people. This situation was manufactured by this government, encouraged by this government and promoted by this government. People were paid by this government to put UFF1 into their homes. Then this government began to worry, temporarily banned and then permanently banned UFF1, and it is now doing its best to duck its ultimate responsibility for this monstrous blunder.
That is only one aspect of the terrible housing crisis facing the people of Canada. The plight of those victims must be addressed and, in light of the United States ban on UFFI this week, it becomes even more acute.
Let me get back to the procedural aspect of this and why we feel it is so important that we must have the maximum opportunity to discuss this housing legislation. The reason the government says it must bring down the guillotine and cut off debate is that this matter has to go to committee. The fact is that there are no other housing bills on the table. We want to discuss the entire housing situation, and the government is not yet ready for committee. It has not yet made witnesses ready, but the House of Commons has the attention of the nation as we discuss the critical housing situation before us.
The problem with committee is that once we get there we are frustrated to the extreme because bills of tremendous importance are automatically given "yeas" by the majority members of the parliamentary committee, according to the instructions given to them by their superiors. In my view, committees can be a sham under a majority Liberal government.
Adjournment Motion
Then we come back after the committee to report stage and third and final reading here. As one hon. member said, once we get this bill through the committee and through third and final reading here-over the senseless, mindless opposition- then we can get on with the government's tinkering with the National Housing Act. Is it not too bad that there is an opposition here and that it is not just a one-party system in this country? That is the way these fellows would like to operate. It is too bad there is an opposition which can raise serious concerns on behalf of the people of Canada in terms of very meaningful and serious legislation and serious amendments we want to propose. They have their own internal operation. Anyone who thinks we can get fundamental amendments through committee, let alone through third reading stage, does not know how Parliament works under a majority Liberal government. When we reach the third reading stage then, of course, the government will probably bring in another closure motion.
The Liberal government may see fit to lower the boom on our ability to discuss this and other legislation. It can and will lower the boom in any way it sees fit; but I warn this government that the people of Canada will lower the boom on it in the interests of the preservation of free speech in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 want to recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), but I wonder if I might deal with the adjournment motion before he begins his remarks.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)-National Energy Program-Effect on Alsands project. Request that minister change policy; The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet)- Public Service-Firing of Kingston civil servant-Grounds for dismissal-Position of government; The hon. for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Canadian National Railways- Announcement of lay-offs-Government position.

February 25, 1982
Time Allocation



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove:
That, in relation to Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will not have been a member of Parliament for three years until next May, but already 1 have lived through a number of debates about closure or time allocation. I want to preface my remarks today by saying that one might feel more well disposed to the need of the government for time allocation if one had the feeling that the issue of parliamentary reform had priority and was on the front burner rather than on the back burner of the government's schedule. I think all hon. members would acknowledge the need for some measure of improvement in the way we deal with matters in the House so that the opposition is not constantly put in the position of having to respond to moves like this by the government.
I think the real reason the government wants to put an end to debate on the measure to deal with the problem of people losing their homes as a result of its high interest policy is that it does not want to discuss the incredibly desperate situation that many Canadians find themselves in as a result of its policies in the public eye any longer.
My basic objection to the bill is, first of all, that it came before us so late. We heard in the throne speech in 1980, two years ago, that the Liberals were going to do something for people who were affected by high interest rates. Now we have the hypocrisy of the minister's blaming the delay on the opposition when we have only debated this bill for five days.
The reason for the motion is that the government does not want to hear about the plight of the Canadian people. I think it feels guilty about the abysmal inadequacy of the bill, which only postpones the day of reckoning for many people. Instead of doing something about high interest rates and the monopoly power of the banks over the Canadian economy, all it has done is to subsidize the banks. It has done nothing for the home owner who finds himself in a desperate situation.
The hon. member who just spoke mentioned the problems that some people have experienced with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents is under attack by the government on three fronts. First of all, his mortgage is about to be renewed and, as a result, his payments will double. He is a young family man and that would be difficult enough, but his second problem, as a result of high interest rates and the downturn of the economy is that his
employer, Canadian National Railways, has laid him off. CN says there has been a downturn in its revenues. Mr. Speaker, he has been laid off by a Crown corporation which made a profit last year and therefore should be employing more people. His third problem is that he has urea formaldehyde foam insulation in his house. He cannot renew his mortgage, he cannot sell his house and he cannot work. That is the situation in which this particular Canadian has been put by the government.
We are not just talking about some abstract economic instrument that in their wisdom the experts have been forced to use, when we talk about high interest rates, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about a basic decision that has been made by people. God only knows where. I cannot figure out where some of these decisions originate. Some people say they come from Washington, some say they come from the Trilateral Commission and some say they come from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), but I suspect he is but a little cog in a very big wheel. Wherever it was made, the decision was that the problems of the western industrialized economies would be fought on the backs of people who do not have the power to protect themselves against high interest rates. That is an immoral, political decision.
Much of the debate in this House ignores the reality that high interest rates are not something which in general cause the powerful to suffer; it is the people who cannot wait for the end of what may turn out to be a longer recession than the Minister of Finance has in mind who are hurt by the policies of the government, or by the acquiesence of the government to policies which are set somewhere else. In either case, the decision is shameful.
The problem of high interest rates points to one of the fundamental absurdities of our economic system. The people who always talk about productivity are the same people who are now putting all their money into non-productive places. They are productive places in so far as they make money, but not in so far as they build houses, create jobs and produce the necessities of life. I think interest rates are the best example of the absurdity of the present economic doctrine under which we live. I hope the people of Canada will take the opportunity presented by the high interest rate crisis to see how contradictory and inhuman the system is.
The Liberals want to bring this debate to an end so that there is no opportunity for reflection by the Canadian people, in so far as that can be stimulated by Members of Parliament speaking on their behalf. It is in the interests of the government to stifle that kind of reflection. Its back is to the wall and it does not know what to do. It has offered a pittance to people in dire straits. All it has done is to defer the evil day by refusing to face up to the basic economic problems in the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) but perhaps he
February 25, 1982

may wish to call it five o'clock and be recognized at eight o'clock.


Mr. Daudlin:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour 1 think it would be appropriate to call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.
There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to notices of motions (papers).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Notices of Motions (Papers) Nos. 22, 35, 1, 48, 28, 43, 5, 54, 69 and 34 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all communications during 1981 between the government and/or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the government of the province of Saskatchewan dealing with residential mortgages and home foreclosures.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we are able to debate this motion today in the middle of the ongoing debate on Bill C-89. It is particularly appropriate because it will give us the opportunity to discuss another aspect of housing-the difficulties created by the simple fact that the physical aspects of construction, in the literal sense, are a provincial responsibility. Provincial governments by their powers are able not only to intervene in the housing field, but they have a responsibility which is certainly not less than the responsibility of the federal government.
The motion refers specifically to correspondence between the federal government and the government of the province of Saskatchewan. When there is communication or correspondence, the normal procedure is for the federal government to request permission of the provincial government for the documents to be released. It is my understanding that this permission has been requested. It is possible in due course that the Saskatchewan government will give approval for the release of these documents. I take issue with the tendency of the two levels of government to communicate with each other in this fashion, because I believe all such communications should be open and available to the public so that the public at large can see precisely what each level of government is
Housing
attempting to do, particularly in a field where there is some conflict of jurisdiction.
The Saskatchewan home owners protection act became law on December 11, 1981. It affords protection to home owners against loss of their principal residences from January 1, 1982, to December 31, 1982. Of course, this has concerned the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation because of its interest in mortgages which it insures and the possibility that there could be some additional costs incurred by the Crown corporation as a result of the provincial legislation. After some two months of operation two legal tests were conducted in Saskatchewan, and there was no clear impression left in anyone's mind as to exactly how it will operate for the rest of the year. Neither of the cases heard set any standard to determine who is to be protected under the law, and at the moment one of the two cases is under appeal. An application to foreclose on a couple who had not made payments on their mortgage since last August was made and dismissed by the court. The couple had declared bankruptcy last December, and the court in its judgment ruled that there was no basis upon which the action could proceed against them. Incidentally, there was considerable equity in the house despite the fact that the couple had declared bankruptcy.
Then in Saskatoon Justice J. H. Maher ruled that a Saskatoon resident must make mortgage payments at an increased interest rate despite pleas of financial hardship. Mr. Justice Maher said that the 17.5 per cent mortgage renewal offered was in line with prevailing rates. The old mortgage rate had been 11 per cent, so there was a substantial increase in the monthly payments. The result after some two months and two tests is that no one knows where we are going.
CMHC is concerned about insured loan arrears and claims on the mortgage insurance fund. The reason for this is that in the event of a claim under the mortgage loan insurance policy the corporation, under existing legislation, can only pay interest at the full mortgage rate for 12 months from the date interest is due, or accrued and unpaid, and mortgage interest less 2 per cent for a further six months. In other words, there is a total 18-month limitation on the liability of the corporation. As a result, CMHC communicated with its officers in the province of Saskatchewan that for any new loan commitment an NHA undertaking to insure will be conditional on the Saskatchewan home owners protection act having no effect whatever in the event of a claim under the insurance settlement provisions of the National Housing Act.
It is quite apparent that the influence of provinces on housing is considerable. 1 will go a step further and say that their effect has been detrimental to the interests of Canadian citizens. At the present time six of the ten provinces have rent control legislation. I understand why rent control legislation is in force and why there is pressure to maintain rent control legislation.
Nevertheless, let us look at the facts. At the moment in British Columbia there is a 10 per cent limit on rent increases; in Ontario, the figure is 6 per cent; in Nova Scotia, 4 per cent;

February 25, 1982
Housing
in Prince Edward Island it varies between 4 per cent and 8 per cent. We have rent controls in Saskatchewan, and in all probability Manitoba, where there was a recent change in government, will also impose some form of rent control. The estimated gap between rents required to render rental construction viable and market rents is now between $120 and $200 per month per unit. As a result we have a very tight rental market at the present time. It has been suggested that if there is not some adjustment in rents in the very near future to make rental construction viable, the situation will become even more serious; in fact, somewhat disastrous.
The alternative is for governments-and I mean both federal and provincial governments-to enter into permanent and costly long-term support for the construction of rental housing, depending upon degree. Of course, we can bandy around various figures, but there is no doubt that we are talking about many billions of dollars.
It is unfortunate that some provinces, particularly the province of Quebec, do not take advantage of the programs which are presently available. I listened to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) screaming earlier this afternoon. I think he should direct his attention to the provincial government in Quebec City which, because of its hatred of the federal system and its desire to dissociate itself in any form from the federal government, has not only failed to recognize the part the federal government has played but has refused to participate in programs which will be of direct assistance to the residents of that province.
I have looked at some figures concerning the assisted rental program. As I have put on the record previously, the program cost the federal treasury through CMHC some $186 million. Because some 80 per cent of that housing was in the province of Quebec, one can roughly calculate so far an involvement of about $150 million in rental housing in that province under ARP. That is not all by any means. That is only the up front moneys. The amount which is charged for the insurance of the mortgage under this program is 1 per cent and it has been estimated that the rate should be in the order of 8 per cent. This is also an indirect subsidy. I mention these figures because too often these days the government of the province of Quebec is choosing to ignore the part the federal government has played in trying to assist the citizens of Quebec.
I was particularly angry a couple of nights ago when a member of the Pequiste government said on the radio that the federal government is cutting the funds that were going into that province. I suspect that we are sometimes a little reluctant to talk about the moneys that go to the province of Quebec, but I want to put on the record that when that Pequiste member said the amount was being cut by some $600 million,
I have no idea how he arrived at his figures but I suggest that he forgot that during this fiscal year-and I say during the fiscal year, not over the term of the whole year-the program of equalization of which the province of Quebec is a major participant saw the total funds from the federal treasury
increased from $1.7 billion to $2.1 billion. Last spring the Pequiste government could have included in its budget the total of $1.7 billion. However, it is getting an additional $400 million this year. That is not talked about.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) when talking about the Canada Assistance Plan mentioned the amount of the increase this year. Extrapolating the figures for the province of Quebec, although the precise totals are not yet ready, one can see that the province has received something in the order of $150 million more in fiscal year, 1981-1982, ending March 31. Just in those two programs alone there is $550 million of extra moneys which the province of Quebec could not have counted upon last spring.
Let us look at federal programs that have been offered to all provinces, of which the majority of provinces make use and which the province of Quebec chooses to ignore. First, the rural and native housing program. The new housing component is cost shared. Quebec refuses to sign the agreement. The result is that no affordable housing is being built under the rural and native housing program. Quebec is prepared to borrow money from the federal treasury. In fact, that province will take all the money it can get but it will not sign ownership agreements. I suppose one can acknowledge that is the province's right, but I want everyone to realize that this lack of cooperation between the government of the province of Quebec and the federal government is very costly to the citizens of Quebec.
Second is the non-profit and co-operative housing. This program does not reach the lower income band, again because of lack of Quebec participation. The federal government provides subsidies. Quebec could provide an equivalent subsidy, but it chooses not to. Once again the opportunity is not used. Therefore, we have this continuing conflict between the two levels of government. I suppose one can say that is its provincial right. I will accept that, but I do not want that same government that chooses not to co-operate to return and complain. The opportunity is there. It has made no alternative suggestions except to turn over the funding.
When we challenge the government of the province of Quebec as to whether it will take the funding, it expresses some reluctance. The reason is obvious. If the government of the province of Quebec chooses to take tax points instead of cash from the federal treasury, it will lose several hundred million dollars. The reason is very simple. The tax base in the province of Quebec is steadily declining and deteriorating as people have moved out. For example, retired people with high incomes have decided to move elsewhere to get the benefit of lower tax rates. No longer does the Quebec government have the choice that it used to talk about for years of taking its own tax points. I challenge my provincial colleagues in Quebec and I challenge the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) to acknowledge the fact that the province of Quebec has had quite a good deal from the federal government. Furthermore, not only has it had a good deal, but it had been offered a lot better deal which it turned down.
February 25, 1982

In the motion such as the one I have proposed this afternoon for the production of documents-and I have proposed several in this House-the intent on my part is to underline that a great many more documents not marked secret or confidential should be in the public domain. They should be accessible not just to members of Parliament but to the public at large.
We are hearing a lot of discussion these days about the freedom of information bill. I am not particularly interested in this bill myself. I do not even know what we are expecting to produce that we are not presently getting. What I am talking about are documents that are in no sense secret documents, or confidential documents, but documents which are necessary, in my opinion, so that the public can better understand what the federal government is doing in its various programs and what agreements the federal government is making with the provincial governments.
Just last week I spoke of the Canada Assistance Plan. Its guidelines were established by the federal government but they were not published. I suggest that the federal government should sincerely look at opening up a public perusal of all of these guidelines and communications between the federal and provincial governments, and in cases where the provincial government refuses to make such documents public, to acknowledge that fact and to tell the public that it is not the federal government but the provincial government that is refusing to disclose. There may be good reasons and they can be made public, but the purpose of this motion is to underline the fact that too many documents at the present time that have absolutely no reason whatever for being kept under wraps should be made available upon demand through Members of Parliament to the public at large.
That is the reason I have brought forward this motion for discussion today. Also, it enables me to discuss once again in some measure the problem of division of jurisdiction between the two levels of government, the provincial government which is essentially responsible for the physical construction aspects and the federal government which tends to do its part through its fiscal powers.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, the motion presented to the House by the hon. member for Vau-dreuil (Mr. Herbert) gives us the opportunity to consider the role of Canada Mortage and Housing Corporation in relation to two very important matters, matters of great concern to the people of Canada today, namely, the residential mortgage and the interest rate thereon, and the number of home foreclosures occurring across this country arising from the inability of home owners to meet the interest rates being imposed upon them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to consider a very basic fact and principle of Canadian life: family security is often related to the ability of that family to provide adequate housing. There are other essentials of life, of course, including food, clothing and education. However, if a family unit cannot properly house itself, then it is bound to experience difficulties.
Housing
Home ownership has always been the dream of Canadians. That was my party's view when we proposed a program to assist Canadians in providing for home ownership for their families. That program involved mortgage interest and property tax deductibility for home owners. Mr. Speaker, the government of today opposed that program when it was presented in this House and as a result the principle of assistance to home owners was defeated. We are paying the price for that opposition today because there are thousands of Canadians across the country faced with the problem of extraordinarily high levels of mortgage interest.
Today the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) revels in the fact that mortgage interest rates have declined over the past few months, although they are still at a level of 18 per cent or 19 per cent. There are many Canadians who, because of the kind of homes they have or must purchase, are not able to negotiate a mortgage at that rate and are forced to pay much higher rates.
Now, Mr. Speaker, relating that situation to the problem of foreclosure-the ultimate sanction against a home owner unable to meet mortgage payments-we have to consider not only the immediate and practical consequences, but the social consequences which flow from the loss of a home. It is not only demeaning to the family, but it creates greater problems which must be resolved by government through social service programs. The family placed on the street without funds must apply to a municipal or provincial welfare agency to obtain housing, and that quite often involves public expense. This means it is possible to make a case for very substantial government involvement in the residential mortgage field by way of direct and indirect assistance. As I indicated, our party attempted to do that, but having failed in that endeavour we must now look at what kind of assistance we can provide in today's circumstances.
This debate is very timely, Mr. Speaker, because Bill C-89 purports to deal with, in part, the housing problem and the problem of those unable to meet their mortgage payments. The bill, Mr. Speaker, is a paltry measure when compared with the plight home owners find themselves in. Even so, Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for housing rose in the House today to direct that debate be halted on this measure. He wants to remove from parliamentarians the opportunity to address the difficulties which arise because of high mortgage interest rates. He wants to stop discussions which might produce more effective and generous measures to assist home owners. That is not only a blow to the parliamentary system, it is a tremendous blow to those Canadians who look to the federal government for assistance with this very special problem.
Now, why do they have that problem, Mr. Speaker? It is because over the last ten years the government has spent the public's money in a wasteful manner, which has led to a situation where the internal and external value of our dollar has dropped. As a result, in order to provide any return to investors, interest rates have increased so substantially that they affect the ability of Canadians to provide themselves with housing.

February 25, 1982
Housing
There is more to the case to be made for governmental assistance to home owners. There are reports in the press every day that the housing construction industry has slumped to the point where it is becoming a national problem. Many jobs have been lost in the residential construction sector. Contractors across the country are going bankrupt. Demand for homes has decreased to the point where there is very little construction going on. To the extent there is a need for housing and there are people who can afford to purchase at today's rates, we have a situation where the builders simply cannot get an appropriate return for their efforts. As a result, they withdraw from the housing construction field. So not only do we have a problem of people losing their homes due to high interest rates; it also has a very dramatic effect on the entire construction industry, particularly the home construction sector.
What does the minister responsible for housing propose? In regard to the resulting unemployment, he proposes a very minor program which will provide $7,500 for rental unit construction. He proposes assistance only for those in absolute dire straits, which assistance to that very limited group will only help them over a very short period of time and only on the basis of a loan or recoverable assistance. Mr. Speaker, the situation calls for much more dramatic action. It requires very special aid. Canadians who can renegotiate a mortgage in the $50,000 range-not a great deal when you consider that hardly anywhere can you buy a home for less than $70,000- will find their monthly payments increasing by almost $300 a month. Yet their salaries have not increased at the same rate and they do not have the ability to meet the increase.
What happens then, Mr. Speaker? That brings us to the issue of foreclosure. What, in specific terms, is foreclosure? Well, the home owner who can no longer carry his mortgage payments is faced with a legal process whereby the family home is sold to recover the debt represented by the mortgage. In very few cases is there anything left over for the home owner. Foreclosure is usually triggered by a situation where the mortgage debt is at least as great as, or greater than, the value of the home. So the result is that the home owner, after paying the mortgage and municipal taxes for years and after having made improvements to the home, is left with absolutely nothing. We must, therefore, recognize that foreclosure is one of the most cruel forms of legal action that can be taken. In 90 per cent, if not all, of these cases, the home owner is left with nothing. In addition, he has to seek housing in some other area which may well cost just as much in terms of total monthly expenses.
In most cases the housing, which is the subject of foreclosure action, is only adequate for the needs of the family involved. They will face the same problem that existed before the foreclosure action occurred; that is, the provision of adequate housing, and it will face the same mortgage payments which, as has already been established, it could not meet before. My point is that this becomes a problem for government; it becomes a social welfare problem, and at that point, the government does step in.
What I am asking, and what I hope all hon. members will ask, is that the government take preventive action by providing assistance which will be operative before the home owners reach the point where they lose their homes through foreclosure action. If we are going to provide assistance, let us not wait until the damage is done and the homes are lost. Let us provide assistance at the time when the home owners can do something to maintain themselves and their families in their homes.
That kind of assistance has to be much greater and broader than the assistance the minister responsible for housing proposes in the bill now before the House. That is why hon. members in this party and on this side of the House have urged the minister, time and time again, to broaden the base of the assistance and to make it more substantial. That is why we would not be doing our duty to our constituents and to Canadians in general, if we did not stand up in this House at every opportunity and indicate to the minister that his program is not sufficient, that it will not solve the problem, and that greater action is required.
There certainly are many who say that interest rates ought not to be subsidized, as that just puts off a resolution to the problem. We have heard from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), time and time again, that there must be a longterm solution to the problem, that we have to suffer through this difficult period so that the economy will recover and interest rates will decrease later on in the normal course of economic events.
However, we are playing with people's lives. We are speaking about Canadians, about individuals who live in homes, who want to maintain their families and who want to look forward to the future with some hope and some confidence. It is not just an economic matter, a matter of simply adding up figures and balancing payments in books, and so on. We are dealing with people, and we have to recognize that. That is why drastic situations require drastic action.
Therefore, I would say to anyone who dares to suggest that the situation is not so difficult or that we do not need to take this very specific kind of action, that person should cross the country and speak to the people who are in the situation of not being able to meet the mortgage payments being demanded of them. Talk to them and consider their problems. I am sure that any Member of Parliament or any Canadian who did that would change his or her mind concerning the matter of assistance for those home owners who find they cannot meet the financial obligations imposed upon them.
The instrument through which we have to effect housing policies nationally is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That is why it is so important that this motion be considered by hon. members of the House. It points the finger at Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and really, in effect, asks the question, "What is going on with that government agency in relation to residential mortgages and foreclosures?"
As 1 look at the newspapers of my own city of Halifax, as well as those of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, I note that
February 25, 1982

most of the foreclosure actions in Canada are instituted by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There is a reason for that. It is that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation tends to overlend on homes; that is to say, the amount of money it provides in mortgage funds is sometimes almost as great as the market value of the homes. In many cases, it is even greater. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has created a situation in which a home owner does not have any real equity in his property. He has simply made payments by way of rent over a period of years, and even though he thought he was in an ownership position, in actual fact he is merely a renter because Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has simply used his down payment, perhaps his effort in improving the house, and the money he has expended for public utilities and other services necessary, to maintain that home over the years. As a result, after as many as five or ten years, that home owner is left with nothing.
The point I am trying to make is simply that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation creates situations by its policies which it then seeks to remedy by drastic legal action. The government should simply admit that the whole purpose of the program was to provide subsidized housing to the individual. In other words, to those who say that we ought not to provide subsidization for home ownership in Canada, I say we are already doing it, and we have been doing it for years. We have tried to mask it, refer to it by another name and pretend it is not subsidization.
We have tried to pretend, for example, with the Assisted Home Ownership Program, AHOP, that there is an actual sale of a house for the value of that house. That is not true at all. There have been no real sales. That is why many AHOP owners find that they lose their subsidy, Five years down the road, when they cannot meet current interest rates and are simply not able to carry on.
The point is that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation created that situation. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ought not to be allowed to simply withdraw and say it is dealing with these matters as business transactions, and if one cannot make one's payment, it will take foreclosure proceedings. This means that the owner will lose the home on which he has been paying for the past five years or more.
Some people want to deny assistance to home owners in Canada because they characterize home owners as rich people who do not require assistance, as the Minister of Finance did, in the 1980 election campaign when he was an hon. member of the opposition. The minister said that home owners were rich people who did not require assistance, and that government resources should be used in other ways to provide help to persons who rent their housing facilities, and to provide assistance to senior citizens, but not to provide assistance to rich home owners in Canada. That was simply not true. It was a myth, which the present Minister of Finance created; that there was this group of rich home owners in Canada who did not require assistance. We are seeing the realities of the situation today. We are seeing home owners who cannot
Housing
maintain their mortgage payments and, as I have indicated, the result is foreclosure. They are on the street, and they become public charges. One simply spends the same dollar bills through the social assistance program instead of through an adequate housing program.
The whole point of my remarks is simply that one cannot escape problems by pretending to resolve them. One cannot nationalize poverty. One must deal with the economic facts as they exist across Canada. One of the economic facts of today is that home owners, in so many cases, cannot afford higher rates of interest. They cannot come up with the dollars they need to make the monthly payments required of them. If they are not given appropriate and proper assistance, the whole situation will simply collapse. Foreclosure will result, and these people will be out on the street. Then the government will have to deal with that social problem at the municipal, provincial and federal levels.
I hope the important message of my remarks and the motion which the hon. member has brought before the House is understood. Let us get the facts. Let us find out what is happening with mortgage interest rates. Let us find out what is happening with foreclosure actions. Let us find out what the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is doing. Let us assess the situation in light of those facts. If we make a fair assessment, I think we will very quickly come to the conclusion that very definite action must be taken by government, and that the action which has been taken by the minister responsible for housing, represented by the bill now before the House, is simply inadequate. It will not solve the problem. In fact, it may even exacerbate it because it will simply keep alive, for just a few months or a few years, those people who will have to face the realities of their situation somewhere down the road. All we are doing is patching the problem. This is not even band-aid treatment. We are not dealing with the issue, we are just avoiding it.
Therefore, I support the hon. member in attempting to obtain the kind of information which will allow for a fair and proper assessment of the housing situation in Canada, of the role of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and of the dire effects of foreclosure actions, because if we get those facts examined and assess them, I think we will then conclude that drastic measures are required. I think we will then be able to join together and devise those measures which will relieve the situation and resolve the problem for the benefit of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to rise and speak in the House when you are in the chair. The debate concerns Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 84 in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). It relates to communications during 1981 between the Government of

February 25, 1982
Housing
Canada and/or Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the government of the province of Saskatchewan dealing with residential mortgages and home foreclosures.
I support the hon. member in his motion. However, he is putting up somewhat of a smoke screen to bootleg a speech into the House of Commons. I do not know what communication there was from the federal government to the province of Saskatchewan. I know there were two very important communications from the Saskatchewan government to the government of Canada concerning high interest rates and the disastrous effect this high interest rate policy is having on many people in this country. The province of Saskatchewan was not willing to stand by and see people in that province lose their homes through no fault of their own. We face the same possibility of lost homes and farms that existed in the thirties as a result of the insane monetary and high interest rate policies of the federal government.
On September 23, 1981, a letter was written by the Saskatchewan urban affairs minister, the hon. Walter Smishek to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Two main principles were put forward in that letter. First, the Saskatchewan government pleaded with the federal government to establish a fixed interest rate for residential mortgages not to exceed 12 per cent. Second, it would require the lending institutions to allocate a specific percentage of their lending portfolios for residential mortgages to ensure an adequate supply of mortgage funds.
I am not sure what the response of the federal government was, but it was not very receptive to that kind of suggestion. There have been many debates in the House of Commons since September 23, concerning the high interest rate policy. We have heard about record numbers of foreclosures and people in fear of losing their homes. Others fear losing their livestock, crops and farms, because they cannot meet the unacceptably high interest and high mortgage interest rates they face. It does not make for very good planning to have a volatile interest rate situation which fluctuates every week. People do not know what the rate is going to be.
The second communication from the province of Saskatchewan dealt with the home owners protection act. In early December the province of Saskatchewan decided it could not stand by and allow anyone in that province to lose a residence because of high interest rates. The residences of these people in rural or urban areas were acquired after many, many years of investment. They had no control over future high interest rates and possibly not much control over their incomes. Therefore, the government would not stand by and see these people lose their homes. Even if one person was kept from losing his home, the legislation put through the Saskatchewan legislature was worthwile.
The application of that act passed by the legislature of Saskatchewan applies to the principal residence of the home owner. That principal residence is defined as the dwelling place of the home owner and any adjoining lands, not exceeding 65 hectares, owned by the home owner. It also applies to a
trailer or condominium unit. A home owner can have only one principal residence.
That act does three very specific things. First, it stays all action for foreclosure or cancellation of agreements for sale for the period December 31, 1981 to December 31, 1982. It prohibits the commencement of an action for foreclosure or cancellation of an agreement for sale during that same period of time. Third, it extends the period for redemption of a mortgage before final foreclosure to January 1, 1983.
The act also has provision for appeals to be made to an advisory board. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the power to appoint an advisory board consisting of representatives of financial institutions and the public. The advisory board is to advise the public if there are certain exemptions that can be made under the act in cases where there may be unforeseen circumstances.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil stated there had been two test cases in the Saskatchewan courts. That is true. However, the hon. member did not point out the results of those test cases. He stated they had decided nothing to this point in time. I differ with him in that opinion.
There may have been more than two tests cases, but I am aware of two. The first case upheld the act that had been passed. A couple had gone to court stating they could not afford the exhorbitant increase in their payments because of the high interest rates. The rate was jumping from moderate to very high. Their income had not kept pace with the increased mortgage payments they were facing. The court ruled in favour of that couple. It was found that they could not afford the new mortgage payments. Had it not been for the home owners protection act in Saskatchewan, that young couple would likely have lost their home, through no fault of their own, but because of the high interest rate policy of this government.
The second case was different. It dealt with a couple who said they could not afford their mortgage. During the court proceedings it was determined that their income had risen proportionately to the increase in their mortgage payment. The couple had told the court they did not want to pay the huge increase, that they wanted a ruling in their favour and relief from having to pay those mortgage payments for a year. The court ruled against them. It found their income had gone up a significant amount, at least enough to keep pace with the high interest rates. That couple was more fortunate than some. They had extra income and were not really faced with losing their home.
The government of Saskatchewan did not intend to give relief to just anyone who did not want to pay more money. The relief is for those who desperately need it because they will lose their homes, and have no real control over the situation.
The test cases are very relevant in this situation. They set a good tone for the legislation I would encourage other provincial legislatures to adopt in order to deal with the situation until the economy is under control. This is a federal responsibility with which many provinces are having a difficult time coping.
February 25, 1982

The province of Saskatchewan is more fortunate than some others. My riding is in that province. Despite my relatively young age, I remember when that province was a have-not province. It was always drawing money from the equalization pie. That is why Premier Blakeney and his cabinet ministers agree with equalization, even though Saskatchewan is no longer a have-not province. It is a have province in terms that it contributes to the equalization pot.
We think that Canadians, no matter where they live, should have equal access to the essentials of life, such as shelter, medical care and a reasonable level of education. The province of Saskatchewan has acted very responsibly. It is limited in what it can do, faced with a national economic crisis and high interest rates. It has acted within its existing powers. It first pleaded with the federal government to take some action. I have outlined and quoted what those two points were in the letter of September 23 from the Saskatchewan minister of urban affairs to the minister in charge of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
We have been able to establish some other housing programs in Saskatchewan as well. Some of the poorer provinces have been able to participate in these kinds of programs. For instance, we have the co-op and the farm housing programs which are totally funded by the province. Under this co-op housing program I believe there were 400 units built in the province of Saskatchewan in 1981. Under the farm housing program there were some 350 units built. This totalled approximately 750 units built in 1981 under programs totally funded by Saskatchewan.
Interest rates are also locked in under these programs. They are subsidized by the provincial government to some extent, with locked in interest rates of 16 per cent. There is no rollover for a ten year period. In addition, the amortization period is 25 to 30 years. This provides people with some consistency in their future when paying for their homes. They know what their payments will be for ten years. This will make it much easier for young families or retiring couples to buy a homes. They know they will be paying 16 per cent interest for ten years. They will know how much they will be paying in principal for their homes. The tax may fluctuate somewhat, which may change their payments marginally, but there is greater consistency than there is for any other Canadian who has to go to a lending institution to borrow at our current high interest rates.
With respect to the co-op housing building program and the farm housing building program, people find it quite easy to get into those programs if they are organized. Saskatchewan has quite a co-operative spirit and people are able to enter these housing programs with a very small initial cash outlay. In order to enter these programs a 5 per cent equity must be put up. This equity can also be provided as "sweat equity". This means that the husband or wife, whoever is buying the home, does a substantial portion of the work. It could be in the form
Housing
of digging the foundation, installing siding, shingling, etc. This would give them their equity in the home.
The figures which I will now cite do not apply to the whole province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is divided into two different areas; the northern administration district and the southern half. Much of my constituency lies within the northern administration district. The reason for those two separate areas is that in Saskatchewan, as in all provinces, the northern area of the province has been the last to be developed. There were many resources coming out of northern Saskatchewan and we did not want inequities in lifestyle as between the north, which was paying its fair share through resource revenue, and the south, which had the bulk of the population who paid taxes and voted.
These figures are for the southern half of the province. In the early 1970s the department of northern Saskatchewan was formed to give a single agency approach to the development of northern Saskatchewan. The figures I have for the joint housing programs between Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation in 1981 show, I believe, that there were 1,237 rental units built under public and non-profit housing, and approximately 142 housing units built for ownership under the rural and native housing program. That is a total of 1,379 houses which were built jointly between CMHC and the province of Saskatchewan through the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation.
The participation of CMHC is appreciated by the province and many of our communities which participated in those programs. Many senior citizens groups are very active in obtaining non-profit or co-op housing so they can remain together in their homes in the small rural communities of Saskatchewan. We do appreciate this.
However, there are some problems which arise from time to time. For example, in some cases CMHC has not released mortgages to people who have purchased houses through the rural and native housing program for a period in excess of five years. These people have been paying their mortgages through the rural and native housing program for five years and they do not know when they will get the mortgages into their own hands. Originally, there was a requirement that an individual or a family would have to live in the housing unit for a five year period before they could resell it. This was to prevent people from moving into the housing units for speculation purposes. The municipal, provincial and federal governments wanted to ensure that when those units were built there would be a definite need satisfied. That was the reason for the five year resale clause.
Many of these people, some of whom are in my constituency-and I have written to the minister about this problem- have paid for five years without any certainty as to what will happen with their housing unit, because CMHC will not agree on a price which should be charged for the units. What has happened in some areas is that CMHC wanted the specific cost of a housing unit to be applied to whoever was purchasing that unit, even though ten units may have been constructed in one area ranging in price from $45,000 to $75,000. Due to

February 25, 1982
Time Allocation
construction problems which varied the cost of those units CMHC wanted to tack those costs of a specific unit onto the unit itself. The Saskatchwan Housing Corporation disagreed with that, because the houses are comparable in terms of quality, style and size. Therefore, the Saskatchewan Housing Corporation wanted to take the total cost of those ten housing units built in one area, lump it together and divide by the number of housing units. For example, if the total project cost $500,000 and there were ten housing units, each of those units would cost the purchaser $50,000. That seems to me to be a fair and equitable manner in which to proceed. Why should one family pay $50,000 or $45,000 for a unit, and another family which is moving into a comparable unit pay $75,000?
I would ask the hon. member for Vaudreuil, if, by asking for the production of these papers he is really showing an interest in the problem of interest rates and housing, that he ask the minister in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to move very rapidly to settle with these home owners who have been paying for such a long period of time and do not yet have the mortgages and do not know what will be the future status of their houses.
In closing I would like to say that the government of Saskatchewan, during the year 1981, was not willing to stand idly by and see home owners and farmers possibly lose their principal residences because of circumstances beyond their control; the interest rate and economic policy of the government. The Saskatchewan government acted by first requesting the federal government to knock the interest rates down and ensure that financial institutions set aside part of their portfolios, and second, by introducing and passing the home owner protection act so that people in Saskatchewan could feel secure in owning their homes. Thank you.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove:
That, in relation to Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business
on that day. any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in ordc to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) had been given the floor.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends opposite for waiting so patiently to hear me. I hope they will not only enjoy my speech but also gain a little from being patient enough to wait for my speech.
The second last speaker before private members' hour was the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott). Once again we were treated to an opposition speech which attempted to draw no distinction between Standing Order 75C and Standing Order 33. The hon. member once again attempted to demonstrate that there is absolutely no difference between closure and time allocation. If that distinction cannot be perceived by hon. members opposite, I fear little goes on in this House that is understood by them. I hope the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth will eventually avail himself of the opportunity of at least reading the rules in order to see the difference.
Innumerable constituents have been coming to my office seeking the assistance that is being held up by the fact that this bill is not going through. As do hon. members opposite, I have constituents who have difficulty with their mortgages and renewals of their mortgages. I trust most hon. members in the House, have suggested to them that there is a plan, that something was put together and that it was presented in the budget. I, and I hope hon. members opposite, have suggested to those people who are in difficulty that they should be going to lending institutions-banks and mortgage companies- asking whether they meet the criteria of the program, and that they should be getting ready by making application.
Having done that, those poor people are now coming back to my office and saying that they were told by the managers of those companies that we in Parliament are not allowing the bill to pass, and not allowing them access to the program. Until we pass the bill, people will not get the help promised them. They do not think that is fair. You are a fair man, Mr. Speaker. I ask you, who has been resisting this bill? Who has been holding it up? The minister has cried across the aisle, "Let it go through", but who said no? The cry of "Hold it up" has come from hon. members to your left. We do not think this is right. Again we hear too little and too late.
I have tried to go through the reported speeches of hon. members opposite and 1 have tried to listen to them today. When they get up to speak they immediately start crying that we want to cut off debate. 1 ask them tonight, Mr. Speaker, how many of them who claim that they did not have time to
February 25, 1982

put forward their arguments have used the few minutes that are afforded us to make suggestions that would improve the bill? Have they tried to do that? They could not do a thing like that. They would not put those arguments forward.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On this side we are under the impression that the debate is on the motion under Standing Order 75C proposing closure. If that is the point, then 1 wish the hon. member would address himself to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There has been a certain difficulty in enforcing relevance in this debate. However, I have no doubt that the hon. member's remarks will be observed by the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin).


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to consider the relevance of the remarks of his colleagues to the motion under Standing Order 75C, to which he wishes me to restrict my remarks. The House permits a rather wide ranging debate on issues. A Speaker such as yourself, a man who is reasonable, who is able to understand the issues before us, a man who is prepared to allow a certain amount of debate to take place, might have thought there would have been-and I almost hesitate to use the term-a bit of bootlegging of good ideas if the ladies and gentlemen opposite had brought them forward. I am sure that as a reasonable man you would not have stopped them if they had offered some. I am sure there is not a man on this side of the House who would have said to you, "Don't allow this to happen." I am sure the minister would have been happy to hear a good idea from that side, but we have listened and we have not heard one.
I have told you, Mr. Speaker, that there are people in my riding who want this bill to come forward. They are waiting and their patience has worn thin; their bankers are waiting and their patience has worn thin as well. On almost every bill that has come before the House hon. members opposite have devoted their remarks to the need for jobs in this country. "What are you doing about jobs?" they ask every minister. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing about jobs is attempting to put a bill through this House which would create at a minimum-a small "C" conservative minimum-15,000 jobs and the ripple effect could double that number to 30,000 jobs. We could be looking at 60,000 or 70,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker. But even with five days of debate the bill has not been permitted to go through.
How could a person with any heart at all believe that hon. members oposite are speaking on behalf of their constituents, for whom they allege they bleed, when they do not permit bills to go through which would help to solve the problem they say they are trying to cure? They resist; they say it is wrong but do they try to improve the bill? No, they do not. Do they suggest there is a better idea that someone may have overlooked? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. One becomes a little concerned about what is motivating them but I suppose I am not allowed to reflect upon that. Why would people who want jobs generated resist this bill? That is incomprehensible to me, Mr. Speaker.
Time Allocation
If this was the only thing the government was doing about housing, and if one wanted to stop this in an effort to highlight the fact that it is the only thing, then perhaps one could say there is reason for their actions. My constituents wonder, and you must wonder, Mr. Speaker, how the Mother of Parliaments can deal with issues that are of great moment with one or two days of debate, yet this House is not able to deal with a bill of relative simplicity in five days of debate.


An hon. Member:: It is a worthless bill.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: They say it is a worthless bill but do they improve it? Let us get it to committee. They claim this place has no meaning, that it is losing relevance. Let us get the bill to committee and exercise the rights we have as Members of Parliament to try to improve the bill. Instead, they try to stop it from going through.


An hon. Member:: Time!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member calls time. If he looks at the clock he will see what time it is; the small hand and the big hand show the time. I know you are watching the clock, Mr. Speaker, and it is unfortunate that-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You have already had ten minutes.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I will do the hon. member the courtesy of listening to him when it is necessary and when it is time. I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker. If I have used my time-


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are stealing more time.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The people in this country want this bill. Job opportunities are being lost, housing is being stopped and it is time the bill was passed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) has the gall to waste the time of the House on the closure motion proposed under Standing Order 75C. Earlier today the minister told the House he was in a hurry to get the bill through, and he referred to the fact that it had been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. That was almost two years ago, so what is the hurry now? The problem of housing was also discussed in the budget of November 12, 1981, so the government could have presented the bill earlier; it did not. Now the minister tells us that it is a major bill and he would like to see it passed as quickly as possible.
The bill proposes the expenditure of $350 million over two years. When one looks at the other spending increases proposed by the government one has to wonder about its priorities. Does the minister feel good about the government spending $47 million on a monument in Algeria? Does he feel good about the $24 million wasted in Haiti? Does he approve of the $200 million that may be spent on two airports in Trinidad and Tobago? Does he care about the $100 million loss by Eldorado Nuclear? Does he care about the $2 billion additional revenue

February 25, 1982
Time Allocation
needed for the national debt? Apparently he does not care, yet he has the gall to tell us that this bill which involves $350 million is a major piece of legislation.
One would like to ask the minister about the fisheries industry Mr. Speaker. Nothing is being done for the fisheries on the east and the west coasts. What about the forestry industry? Nothing is being done for it. But the minister tells us he is in a hurry to get this bill through and that we must limit debate. For three months he did nothing about it. There is 50 per cent unemployment in the forestry industry. A year from now the government may get around to presenting a bill to help that industry. What about the oil industry? Two more companies have dropped out of the oil sands project. Almost two years ago we told cabinet that the national energy policy would ruin the oil industry. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) is a member of the cabinet which approved the national energy policy. Flow can we trust the government? The minister asked why we were holding it up. We are not holding it up; we think the bill stinks.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is pretty plain language.


Frederick William Wright: Mr. Speaker, that is as plain as I can make it. The fact of the matter is that the bill does nothing. It does not solve the problem. The minister should be ashamed to rise in the House and tell us that we should limit debate on such a ridiculous bill.
When we consider some of the things the government is not doing, we wonder whether cabinet ministers really know what they are doing. The bill which the government wants us to pass will help build 15,000 units over the next two years, when at least 100,000 are needed. How much will the $7,500 subsidy for each unit help the people who really need help? Will it help people in lower income brackets? Of course it will not. It will help people who are prepared to pay maximum rents of $800 and more per month, and the minister knows it. The bill will not help people with small incomes. The minister told us it will help the 1.2 million people who will be renewing their mortgages over the next two years. He estimated that it will provide grants for up to 12,000 households and loan guarantees for another 37,000, or perhaps up to 50,000, when a good portion of the 1.2 million people will be having trouble renegotiating their mortgages over the next two years. The government refuses to deal with the real problem of bringing down interest rates to a level which people can afford. It simply skirts the problem. The government understands the symptoms, and Bill C-89 is a symptom of the problem of high interest rates.


Mr. Evans:: Give us your answer.


Frederick William Wright: If the parliamentary secretary had been in the House the night of the borrowing bill, he would have heard the answer. I recommend that he read Hansard of February 16.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think 1 have very much time to speak, but I will try to say what I want to say as fast as I can. The initiatives of the federal government in housing represent a good start, but they need expansion. The $350 million is simply not enough.
I should like to look at conditions as they were in November, 1975, and compare them with those of November, 1981, so that we will have the benefit of knowing the inflation rates and the parameters within which we had to deal. The inflation rate in 1975 was 10.8 per cent and the unemployment rate was 6.9 per cent; there were 690,000 people unemployed, and the federal debt was $59 billion. In 1981 the inflation rate rose to 12.5 per cent, the unemployment rate was 7.6 per cent, or almost 900,000 unemployed people, and the debt was approximately $137 billion.
In November, 1975, the then minister of housing, the Hon. Barney Danson called together provincial ministers of housing and laid out a remarkable program which read:
The program which I am going to announce in the House of Commons this afternoon is going to help fulfil the objective, which we all share, of ensuring that all Canadians are well housed. At the same time, it will help dampen inflation in the housing sector and stimulate economic growth and employment.
With regard to the problem of supplying enough moderately-priced housing, the federal government is making a commitment to one million housing starts over the next four years. I am asking you to join with us in a national effort to direct our resources in such a way as to ensure, not only that this target is met, but that a very high proportion of these homes are in the low and medium price ranges.
To making housing affordable, we are, first of all, going to maintain our high level of activity in housing for low-income people. At the same lime, we are going to give more help to people of moderate incomes to enable them to manage the carrying charges involved in buying a house.
To make rental accommodation affordable we must encourage more production. That can only be done by ensuring the basic, economic viability of the rental industry-creating a climate in which builders and investors will have the confidence to produce rental housing. Our participation in this market will be conditional on maintaining affordable rents.
To discourage unreasonable demands by the well-housed and direct resources instead toward moderately-priced housing, we will require lenders to reserve the most favourable credit arrangements for loans within regional NHA limits.
All of these initiatives will not only help to deliver good affordable housing, they will, at the same time, stimulate employment and help to contain inflation.
It continued:
Lending institutions are going to have to boost their allocations for residential mortgages. They will not only have to put up more mortgage money, it also has to be directed into affordable housing. Sixty thousand dollars capital will have to produce two houses instead of one. What we are going to be interested in, as a government, is more well-designed, well-built, modest-sized housing, fully protected by a nationwide warranty system.
What I am trying to say is that economic conditions in November 1975 were not much different than they are today, with the exception that interest rates are considerably higher at the present time. The bank rate today is in the order of 15.4 per cent, with an inflation factor at the end of 1981 of 12.5 per cent. The inflation factor at the end of 1975 was 10.8 per cent and the interest rate was 9 per cent to 10 per cent. What is the difference? The difference is government debt, massive government debt. In today's market the government finds itself in a position, with $140 billion of debt, where it cannot afford
February 25, 1982

to build social housing. Therefore, it must move in another direction.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! It being 8.29 p.m., the two hours provided for consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75C are now expired. I must therefore interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of this motion.

Therefore the question is on the motion in the name of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
And the division bells having been rung:


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, before we proceed with the vote, I wish to raise a point of order. I know that you would want every member to be properly dressed for this vote, and I would invite the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) to reconsider his dress and perhaps re-enter the chamber when it is appropriate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Out, out!


An hon. Member:: What about Chenier?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) I am sure knows that I and many of my predecessors have ruled on this. In order to present oneself in the House one has to be properly attired and this means that hon. members are supposed to wear neckties. Therefore, I am afraid his vote cannot be recorded and he cannot enter the House in that attire.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Out, out!
Time Allocation
[ Translation]


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, I know that you have not given a ruling, but you said that because of a ruling made by your predecessor, you preferred that the hon. member leave the House. He has therefore voluntarily, at the request of the Progressive Conservatives-but that is their privilege. I would ask the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) to listen to me for a minute-


Roch La Salle: They did the same for me!


George Albert Proud: I am sorry, but I was not there. Madam Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has withdrawn for this evening, but I believe that the time has come for you to examine what is considered proper attire for a member in the House of Commons, because, Madam Speaker-

-my hon. friend from the opposition knows the rules very well. If you want to apply the rules according to the British parliamentary system, I cannot see why hon. members do not come here with a hat and bow to the Speaker when they vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I am therefore unable to make any proposal this evening. I can only suggest that the Chair review, not only this rule which I consider antiquated, but all the rules which govern this House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, since Your Honour has acted to protect the traditions of the House, I feel obliged, in response to the suggestion by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) to rise to protect your position.


Eugene Whelan: You have to get into the act, eh Joe?


Charles Joseph Clark: As the House knows, these procedures respecting dress which prohibit, for example, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) from appearing here with the green hat through which he speaks-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -these procedures respecting dress are not established but only enforced by yourself. Certainly we on this side of the House would be most pleased to have the question of the proper attire for Members of Parliament referred to the appropriate Committee, which would be the Committee on Procedure and Organization, once that committee is convened.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,450, 3,453, 3,460, 3,693 and 3,698.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware of the communication headed "Letter from Concerned Canadians" signed by the retired RCMP officers W.F. Johnstone, J.W. Duggan, W.L. Maguire, F. Bodnaruk, P. Starek, J.E.G. Bouchard and D.B. Ingam and also signed by A.L. Bewley, a retired British Columbia provincial court judge?
2.	Did the communication contain the statement "Canadians know that to rid themselves of the hornet's nest, they must first smoke it out and burn it. Wasn't that what happened to the barn in Quebec? What was inside the barn that was so important to this country's security?" and, if so, what was the government policy or reaction to the statement?
3.	To the knowledge of the government, what was actually inside that bam?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, the communication contained that statement. The government feels it would be inappropriate to comment on a matter being examined by the courts in the province of Quebec.
3.	The government feels it would be inappropriate to comment on a matter being examined by the courts in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Cossitt: With regard to the answer to question No. 1,487 which was on the subject of whether surveillance of any kind, the tapping of telephones or the using of devices to listen to automobile conversations of any Members of Parliament had taken place in the past three years and which stated in part "if such a question were answered in the affirmative, it could provide information about security operations which might prejudice their success ... ", is it government policy to make insinuations that security operations are proceeding against certain Members of Parliament and that admission of such a fact would be damaging to the national interest and, if so, for what reason would this be damaging to the national interest and (a) if Members of Parliament are engaged in the violation of national security, for what reason should this not be made public (b) if Members of Parliament are not engaged in the violation of national security, for what reason should the government hesitate to make this public?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No, it is not government policy to make insinuations that security operations are proceeding against certain Members of Parliament.
(a) and (b) It is not in the national interest for the government to make public the names of individuals who are or are not engaged in the violation of national security.
February 25, 1982


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,487 on the subject of whether surveillance of any kind, the tapping of telephones or the using of devices to listen to automobile conversations of any Members of Parliament had taken place in the past three years and which stated in part that if the answer was given in the "negative such information could provide comfort or aid to those involved in ongoing violations of national security", will the government adopt a policy of making public which Members of Parliament, if any, were involved in the violation of national security and those who were not?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No, it is not in the
national interest for the government to make public the names of individuals who are or are not involved in the violation of national security.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence place a $678,000 contract with Remtec Inc. for a semi-trailer and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) does the cost include any equipment that may have to be installed in the semi-trailer?
2.	Did the department rent cars from Rent-A-Wreck for a cost of $12,888 under contract number HAL81-5686/1 and, if so, for what purpose?
3.	Did the department award a $88,832 contract to Air, Earth and Oceans Limited for a "study of detectability of tracks in snow" under contract number 10SD 97701-1-68218 (1SD81-00103) and, if so, what is the rationale behind this
decision?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I. The
Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, to Remtec Inc., for the purchase of 12 bulk haul semi-trailers in the amount of


[Stage Direction]
(a)	the purpose of these 18,000 litres aluminum tank trailers is for hauling fuel;
(b)	yes, the cost includes equipment normally associated with this type of vehicle.
2. The Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, to Rent-A-Wreck in the amount of $12,888 to provide a maximum of three cars per day during the period of October 1, 1981 to September 30, 1982. The purpose of the contract is to meet the requirements of the Base Transport Unit at CFB Halifax.
3. The Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, to Air, Earth and Ocean Ltd. who submitted an innovative unsolicited research proposal which was relevant to the Department of National Defence's requirements. The work concerns the determination of vehicular and non-vehicular snow track conditions that are capable of being detected using ground-based thermal infrared sensors, with support from drone and ground-based photography and other sensors. In addition, the project includes a potential application in search and rescue missions.
Housing
Mr. Deans: Did the government instruct employers to collect income tax in excess of levels in effect under the Income Tax Act and, if so, under what authority?
Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): No. The Income Tax Act, section 153, provides that the amounts that are required to be withheld as payments on account of tax are to be set by regulation. The regulations are amended each year following the coming into force of the budget. The regulations presently in force require greater withholding amounts than are called for in the tables recently issued as guidelines for employers.
Tax withholding tables are normally issued as early as possible in December in order that employers have adequate lead time to introduce the necessary changes in their systems. Historically, intended changes announced by various ministers of finance have been incorporated in these publications and this practice was followed in the preparation of the tables for the 1982 taxation year.
It should be recognized that tax withholding only represents a payment on account of a future tax liability and the tables are designed to closely approximate the taxpayer's annual tax liability so that at year end the taxpayer will not be faced with an outstanding balance. The ultimate liability and the actual tax assessments will be established in strict accordance with the enacting legislation as Finally passed for Parliament.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English ]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 24, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-89, to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, as I enter the debate on Bill C-89 I note the exercise the House has just been through, namely, closure. As I observed the minister responsible for housing during this debate I noted that he has been

February 25, 1982
Housing
concerned about two things. First, he has been concerned that hon. members of this House have been criticizing his housing policy. Second, he has been reacting rather vigorously to the statistics hon. members have been using in terms of housing starts, or the lack thereof. He feels those figures are not accurate.
As we consider the housing initiative before us, we should look very briefly at the economic situation facing Canadians. This provision flows from the budget. In tonight's Ottawa Citizen, a paper which has generally been supportive of the government opposite, there is an editorial entitled "Spectre of Depression". This editorial appears on a day when the dollar has again broken the 82 cent barrier. In fact, it dropped approximately .44 of one cent today to 81.68 cents. That drop in the value of the dollar will have an affect on inflation and the ability of Canadians to have suitable or adequate housing. Indeed, it puts that prospect into even further doubt.
What 1 find interesting about this editorial is that it is in this newspaper which, along with many others over the years, has criticized Members of Parliament who have said that when we have new programs we should know what the expenditures are and what the affects of those expenditures will be in the years to come. The reason editorialists feel that a spectre of depression is upon Canadians is the fact of the national debt, which now has risen to $122 billion. There is a sudden realization that roughly 25 cents of every tax dollar collected will be used not to pay the debt but to service that debt. It is easy to say, as the government opposite has done, that we can have all types of programs, which are good in themselves, but eventually they have to be paid for.
That is the situation we face today and I raise it because housing is one of the great necessities of Canadians. It is tragic that, because of various other programs that do not have the same merit as housing, the minister responsible is stuck with a bill that does not do enough. He does not have the wherewithal to put in place housing programs that will meet the needs of Canadians.
1 received a message from a constituent today enclosing a newspaper article entitled "Trudeau, you are killing us". The article is a dissertation on the problems that average Canadians, especially small business people, are having because of the economy. The person who sent the clipping concludes the covering letter with the comment that he hopes the opposition can do something before we have a revolution.
Those are rather dramatic words for a Canadian to use, Mr. Speaker, but the government has mismanaged the economy so badly that people do not have confidence that any program will come close to meeting their needs, or that there is the capacity in our economy, under this economic leadership, which would lead them to invest in housing.
What initiatives does the government offer in the field of housing, Mr. Speaker? Bill C-89 is one; another is the CHIP program, and there are the insulation programs.
Just today in Manitoba one of the radio hotline programs dealt with UFFI. The reporter working on the story, along with other investigative reporters, has discovered that the government intends to remove asbestos from all defence buildings in Shilo. It has asked for tenders, but when questioned about the approximate amount of those tenders, officials refused to give the information. When the reporters inquired why the asbestos was being removed they were told it has to be removed because it is hazardous. They were then asked why the asbestos was being removed when the government was not looking after the needs of those Canadians who have UFFI in their housing. I might add that UFFI was approved by the government through the CHIP subsidies. Apparently there is not the same desire to see that matter cleared up as there is regarding the defence installation at Shilo. When questioned further about this the answer was that the reason it was being done in Shilo and not in private homes is that the buildings in Shilo are government buildings. That is not a good enough reason, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has been very sensitive in the last few days, but I must tell him that the iniatives the government has put forward for housing do not meet the needs of Canadians and, indeed, some of the programs have been disastrous. Some people who thought they were making improvements to their homes have found those improvements to be inadequate and expensive.
In research for my comments tonight, I went back to a speech made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) when he was opposition housing critic in October, 1979. At that time he spoke of mortgage deductibility and told the minister of the day, "When you are in trouble there is an out." Apparently the out is to blame the previous government. Has anyone ever heard more blame levelled at a government that was in office for less than a year by a government that had been in office for much too long? It was a very interesting speech, Mr. Speaker. He asked, for example, how a government could bring forward a program that would not benefit at least 40 per cent of the people. By extrapolation, does he then concede that the program would have benefited 60 per cent of the people? How many Canadians will benefit from the program the minister in charge of housing today has put before us? I suggest there will be pitifully few, Mr. Speaker.
We have heard what the NDP has to say about housing. Yesterday one member said that housing is a basic right, and that his party regards it as a basic right. What is the basic property that most Canadians buy, Mr. Speaker? It is housing. Yet the party that says housing is a basic right voted against property rights in the special joint committee on the Constitution, and did so in the House at every opportunity. What were they doing then? How can they, on the one hand, say housing is a basic right, and then, on the other hand, vote against property rights? For the vast majority of Canadians the only property they ever hope to own is housing. Yet the NDP says it is a basic right, that they are interested in the right but that they are not interested in property-
February 25, 1982


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member permit a question?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, of course I will answer a question when I have finished my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Permission is not granted.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to ask a question and is not recognized during the regular question period I will gladly answer at the end of my comments. I know this is a very sensitive subject for members of the NDP. They do not want to hear that it was they who opposed property rights, aided and abetted by the government.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: What about the Premier of Ontario?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: At that time the government still wanted the support of the NDP and still wanted the support of Mr. Blakeney. But here they are saying, "Housing is a basic right but we are against property rights." That is the position of the NDP.
But they have another position, Mr. Speaker. They say they want housing. What kind of housing do they want? It is not necessarily the housing the individual owns. What they want is more social housing. Perhaps that fits with their idea that they do not want property rights. All members of the House are interested in social housing but surely the best type of housing is that owned by the person who has the ambition and makes the opportunity to buy his own home. They keep saying this, yet they want the same ownership rights and the same property rights as the rest of us. It is just that it is politically convenient for them to posture on social housing.
1 heard another interesting suggestion by the NDP to the effect that mortgage deductibility was of benefit only to the middle class. Who makes up the middle class, Mr. Speaker? Why do we have to get into this kind of class structure at all? I thought the vast majority of Canadians regarded themselves as middle class, whether they are union people, shop owners, farmers, housewives or whoever. Basically most people think they are middle class. The best charge the NDP could come up with against mortgage deductibility was that it would help the middle class. I want to tell hon. members of the NDP that the middle class of Canada, the group of men and women who pick up their lunches early in the morning and go to work, are paying the freight. It is time government recognized that they also have needs. One of their greatest needs or desires is to own their own homes, their own property.
It was also mentioned that people were not convinced that the mortgage tax credit would help them. 1 attended a meeting in Pine Falls at which the lady of one household asked, "Is it definite that one of your first priorities will be the introduction of a mortgage tax credit?" I indicated that it was. She said, "I am voting for your party because that program is the only hope my husband and I have seen, of ever being able to own our home". Do hon. members know what the interest rate was at that time? It was 13 per cent.
Housing
What have been the interest rates under this government? They have been 20 per cent and 22 per cent. Some people might say that we should have high interest rates because at least they are bringing down inflation and keeping up the dollar. The dollar today is below the 82-cent barrier, at 81.68. Today we have a low dollar value which will increase inflation because of imports; obviously this in itself will increase inflation. At the same time we have high unemployment. Every economic index indicates that we are in a crisis today, and housing is not exempt.
1 am one who is not very keen to have the government involved in all kinds of programs. The best initiative is the knowledge that an individual can eventually own something; then he or she has a commitment. Something happens to young Canadians when they put their names on that first mortgage. At one time there was generally a lot of hope; today they are not putting their names on that first mortgage because they know they cannot afford it. As a result we are becoming more and more a nation of renters.
The elderly may say this is a natural phenomenon because we are becoming more urbanized, but when we get into the question of rental accommodation we must consider vacancy rates. Who is willing today to invest money in rental accommodations? Who will take the risk when people can turn around and purchase Canada Savings Bonds at 19.75 per cent? Why take a risk when one can obtain such a return?
In the short time remaining, and speaking specifically to the bill, I want to relate an incident which indicates how the inadequacies of the budget affect individual Canadians. During the Christmas break a fellow walked into my office and asked whether there was something in the budget which would give him either interest deferral or a grant. He explained his situation. He was out of a job and he was behind in his payment schedule. He wanted to know whether there would be some kind of relief in the budget. 1 dug out the two paragraphs in the budget which indicated that his payments must exceed 30 per cent of his gross income and that during the period of high interest rates he must have rewritten his mortgage. Those are the two basic components.
While the gentleman was in my office I telephoned CMHC in Winnipeg and asked for a ruling, and, basically, I was referred to the two conditions. I indicated that this situation was somewhat different because his mortgage was with a credit union. Generally credit unions rewrite mortgages at different periods of time. They are lines of credit or some people call them "demand loans". Some credit unions have fluctuating interest rates; technically it was rewriting his mortgage rate whenever interest rates changed. Other credit unions, for example, do it on a half-yearly or yearly basis.
When I explained that to CMHC officials in Winnipeg, they were very kind. They said, "We do not know what the answers are, but we will get the information." That was fair enough. They called Ottawa and the officials in Ottawa said, "We never thought of that." They are the ones who wrote the

February 25, 1982
Housing
budget, but this fellow in my office who wanted some relief thought of it. The Department of Finance with all its expertise had not thought of it. They returned my telephone call and asked, "What do you suggest we do?" I suggested that they do for this gentleman the very same thing they would do for every other Canadian who qualified; that is all I was asking.
Then 1 got in touch with the Department of Finance in Ottawa and officials here said it would be more difficult than they thought. When I asked why, 1 was told that the interest rate at the particular credit union was considerably lower than current market rates. In fact the credit union rate was 16 per cent. The credit union had done so well-and hon. members opposite should learn a lesson from this-that at the end of the year it dropped its mortgage rate from 16 per cent to 15 per cent retroactively.
Once again officials contacted me and said that this man was paying 15 per cent, which was lower than the going rate and, therefore, they did not think they had to do anything. I said, "Just a minute, is it not correct that it has been rewritten?" They indicated that was correct; everyone agreed. Then I said, "If he is earning no income, surely his payments are in excess of 30 per cent of his income." They had to rethink that one too. Eventually, to make a long story short, departmental officials said, "Yes, you qualify".
For what did he qualify? It depended on his equity position as against the amount of mortgage. He had to calculate his equity and his mortgage positions. For example, if one has more than a $3,000 equity position, one does not qualify for the grant but, rather, for interest deferral. If one has a $50,000 equity in a house and a loan of $47,001, one qualifies for the grant. But if one has reduced the mortgage to $46,999, one does not qualify. This is the kind of housing policy on which the minister uses closure to convince us to get the matter through, to get "thousands" of units going and "thousands" of jobs created. What a farce, what a farce! The minister asks Canadians to accept this legislation.
What is interest deferral? It reminds me of the story of an old car salesman. The first job I had out of high school was working for a garage which sold both new and used cars. In my home town most people work at some time in such an establishment. When a customer would say that a car was too expensive, the salesman would say, "Look, you don't pay more; you just pay longer." That is like this program; one does not pay more; one pays longer. At the end of the mortgage the interest deferral is attached, and one pays interest for all these years again. This is no different than AHOP, and AHOP was ill-devised. How many people walked away from AHOP? Having walked away from an obligation once, it is easier to walk away a second time.
Obviously there are other aspects to this piece of legislation. If one has equity of less than $3,000, one is eligible for a grant, at least to some extent. The reason we have this legislation is not because the minister has a housing policy. I know he wants a housing policy; he would like to have one. But this is a bailout policy; it is not a housing policy. All one has to do is go
through the correspondence which every hon. member receives from The Canadian Real Estate Association. I know there are some people in this House who do not like the Canadian Real Estate Association. Do you know what these people do? They make a profit. I am glad they are making a profit. I am glad they are turning that profit into housing and putting it back into the Canadian economy. These are Canadians who are legitimately seeking to address themselves to the housing market of the country.
In their presentation to the government some interesting things were mentioned. They talked about the reduced housing we will see in 1982. They talked about the impact on employment. I believe it was the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) who said, "We have to pass this legislation because it will create these thousands of new jobs." But the Canadian Real Estate Association which knows the business, is not that impressed with the possibility of creating these new jobs. In fact, the association is not impressed at all.


Paul James Cosgrove: Just the person looking for a job.


William James Kempling: Petulant Paul.


An hon. Member:: That is the most significant contribution the minister has made all day.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Canadian Real Estate Association commented in this fashion:
A reduced volume of buying and selling in real estate markets could have a significant secondary impact on persons whose livelihood depends on a healthy real estate market.
The paragraph continues:
In addition, if low levels of real estate sales discourage production of new housing, then unemployment in the construction industry may also increase.
That is the housing policy of the minister. The Canadian Real Estate Association also talked about the supply of housing. I could go into that; suffice it to say that the minister spoke to the HUDAC conference in Winnipeg. What a reception he got. It was almost the same kind of warm reception we in the west reserve for most federal ministers. For instance, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) visited Delisle, Saskatchewan. It is a nice little community. There are great people there and 1,200 people came out to greet him warmly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: They support the legislation.


Donald W. Munro: Don't kid yourself.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The minister is awake again. If he wants to be a comedian, he could find a forum where some people would laugh.
There is another side to the story. I have a letter here from a lady in my riding whose situation is slightly different from that of a young couple who might want to buy their first home. She wrote about capital gains. That factor strongly influences the housing market. We are taxing away small pools of capital
February 25, 1982

which individual Canadians hold. Canadians are not now making investments because of the fear that the taxation bite will be too hard. In part, this is what this lady said:
I am sending you a copy of a letter I'm writing to the Minister of Finance in regards to capital gains.
Her letter continued:
I've been a widow since 1965. I'm not in good health so I just have to sell my farm to survive. That unknown factor is a big boogyman for me. The Income Tax Office isn't much help. They say they don't know. The Minister of Finance office says we get one acre and the home tax free.
Since a whole lot of us didn't send in our 1971 price what happens? In 1975 when my husband died and I was transferring titles I put down $200 an acre. Would that stand. We get so many problems from the civil servants. One time they allow it next time not. I suppose because the head office says so.
What she is trying to do is to sell her farm and have enough money to buy a home in a small community in my riding and live in dignity. That is all she is asking after a lifetime of work. What does she say next?
When I finally sell I hope to get $86,000 for 240 acres and buildings.
The paragraph in her letter continues:
-1 could sell together or separate as it is a Life Estate with my son. If I can price the home acre at S50.000 (house large garage and barn). There would be $36,000 left. If I could establish some retirement fund that would last at least five years till I reach 65 I would be safe from welfare. My idea is go and buy a home in Winnipeg. One's that you don't have to fix run around $50,000.
How is she going to do it? Here is a person who has worked on her family farm all her life. She is not asking for a handout. She is probably one of those few Canadians who has probably never received a handout. All she is asking is to be allowed to sell this farm that obviously her husband, herself and her family have worked on, so she can somehow acquire some basic housing and have a little income left over from the sale to carry her to pension age. That is all she is asking. There are thousands of Canadians in this situation.
Without question, the most difficult problem we encounter as Members of Parliament, at least 1 do, is the problem of a widow between the age of 55 and 65 who has worked side by side with her husband and now cannot carry on the farm or the family business. She might have been at home looking after the family all her life and now does not have the skills to use outside the home. This lady is a perfect example. All she is asking is to be able to buy a $50,000 house and to use the $36,000 left over to support herself. How many hon. members in this House believe you can buy a house for $50,000 today? What kind of housing will $50,000 give you?


An hon. Member:: There are pretty good houses for $50,000.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, and if you fellows stay in office, with the dollar dropping and inflation as it is, there might be a lot of houses on the market at that price. Nobody will be able to afford them, but they will be there.
This government has to get back to some basics. First, people want to own their property. In order to do that, they want tax relief to maintain their own homes. Those of us who have had experience in municipal work, and the minister has, having been a mayor, and those of us who have had possibly more limited experience than that, but have had some, have had taxpayers coming to us saying, "1 do not want to improve
Housing
my property." You ask them why not and the answer is, "I do not want to pay more municipal taxes." That is the reason it becomes imminently more sound to allow a mortgage tax credit. This is another way by which people could have a greater opportunity for home ownership. That is what we have to get back to. 1 believe that is one of the fundamentals that helped build this country. For instance, take a look at what the homesteaders did. They had 160 acres. I see the hon. member over there laughing, but that is how the western part of the country was built and people worked mighty hard to have those homesteads. They came to have those homesteads-


Norman Kelly: Does that sell in Manitoba?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I understand that the hon. member who is interrupting asks, does that sell in Manitoba. Yes, Manitoba was built by hard working people who moved onto homesteads, who moved to the Dauphins of Manitoba, not in my riding, who moved into the Vitas of Manitoba, who moved into the St. Pierres of Manitoba, who moved into the Beausejours of Manitoba, to build a country. Those are the people the hon. member is disparaging. What they asked for and what they received was land on the condition that they would work the land, build a dwelling on that land and make it a viable operation. That is all they were given.
What I am saying to the minister is this, no matter how sincerely he approaches his housing policy, we are reaching a situation in which Canadians cannot afford property. The only answer is relief from taxation, not more government subsidies and grants. We also have inflation. You talk to Canadians today, Mr. Speaker, and you will understand why there is cynicism in the country. They say, the Liberals promised us they were going to lower interest rates. Yet today we read editorials saying we are facing a depression because our deficit is too high. We have gone to the international bond market borrowing money for too long and in too large amounts. If you are going to lower interest rates you can be selective on certain aspects such as housing, for instance. Why do we not give selective rates on housing? We do this for other countries, why can we not do it for Canadians?
1 say to all members of the House that if they think by some magic the interest rate can be lowered without repercussions- across the board 1 speak of now-they are badly mistaken. This government will have a lot to answer for. To a lot of young Canadians its legacy is, they will not be able to own their own homes because the deficit it created is a deficit they will have to pay. The government has been a proponent of the theory, let's have it now and have others pay it later. 1 say to the minister that he will not find enough room in the expenditures of this or any other government to respond to the housing needs now evident in Canada. The only course he has is to use the tax system to deliver selective reductions in interest rates for housing so that people can get back to the dream and its realization, that of the ownership of property.

February 25, 1982
Housing


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent for a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to some of the hon. member's remarks with respect to social housing and the NDP policy with regard to housing. Knowing well the alleged ambitions of the hon. member for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party in Manitoba, I was wondering if he would be willing to go on record against the social housing policies of the NDP concerning construction of senior citizens' housing right across the province, the construction of social housing in the inner cities-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is this a speech, Mr. Speaker?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Is he willing to go on record against those policies and thus stay in the intellectual ghetto that the present leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in Manitoba led that party into?


William James Kempling: The only intellectual ghetto is in your mind.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has been reading newspapers. Obviously that question must have been generated by some electoral fear he has. I want to tell him, Mr. Speaker, my frank personal view is that I would like to see Canadians have the ability to own their own homes. That is my position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Don't give us a sermon, give us an answer.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well, I have heard a lot of sermons and no answers from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). What I am saying to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill is, that is my preference. Obviously there are some Canadians who have not been as fortunate as he or I. Government has a responsibility to those people in terms of social housing, but the goal should be that as many Canadians as possible enjoy home ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp), but I quite often find myself in substantial disagreement with him, and I would like to take a couple of minutes in that regard.
In the last couple of weeks I have been the victim of some crossfire from the opposite side on interest rates and on the subject we are talking about today. I find it interesting because last week they were demanding that a few of us should vote with their side to bring them back into power so they could reinstitute the regime they brought in a couple of years ago. I
recall that interest rates at that time were nearly as high as they are now, but under our government our interest rates were two or three points above the American rates, and our inflation rate was 9'A per cent when theirs was around 18 per cent. I would wonder what they might be now when our inflation rate is about 9Zi per cent, while the American inflation rate is lower. There just did not seem to be any reason at all, the way they were running things, why our interest rates should be above the American rates when their inflation rate was double ours. At that particular point they reappointed Mr. Bouey.
I would now like to deal with a couple of other points the hon. member made. He made the point that property rights did not go into the constitution. He, as well as anyone, knows how that came about; he very ably led the opposition in that debate. But he knows perfectly well that the provinces were very jealous of property rights and basically did not want that right in the Constitution. That came too close to affecting provincial powers. Most of the provincial premiers were of the Tory conviction and said that, so I think we have to accept that as the basic reason.


Marc Lalonde: So true.


Paul Edmund McRae: One thing I would really like to talk about, and one of the reasons why I helped to vote that government out of power in 1979, is a document known as the Matthews report on housing, produced by a former national president of the Conservative Party of Canada. If you want to find a report which really condemns government supporting people who cannot afford housing, you should look at that report. That report says government should basically get out of it all; do not subsidize co-op housing, profit housing, or any of it. That was a scary document. It would have virtually eliminated CMHC and privatized everything. That, Mr. Speaker, along with PetroCan and interest rates, is one of two or three sound reasons why we decided, along with the NDP, that this government had had its day. The basic institutions around which this country has functioned, certainly since World War II, have been those set up mainly by a series of Liberal governments, including things like CMHC and so on. It is a kind of mixture of private and public institutions.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
February 25, 1982

Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I asked questions of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) on February 23, 1982, concerning the firing of a constituent of mine, Mr. Neil Fraser, from Revenue Canada in Kingston. I asked the minister to outline the grounds for such action taken by the government which has deprived Mr. Fraser freedom of speech, as well as to indicate at what point the government draws the line concerning the rights of civil servants to speak out on various issues. I was far from satisfied with the answers given to my questions. That is the reason 1 gave notice of my intention to speak to the matter during this adjournment debate.
This is a serious issue about which I, my leader, my colleagues in the House and many Canadians are very concerned. We are talking about the issue of freedom of speech in a free and democratic society. We are talking about the right to criticize those measures put forward by a government of the day. We are talking about the rights of a free Canadian citizen to stand up and freely speak his mind on his own time.
The Minister of National Revenue told the House that Mr. Fraser, as a relatively senior official with the Department of National Revenue, was fired because he spoke publicly against the metric system. The question 1 asked was, on what grounds is an off-duty public servant being deprived of freedom speech. In other words, I wanted to know the authority under which he was fired and the section of the act. The Public Service Employment Act, Section 23, Schedule III refers to the oath of office, and I quote:
L (name) solemnly and sincerely swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties that devolve upon me by reason of my employment in the public service and that I will not, without due authority in that behalf, disclose or make known any matter that comes to my knowledge by reason of such employment. So help me God.
Matters for which Mr. Fraser has been fired have nothing to do with this section or Schedule HI under the act. The reason the Minister of National Revenue gave about collecting taxes should not be a disqualifying criterion for a public servant's right to freedom of speech, as the minister implies.
I am sure this incident will put extreme and undue pressure on thousands of Canadians who work for the public; if everything they say is subject to censure. This government action reminds me of George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four"; one can only think and not speak.
Public servants should have the right to make constructive remarks concerning government policies which are not related to their duties on their own time. It is intolerable that even the most responsible criticism of a government program brings reprisals down on the heads of public service employees.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is behaving strangely, especially since he is the man who. appears to want history's recognition by entrenching the Canadian Charter of Human Rights in our Constitution. The Minister of National Revenue, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and the Prime Minister have refused to cite any legal authority on which this action has taken place. Rigid codified systems of law, such as in the U.S.S.R., work in a fashion uncommon to
Adjournment Debate
Canadian tradition whereby everything that is not specifically mentioned is forbidden.
The minister's defence in firing Neil Fraser for criticizing the process rather than the substance of metrication does not seem credible considering the importance the government has placed on the fundamental freedoms we have spent so much valuable time debating over the past year. We have inherited a strong heritage in our system which respects and enforces rights and freedoms and, whether written down or not, we must ensure that we continue to observe these in the future.
I am not questioning the right of an employer to fire an employee who publicly speaks against the organization as the minister has stated, but I am questioning the right of government to fire Neil Fraser'without just cause or reason. Just cause and reason does not mean talking about government policy because, if this were the case, hundreds of federal public servants should have been fired during the Quebec referendum. Mr. Fraser did not object to bilingualism, he stated that he did not feel the rights of non-francophones in Quebec were adequately protected.
If this case is lost on appeal, it will mean imposing virtually absolute silence on any public servant in Canada on any question. Mr. Fraser is not working for the Metric Commission or the Department of Justice, so he has not directly criticized his department's policy. As an employee of the federal government he has not exceeded any bounds of acceptable conduct of a public servant because he has not broken any oath concerning his own ministry in which he has been employed. Mr. Fraser deserves an apology by this government and should be fully reinstated with proper compensation for the harrassment he has suffered.
I feel the government is on shaky ground in this incident. First, it intimidated and tried to gag Mr. Fraser, then it fired him. This is not a case of a civil servant engaging in active partisan politics or disloyal conduct. This is unjust punishment affecting civil liberties, the basis of which is freedom of speech for all public servants. Public servants are not second class citizens. This is a disgrace to Canada and Canadians in light of our telling other nations around the world about the human rights that Canadians enjoy. This case should not have to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. I hope and pray that the people of Canada will see the type of leaders who are running our country and change them before it is too late.


Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably aware that the official concerned has submitted a grievance, and as I do not want to prejudice this case, in reply I shall simply retrace the events which lead to his being fired from the Department of National Revenue. I shall therefore outline briefly the various stages of the grievance procedure provided to allow him to exercise his rights. First, Mr. Speaker, the official involved has on several occasions publicly endorsed political ideas contrary to those of the government.

February 25, 1982
Adjournment Debate
Following his first public statements criticizing the government and its policies, he was warned of the guidelines concerning the behaviour of an employee toward his employer and given notice that other such statements could lead to disciplinary action. In spite of these warnings, which resulted in two suspensions, he continued and even stepped up his public criticism in all the medias. That is when his employment was terminated, Mr. Speaker, or in other words, when he was fired. Let me remind the House that the Treasury Board is empowered to establish disciplinary standards in the public service and to specify certain penalties, including suspension and firing, which can be applied for a breach of discipline or misbehaviour, and to indicate when, how, by whom and under what authority these penalties can be meted out.
Treasury Board can also authorize the deputy minister of a department or a ministry to exercise its powers and fulfil its duties. It is under this authority, Mr. Speaker, that disciplinary action was taken against this employee. Such action is not taken lightly, and in this case it was based on a well-established principle to the effect that the senior officers and staff of the department should abstain from criticizing publicly the policy, the programs or the services of the government and from making unfavourable comments about them.
You can no doubt determine, Mr. Speaker, that, a fortiori, the employees of the Department of National Revenue hold a very sensitive position and that their behaviour must be especially above reproach.
I mentioned in the very beginning, and I want to emphasize this point, that the employee has a right of appeal, and this is what he is now exercising. This applies to any employee who feels he has been wronged by a management decision, and he is entitled to submit a grievance under the Staff Relations Act. There is an established procedure to this effect which can include four levels of decision of which the final level is that of the deputy minister. If the employee is not satisfied with the decision made at the final level he can, under certains circumstances, ask for a review by a third party, who is an adjudicator appointed under the Staff Relations Act. To accelerate matters, the grievance has been referred to the fourth level.
I hope that justice will be done after both parties have submitted their arguments, and I am convinced that this will
be the case.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ANNOUNCEMENT OF LAYOFFS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on February 5 about the 1,800 lay-offs announced by the Canadian National Railways, system wide, on February 4. I was, and I am still, particularly concerned about some 216 positions which are to be eliminated at the Transcona shops at the rate of 49 every
four weeks, and some 30 other jobs at Symington Yard. Most of these will be jobs of young people who may already be facing the difficult problems of home ownership and raising families at a time of criminally high interest rates and other economic difficulties.
What are they to do? They cannot wait for the Minister of Transport's scheme of railway revitalization to come into place; if, indeed, it ever will. If it does come into place, it might not create the kinds of jobs for which they are looking.
Indeed, some of these men have lost their jobs as a result of the Minister of Transport's last great scheme, his tragic and stupid reduction of passenger rail service in Canada Some of these lay-offs, even now, are the delayed result of the VIA cutbacks and not just the result of a downturn in the revenues of the railways caused by the MacEachen recession.
The list of injuries the Liberals have inflicted on railway workers continues to grow. First, the VIA Rail cutbacks resulted in lost jobs and in making a CN pass almost worthless. Second, there were the lay-offs of February 4. A Crown corporation which made a profit last year was allowed to lay people off in a period of high unemployment when there was plenty of work waiting to be done. Third, and even more recently, the CNR made a wage offer to the workers which is clearly part of the over-all Liberal plan to blame workers for inflation, in spite of the fact that the real incomes of workers, after inflation, have decreased every year for the last four or five years.
If the Liberal government had half a brain, it would provide the money that the CNR legitimately needs for capital investment through a national investment strategy, instead of forcing the CN to lay off workers and hold down wages in order to expand. That would be the kind of sound economic and employment policy we in the New Democratic Party could support and, indeed, would implement if we were the government.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, let me say emphatically that I share the hon. member's concern about the loss of jobs at Canadian National. I am certain the minister does too, as he has indicated in the House. However, the hon. member must realize that if the CN is expected to continue to serve its customers and Canada as effectively as it does, it must be allowed to operate in an efficient manner.
The facts are clear. Traffic was down substantially in the latter part of 1981 and, in January 1982, traffic was down 15 per cent from the previous year's level. It was regrettably necessary, as a consequence, to reduce manpower correspondingly.
The hon. member should not overdramatize the situation. Normal attrition, early retirements and job transfers will result in significantly fewer people affected than the number of positions abolished. Although the CN does not see a reversal of
February 25, 1982

this situation in the immediate future, CN will, of course, hire employees back when traffic warrants.
The minister has pointed to the tremendous potential for growth in rail traffic in western Canada. 1 suggest that, if the hon. member wants to see an increase in employment in the railways, he should support the government's proposals on the
Adjournment Debate
statutory grain freight rates, which will allow this tremendous growth in western Canada to materialize.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.16 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 26, 1982