1982-03-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, this being March 1, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), hopefully supported by the Robertses and Evanses among us:
That on this day of St. David, the patron saint of Wales, this House extends to the Prince and Princess of Wales and to all good Welshmen in Canada and throughout the world our warmest greetings and good wishes.


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.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, those crazy Canucks have done it again. This past Saturday Canadian downhill skiers took four of the top seven positions in the Molson world downhill championships at Whistler, British Columbia, which was, indeed, an outstanding achievement. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Bossy):
That this House, through Madam Speaker, express its best wishes to the Canadian downhill skiers who competed at Whistler Mountain and that a special expression of appreciation be extended to their coach, John Ritchie.


Madam Speaker:: The House may express its feelings by applauding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, during the last week of February Prince Edward Island, Western Newfoundland, the Magdalen Islands and northern New Brunswick were ravaged by a storm which stopped many residents from making final arrangements to purchase registered retirement savings plans. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Finance extend the purchase deadline for RRSPs by an additional ten days for those citizens of Atlantic Canada affected by this storm.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, in light of the observations of the subcommittee which recently visited El Salvador that the possibility of a free and meaningful election is not possible at this time, and in view of the fact that the American ambassador to that country admits that the number of violations of human rights is not, in fact, declining, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the Government of Canada reconsider its position in regard to elections in El Salvador and join with President Portillo of Mexico and other like-minded countries to bring international pressure to initiate negotiations between the warring parties and postpone the election until a time when all Salvadoreans will be free and safe to participate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 1, 1982


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, whereas an examination of the 1982-83 estimates tabled last week is an indication that the Minister of Agriculture gives little priority to research and development in agriculture and is more concerned about market development. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Minister of Agriculture forthwith bring in legislation to make the $9 million of producers' money held for the past ten years in the Prairie Farm Emergency Fund available to producers for research and development of cereal grains and oilseeds suitable for cultivation in the Canadian Wheat Board area or, alternatively, undertake to pay interest on the fund at current rates, which would amount to approximately $4,000 per day, until such time as suitable research arrangements are made.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the present gun control section of the Criminal Code of Canada is cumbersome, expensive to administer, and ineffective. It does not prevent criminals from securing or using firearms, knives, hatchets or hammers. It does militate against peaceful citizens in their proper use of guns and, along with the emergency order in council authorizing civilian detention camps, it aggravates concern about what is happening to our Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):
That this House urges the government to order a full public investigation into both these matters.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that proposals to improve pensions for the disabled and women under the Canada Pension Plan are being opposed by the Tory
government of Ontario, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House calls on all Progressive Conservatives, in particular the hon. member for Rosedale and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands-those self-proclaimed lefties-to lobby the Ontario Tories to come into the twentieth century, albeit kicking and screaming, and agree to implement much needed improvements to our pension system, especially for the disabled and women.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: The government's promotion policy allows it to demote parliamentary secretaries who keep their criticisms private, fire public servants for telling the truth about the government's philosophy and, the same week, promote to parliamentary secretary, backbenchers who have written public letters saying the government is wrong. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the government urged to clarify its policy publicly so that we might all know how it reconciles these irreconcilable actions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, given that no woman has ever been appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, even though many qualified women have served with distinction the superior and supreme courts of the provinces, and given that the government has an opportunity to rectify past neglect when it appoints a new member to the Supreme Court later this week, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That in filling the vacancy left on the Supreme Court of Canada by the retirement of Mr. Justice Ronald Martland, the government break the tradition of 115 years of male appointments by nominating a qualified woman to the Supreme Court of Canada.
March 1, 1982


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR OTTAWA CENTRE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That the House expresses its deepest sympathy to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre whose reward for months of valiantly defending the indefensible, that is, the MacEachen budget, was to be stripped of his post as parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House reconfirms its approval of the government white paper on metric conversion brought in by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, Mr. Pepin, where it states that because of the close ties between the U.S. and Canada in science, technology, industry and commerce, each country has a special interest in the course likely to be followed by the other in respect of metric conversion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member of Beaches (Mr. Young):
That in the interests of rail safety the Minister of Transport tender his resignation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions CANADA POST


ROLE OF AUDITOR GENERAL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, the legislation transforming the Post Office into a Crown corporation called for the Auditor General to retain authority for monitoring the Post Office for two years, after which it could be shifted entirely to a private firm. In view of the fact that the Auditor General acts in the public interest and assures disclosure of Post Office operations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):
That this House recommend the Auditor General retain authority for the monitoring of the Canada Post Corporation and that authority not be transferred solely to a private firm which might not protect the valid interests of Canadian taxpayers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he could bring us up to date on the train wreck that occurred outside Orillia. Can he tell the House if the safety procedures recommended by Grange and studied by many committees and the CTC had been in place whether this wreck could have been avoided?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, my answer is no. If the regulations had been in place concerning hot box detectors, for example, they would not have applied in this particular case. The situation is under control. The possible cause of the accident is not a hot box; it is a broken wheel, which is a type of accident that apparently happens in Canada two or three times a year.
Thirty-six cars derailed in all. Those 36 included 12 cars containing dangerous goods, most of it in boxcars and most of it in relatively small quantities. The key car was the hydrofluoric acid car, No. 12, buried in the jumble of cars. This one contained 39 tonnes of hydrofluoric acid, which is corrosive and toxic. This is the situation as of now. There is still some fire, but it is not creating any major anxiety on the part of the emergency officials who are at the site at the moment.

March 1, 1982
Oral Questions


POSITIONING OF CARS CONTAINING DANGEROUS GOODS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, 1 thank the minister for that part of his report. Could he assure the House that under existing regulations proper safety inspection procedures were carried out on the wheel which broke, at its last stop, which I presume was in Toronto? In reference to his answer wherein he talked about the hydrofluoric car buried in a jumble of cars, could he assure the House that in future regulations the positioning of cars containing dangerous goods will be addressed in relation to recent American studies which assert that such cars should be at the rear of trains, not in the middle of trains, even though there may be a buffer zone in the middle of trains?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as usual there are different views on the subject. I understand that there is a United States report to the effect that cars containing dangerous goods should be in the last part of trains. Justice Grange suggested that they should be in the first part of trains, and the practice now is to put them in the middle of trains. I say this without smiling, just to indicate that there are different views on subjects of this kind.
Partly because of the work done by the Grange commission following Mississauga, the response system in this particular instance worked very well indeed. For example, Canutech, which is the federal emergency centre, was contacted and provided information on the dangerous goods which were involved. The Ontario Provincial Police Emergency Centre in Toronto was very efficient in its handling of the situation. A CTC commissioner was on the scene very early. The expertise of chemical companies was available very early as well. The cars had been properly spaced, dangerous goods had been properly identified, and the manifest was available very early. There are some of the good effects of the Grange report.
With respect to emergency response, we have made tremendous progress. Unfortunately accidents still happen, but at least we cope with them better than we did before the incident at Mississauga took place.


SAFETY INSPECTION PROCEDURES
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I have a short supplementary question. I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion, but my question was twofold. First, could the minister assure the House that proper inspection procedures were carried out at Toronto on the wheel? Second, what study would MOT or CTC instigate to resolve the difference of opinion as to the positioning of cars carrying dangerous goods?
The CTC press release of September 30, 1981, after the show-cause hearing, indicated that safety initiatives will not appreciably affect the competitive position of railways, will not require additional public funds, and will not create an undue increase in charges to the public. In other words, CTC indicated that safety procedures will not affect the financial load of railways, the public purse or charges to the public.
I agree with the minister that there has been a lot of work on safety initiatives, but what will he do to accelerate them? Will safety be part of the mandate, rather than these three other factors, so that some of the safety recommendations which have now been discussed for almost two years will be implemented?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there was a hearing before the CTC on that particular subject. Indications were pretty clear in the recommendations of the CTC that there was a change of orientation, a change of approach in our society. The economic preoccupation is still considered to be of major importance. Nevertheless, the CTC has made recommendations and will make other regulations concerning, for example, hot box detectors, the type of equipment, the shields, the couplers and what not, which obviously will add to the operational cost of the railways. The CTC has tried to maintain a proper balance in this matter, and as everyone across the country has told me, we have to keep a proper balance of preoccupations between safety and economic activity. That is the balancing act that is necessary.
If I may continue, Madam Speaker, on this subject of whether or not there was an inspection of this equipment, because it is rather important, I questioned the CTC this morning who informed me that the CTC had no reason not to believe proper inspection was carried out. By way of an answer, the CTC outlined the different inspections a boxcar, or a tank car has to go through. It has to be inspected during and after manufacture and at intervals during its lifetime.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: But was it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, it was. At least, there is no reason to believe it was not is the answer I received. Each time a tank car is filled, it is inspected by the manufacturer, and the shipper before and on completion of loading. The railway itself has a mechanical inspection at every marshalling yard throughout a journey. A superficial inspection is carried out when two trains meet. When the consignee receives the tank car and unloads it he also does an inspection. I am told that this time it was an accident.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Transport. For much of last week the minister was in British Columbia. He will be aware that the second stacker-reclaimer built by Stephens-Adamson for Westshore Terminals begins operation
March 1, 1982

this week. My questions, however, have to do with the Ridley Island Terminal. Was the minister in Prince Rupert last week? Does the minister have any better answers now for the exporting of Canadian jobs to Japan? Does the minister have any better answers now for the cover-up of the reasons for the exporting of those Canadian jobs to Japan?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, no, I will not comment on it further.
Yes, I did meet with Mr. Ross of Swan Wooster and I did meet again with Mr. Franche of the National Harbours Board. They are going to produce for me a four-page, a three-page or a two-page letter-


Mr. Epp:: What about a no-page letter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -in which they will reiterate the reason why the decision on the purchase of a stacker-reclaimer was made the way it was.
I emphasize the fact that there is great urgency in the decision-making process with respect to the coal terminal construction at Prince Rupert. And I again emphasize the fact that different departments of government were involved in the decision-making process in that particular instance. And again I emphasize the fact that it was not possible, and I do not believe that it should be for the minister to impose his own judgment in these matters when he is surrounded by experts who can advise him properly on these questions.


BURRARD FLOATING DOCK CONTRACT-CANADIAN CONTENT
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, I hope that the minister will make that letter more available than he has the memos and other documents that we have not yet seen. However, with regard to the same contract, the minister talked last week about 53 per cent Canadian content promised by Mitsubishi of Japan. The minister will be aware that Mitsubishi also received a contract for $26 million for the Burrard floating dock in 1980. At that time there was a promise made of a $17 million Canadian offset. Not one cent of that promise has been forthcoming.
What makes the minister think that this contract will be handled any differently than the other one and why would he believe that the Japanese would keep this promise any more than they did the other one? Since the Canadian supplier would provide 96 per cent Canadian content and not 53 per cent, would the minister once again give us those figures that can justify the exporting of Canadian jobs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to judge on the other case mentioned by the hon. member. One of the reasons that the 53 per cent Canadian content will be carried out here is that I will be watching for sure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Question


Jean-Luc Pepin: The letter to which I referred will obviously be tabled in the House if my hon. friend asks me to do so in the next couple of days.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE HON. JOHNATHAN MOTZFELDT, PREMIER OF GREENLAND
Madam Speaker:: May I draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Johnathan Motzfeldt who is the Premier of Greenland and, I understand, also the Speaker, which seems to be a great combination for anyone with normal political ambitions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I do not think it will be any surprise to you but 1 do have some questions for the Minister of Transport. By way of directing questions to the minister, may I remind him, if he needs it, that since the early 1950s representatives of railway workers-


Madam Speaker:: Order. We were doing very well. The first questions were extremely short. The hon. member need not remind the minister of too many things. Just ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, your remarks are very appropriate and I would be even happier had you directed them to other questioners earlier this day.
Now, since representatives of railway workers and members of this House-I even remember the former member for-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must ask his question forthwith.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, considering the rare occasions that I have this opportunity, I ask only for one more minute of patience on behalf of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member need not have a long preamble. He may ask a question, and I must say that some of his time has already expired and, if he is short, he may have his three questions. Otherwise, it will only be two.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, you are probably right.

March 1, 1982
Oral Question


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So may I ask the minister, since some 30,000 jobs have been done away with, and since the matter has been raised so often in Parliament, including by members of this House-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well, who else?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -and since it was looked upon up until recent years as some kind of a narrow and selfish interest by railway workers, and because of the eradication of those jobs there is inadequate inspection and maintenance of railway rolling stock before it goes on the tracks, will he, under the authority he presently has under the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act, require the railways to restore whatever number of jobs are necessary to guarantee the inspection and maintenance of rolling stock, since the eye can detect defects sooner than computers?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes or no.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, yes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Seriously, Madam Speaker, I indicated a moment ago that inspection of railway cars, tank cars in particular, was a job accomplished by a number of people at different times, such as the shipper, the person who receives the car, the railway companies themselves, and the CTC. We have a great number of inspectors there, too. My hon. friend seems to be indicating that the railways do not take their role seriously enough. I will pass my hon. friend's remarks on to them and repeat to them-because I believe in the essential value of the message my hon. friend is delivering-that they have, with others, the responsibility of ensuring railway transportation safety.


REQUEST THAT DISASTER COMPENSATION FUND BE ESTABLISHED
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, this happened not only in Orillia, but also in Coquitlam and one other location in British Columbia yesterday. I will say it before the minister does-one cannot stop all the accidents 100 per cent of the time. However, in the interests of adding to present and future regulations on safety and transportation, would the minister consider establishing a disaster compensation fund by a small surcharge on freight charges or by slight increases in taxes, so that all people can be compensated for damages or evacuation, immediately after any such mishap?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I understand that the railways are insured. This is a question which comes up fairly regularly.
Concerning the subject of safety, I want to emphasize that air safety, marine safety and railway safety have been a very great preoccupation of mine. My hon. friend will recognize
that I brought in the bill on the transportation of dangerous goods. Since then, and it takes time, progress has been made in terms of bringing the provinces to pass legislation similar to ours, in terms of administrative agreements with the provinces, in terms of the appointment of inspectors and so on.
This afternoon I will issue a progress report on Grange's 15 recommendations. It indicates what has been done concerning each one of the judge's recommendations. I believe very much in safety, particularly railway safety. It will indeed cost the railways more money. We are trying to do the best we can. It takes a bit of time to do the best we can because of the many interests which have to be accommodated in this matter, as with everything else.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, and it concerns the repression being practised against some 300,000 Canadian civil servants who, the Prime Minister says, are free to speak about philosophy. In a letter to me dated February 22, with regard to Neil Fraser, the minister stated that while there are no explicit rules governing public statements by public servants, it has long been accepted as a condition of employment in the public service that public servants should not publicly criticize government programs or policies.
I would like to ask the minister was that condition negotiated with the public service unions, and when. Is it administered to persons when they join the public service? Can the minister produce in written terms, the condition of which he speaks?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the subject was exhausted, it seems to me, in exchanges in this House and outside the House last week.


Mr. Clark:: Just wait.


Donald James Johnston: I do not believe the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was present during those exchanges. The Prime Minister at no time said that public servants could only speak about philosophy. That particular exchange, I believe-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That was the answer.


Donald James Johnston: -took place with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and he threw that out as a subject matter.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The only one.


Donald James Johnston: I would also like to point out that there are rules of conduct. I mentioned this last week. They vary from department to department because the responsibility for the conduct of public servants has been delegated by the Treasury
March 1, 1982

Board to the deputy ministers who are responsible in each department across the government. These departments, in some cases, have codes of conduct. In fact I have one with me today, which is quite an elaborate code of conduct, of the Department of Employment and Immigration, and which has been in existence for many years. I understand, in fact, it was in existence while the opposition briefly formed the government in 1979 and early 1980.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: We never had any problems like that, that I recall.


POSITIONS TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: I, too, have copies of those codes of conduct of which the minister speaks. However, I notice that he did not answer any of the questions I asked as to whether or not they are negotiated with the public service unions or whether they are just brought in for convenience at the time a minister thinks they can apply. For example, last November thousands of Canadians, including many public servants, demonstrated on Parliament Hill against the government's policy of high interest rates, unemployment, and mortgage costs. They carried placards and banners, and they made verbal protests. However, they were not suspended or fired. They were allowed to express their freedom of speech.
What is the difference in the case of Mr. Fraser, who did exactly the same thing? In this case, is the government being big and bold, and able to use bully boy, ruthless tactics, moving against a single individual, a single voice, using punitive action against him, when it took no action last autumn? What is the difference in Mr. Fraser's case?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the issue of conduct of any employee is a matter of judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: It is clearly a matter of judgment. Perhaps that is not something with which the hon. member is familiar. However, it is a matter of judgment between employers and employees in any situation. It is generally recognized that public servants in any jurisdiction are not there to fan the flames of controversy on issues which are controversial at any particular period of time. But, generally speaking, the matter is not a black and white one. It is specifically provided in these codes of conduct, for example, that there is no problem with respect to matters of collective bargaining. I therefore suggest to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that she is trying to fan this particular issue entirely out of perspective.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Do not worry; the whole country is.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Fraser has every right to embark upon the avenues of appeal which are available to him. I understand he is doing so.
Oral Question METRIC CONVERSION


COMMENTS MADE BY UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, the unemployed civil servant, Neil Fraser, said Canadians should continue to exercise their freedom of choice and that mandatory imposition of metric systems assaulted this freedom. For speaking this truth, he was fired. Last Friday it was reported that the United States ambassador to Canada thinks that the mandatory imposition of metric is rubbish, and predicted that it would be many years, if ever, before the United States switches, and that it might be detrimental to trade between our two nations.
Therefore I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he intends to recommend that Neil Fraser be reinstated for telling the truth, or does he intend to ask Washington to recall its ambassador for presuming to tell the truth to Canadians about the metric system, as Neil Fraser did? He lost his job.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I believe that the comments of the American ambassador, to which the hon. member refers, were made in his personal capacity. Certainly we have received no such representation from Washington.


Charles Joseph Clark: What about Fraser?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I say to the minister that Neil Fraser's comments were made in the privacy of a public meeting, not while carrying out his duties as a member of the tax department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Now the civil servants know where they can speak.


ORDER MAKING IMPERIAL MEASUREMENT ILLEGAL
William Henry (Bill) Domm: I would like to ask a question of the minister responsible for the Metric Commission. The white paper on metric imposition states that because of the close ties between Canada and the United States in science, technology, industry and commerce, each country has a special interest in the course likely to be followed by the other in respect of metric conversion. Those words were written by the former minister of industry, trade and commerce who is sitting beside the minister in this House. I would like to ask the minister why this government has reverted to an order in council making imperial measurement illegal without full parliamentary discussion in this House of Commons. Why did the minister do that? Why did the minister not implement the white paper, which Mr. Fraser was fired for referring to as the document which brought about the implementation of metric in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 1, 1982
Oral Question


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should get his facts straight before making statements without any justification as he has done just now. It is totally false to give the impression that the Parliament of Canada has not spoken on this matter. Here in the House, we have had a debate in which all political parties supported the measure. There was also a bill to amend the Weights and Measures Act, which enabled the government to proceed with metrication. I may remind the hon. member that the bill was supported by Progressive Conservative members at the time.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance my question goes to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the impact on the overall economy of the proposed changes in the Crow rate. The minister knows that we have certain geographical disadvantages in being a long way from a seaport, and he also knows that our competitors, the Americans, the Europeans and others, subsidize grain producers. He also knows that the export of grain meant over $5 billion last year to the Canadian economy.
What studies has the government undertaken as to the implication of changes in the Crow on Canadian trade, the balance of payments, and the value of the Canadian dollar; and will he give a commitment to the House to make these studies public so that we may have a chance to assess them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the postulate is obviously wrong, and my hon. friend should know that the federal Government of Canada will continue to subsidize the transportation of grain. If he reads the announcement we made, he will come to the conclusion that the degree of subsidization will be even higher in the future than in the past. At the level of $800 million a year, on an export of $5 billion-the figure he has used-this is a fairly substantial degree of subsidization. So the postulate being wrong, the rest of the question is not relevant.


INQUIRY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT STUDIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I would very simply like the minister to answer the question. What studies have been undertaken by the federal government to assess the impact of the proposed changes on our balance of trade and the value of the dollar? I ask that question because the only study I have seen is one completed only a few weeks ago by a consultant named David Harvey, for the Minister of Agriculture, that said that with the changes in the Crow rate
we would still have 1.9 million tonnes of grain less, which is about 9 per cent of our production. I simply want to know what studies have been undertaken, and will he make those studies public?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it must have been seen that under the effect of the system as it exists now the farmer pays money to purchase hopper cars through the Canadian Wheat Board. He is also paying money for the storage of grain that he might not have had to pay otherwise. According to the Canadian Wheat Board, he is losing sales around the world in some years, because of the inadequacies of the transportation system. So I think that, looking at it from the point of view of the farmer, and looking at it from the point of view of western Canada in general, there is a tremendous growth in export that will develop from the building of an adequate rail transportation system. If my hon. friend does not believe in that, he could take a trip to the west coast and see what is happening there, in terms of port developments that have been built in order to receive these goods coming from western Canada and going abroad, to all parts of the world.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, how can the federal government make a major change when it has not made any studies as to the impact of this change on the balance of payments and on the value of the Canadian dollar? Is the minister admitting to the House that it has not done any studies of the impact on our economy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will see if any in-depth analysis has been made of that, but any child knows that if you have an adequate rail transportation system in the west, all these commodities that are going to double in production in the next five years and triple in the next ten years-I mean grain, I mean coal, I mean potash, I mean petro-chemicals, etc.-will be exported and the balance of the export-import trade of Canada will be improved.


CANADA POST
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. The minister will know, I am sure, of the latest policy set up by the corporation pertaining to the hiring of part-time help to replace letter carriers this summer. He is probably also aware that the corporation has said that this agreement was arrived at with the letter carriers in order to allow it to hire part-time help, which it was not allowed to do before. Since this arrangement or agreement, Madam
March 1, 1982

Speaker, is not in the contract of the letter carriers' union and since it could be starting a precedent that we would not necessarily appreciate, I wonder if the minister could inform the House if he is aware of any other verbal agreements within the corporation, and, if so, what are they and, if not, does he feel that this verbal agreement should stand?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I shall be pleased to discuss the matter with the President of the Canada Post Corporation and obtain an answer for the hon. member.


ACTION TO CORRECT DISCRIMINATION
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, I would have thought that by now the minister would have been informed. Possibly he should also approach the president on the fact that the corporation is stating that this would allow preference to be given to families of letter carriers for summer employment. In fact, the directive does not say "preference". It says they "will be selected from." That does not allow the postmasters any preference clause in the hiring. I would like to know, in my supplementary, is the minister aware of any action being taken to correct this discrimination and, if not, does he plan any action to correct this discrimination?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, those negotiations took place between union and management of the new Canada Post Corporation. The hon. member may not have realized that some changes have been made and that we no longer have a post office department but a Crown corporation. I shall be pleased to refer the hon. member's representations to the president of the corporation.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Earlier today he met with Premier Motzfeldt of Greenland. One of the items which the Premier of Greenland discussed with the minister was his concern about the Arctic Pilot Project, which is a plan to bring liquefied natural gas to the south, through the northwest passage by tanker down to the east coast. Last October the Greenland parliament unanimously condemned this project. I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if he could tell the House exactly what steps are being taken so that these very legitimate concerns of Greenland- concerns, by the way, shared by many Canadians-are taken fully into account.
Oral Question


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, yes, I did meet earlier today with representatives of the Greenland government. It is true, as the hon. member has suggested, that they raised the question of the Arctic pilot project. I was pleased to see that the Greenland representatives and myself agreed that the need was for us to begin again the discussions which had taken place in the past. I believe that the last meeting took place in August, 1980. Both sides are in agreement that these discussions, which for one reason or another had not continued, should begin again.


FINANCE
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, is for the Minister of State for Finance. I would direct his attention to a comment made in answer to a question raised in this House on February 12, made by the Minister of Finance, with respect to the intended change in the federal sales tax. He indicated at that time:
There is absolutely no increased revenue from that particular change. There is absolutely no additional revenue coming to the treasury. 1 can assure the hon. member of that.
I wonder if the minister would care to confirm to this House that, in the event that any revenue should be generated in excess of what the treasury now obtains, there will be a remission of the excess tax.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member asked this question, and with the hon. member and other members of this House, I am also anxious to have an opportunity to discuss in committee the fundamental change that will consist in transferring the application of the federal sales tax from the manufacturing to the wholesale level. I also wish to confirm the answer given by the Minister of Finance, namely, that the point of this exercise is not to generate new revenue for the government but to remove a number of inequities that are present in our tax system and to make this part of our system more equitable for all Canadians. So the point is not to generate revenue, and if the tax percentage is applied to a larger amount, as we shall see in committee, the percentage of tax applicable will be reduced in such a way that no new revenue is generated.


INQUIRY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT'S INTENTION
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, what the minister said was that there was absolutely no additional

March 1, 1982
Oral Question
revenue coming to the treasury. I ask the minister very simply, in the event that additional revenue does come to the treasury because we have changed the base and the rate, will the government remit that excess? It is a very simple question.


Pierre Bussières: The
answer is as simple as the question, namely, since the assumption does not make sense, no answer is necessary.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will not comment on that assault on parliamentary democracy by the Minister of State for Finance. Let me direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. He will have noted the response by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who drew an interesting distinction when he said that the United States ambassador, and I quote, "was speaking in his personal capacity". Does the government accept that Canadian public servants have the right to comment on public policy in their personal capacity?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the entire issue is one of what conduct is appropriate for public servants. As I indicated earlier, I firmly believe it is a question of judgment in each particular case. Clearly there is a difference between a public servant in one area of the bureaucracy commenting in general terms about a government policy and a senior public servant becoming involved in an issue of controversy, picketing, appearing on radio shows, whatever. Clearly there are questions of conduct which must be matters of judgment for the deputy minister to decide. Ultimately, if the deputy minister is wrong, just as if a private employer is wrong in determining that an employee has acted in a manner incompatible with his duties, the employer, in this case the Public Service Staff Relations Board, and ultimately the courts, if necessary, will determine whether the deputy minister acted improperly.


COMMENTS MADE BY DISMISSED KINGSTON PUBLIC SERVANT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister cannot shift this responsibility off to deputy ministers. The government has a responsibility to establish policy and to indicate the principles on which that policy is based. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has recognized that foreign public servants operating in Canada have the right to speak in their personal capacity. The Government of Canada has denied the right of public servants operating in Canada to speak in their personal capacity. That is the principle and the inconsistency here. There is one standard for Americans speaking in Canada and a quite different standard
for Canadians speaking in Canada. That is what we find unacceptable.
Let me come to the specific instance. The minister will know that the only action Parliament has taken on the metric question has been to approve a measure which allowed voluntary implementation. An order in council was passed, which ran against the will of Parliament, imposing implementation. What Mr. Fraser did was speak the principle that parliament spoke. Is a public servant in Canada to lose his job because that public servant speaks the principles that Parliament speaks?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I have not nor do I intend to make any personal judgment with respect to the circumstances of Mr. Fraser. The Leader of the Opposition pleads his case very eloquently. I assume that similar representations will be made to the Public Service Staff Relations Board, and that body, which is there specifically to protect the interests of employees and employers, both ways, will ultimately decide whether Mr. Fraser was dealt with properly. I see no point in pursuing the issue here. It is purely one of judgment based upon the facts of a particular case. There are no overriding questions of principle involved. Surely the Leader of the Opposition expects certain conduct from employees. The issue is whether the conduct was appropriate or not appropriate. It is that simple.


REASONS FOR FIRING OF PUBLIC SERVANT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister is suggesting what the country already knows, that this government acts without any principle at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is to the Minister of National Revenue. The minister knows what Mr. Fraser said and what Parliament said. He knows that the only guidelines in the Department of National Revenue are draft guidelines, not guidelines that are actually in effect. Will the minister tell us why he fired Mr. Fraser?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, at the first instance of Mr. Fraser's conduct involving the press and in public, he was counselled that if he had certain things he wanted to say through certain channels, that was a different matter altogether; for example, if he had made his representation through his Member of Parliament. Mr. Fraser chose to bring this to the public forum, to use the media and to criticize government programs openly.
I would also make the point that I do not think it is right that Parliament be substituted for a legitimate grievance procedure. There is a grievance procedure and that procedure is being followed. I do not feel it is right for Parliament to judge what is legitimately the judgment of another body.


Charles Joseph Clark: Martial law.
March 1, 1982

[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY MR. GEORGES RAWIRI, VICE-PRESIDENT OF GABON
Madam Speaker:: I am pleased to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of His Excellency Mr. Georges Rawiri, Vice-President of Gabon.


Some hon. Members:: 
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the fall of 1980 three Indian nations on the Pacific coast, the Haida, Nuuchahnulth, and the Heiltsuk submitted land claims. One and a half years later they have not been told whether or not these claims have been accepted for negotiation. Last fall departmental officials said they would be told as soon as the Department of Justice had reviewed them. Can the minister tell the House today whether these claims have been accepted, and will he assure the people involved that there will be no offshore drilling for oil or gas until these claims have been settled?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member may be aware, there has been more progress with respect to the acceptance and negotiation of land claims in the last year and a half than there has been in the entire history of Canada. With respect to these particular claims, there is no doubt about the complexities involved. I will check to see when Justice will be ready to give an indication one way or the other. I am fully aware of some of the concerns of the Indians involved, and will try to inform the hon. member as soon as I can. That decision is not yet ready.


KASKA DENA CLAIM IN NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
James Douglas Manly: After one and a half years these people are entitled to an answer. Two weeks ago the Kaska Dena Council submitted a comprehensive land claim for northern British Columbia. Since the Kaska Dena people are threatened by the impact of two megaprojects, the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline and the proposed Liard power project, will the minister promise the House that these people will not have to wait a year and a half for an answer to their claims? Also, will he guarantee that neither of these megaprojects will proceed before their claim is settled?
Privilege-Mr. Domm


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, it is not within my competence, or perhaps even within the federal government's competence, to state right here that we can stop megaprojects.
I would imagine that the B.C. government might have some considerable say with respect to what goes on in terms of the jurisdiction of that government with respect to megaprojects.
I can tell you that the Kaska people were in, and there is no doubt about it that the two megaprojects to which the hon. member makes reference will certainly have significant impact on the traditional lifestyles of the Kaska people. I indicated to them that I would tell the Department of Justice of the urgency of the situation and that some indication should be given because of that fact.
The other situation concerns moneys being made available to the Kaska people to study the potential impact of these megaprojects. We have made some moneys available to them for that purpose. I am looking at the prospect of making further moneys available to them for that purpose next year. They also indicated that if the megaprojects do go ahead they would want to have some economic development moneys in order to be in a position to participate in the employment opportunities afforded. This is in addition to the impact moneys. I indicated we would look sympathetically upon that.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: On Wednesday, February 24, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) raised a question of privilege arising out of certain words spoken by two employees of the Metric Commission. The first problem I have with this question of privilege is that it does not appear to have been raised at the earliest opportunity. However, after taking the matter under advisement I am now prepared to deal with it.
The hon. member names two people in his submission, both employed by the Metric Commission and both, according to the hon. member, used words which the hon. member found to be objectionable.
The question whether the use of such language against a member of Parliament by public employees warrants their dismissal is not a matter for the Chair. I am concerned only with whether the matter should be given precedence over other business so that the House can deal with it immediately.
As the hon. member recognized in his submission, in order to constitute a contempt or breach of privilege, words reflecting on Members of Parliament must, in the the words of Erskine May, "concern the character or conduct of the member in that capacity". On page 136 of May's nineteenth edition, we also find the following:

March 1, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Do mm
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
Parliamentary privilege is based on the need to protect members from any action tending to obstruct, or intimidate them or impair their effectiveness in the discharge of their duties. It is not designed to protect them from criticism, however strong, even when the language used might be excessive. The hon. member himself quoted the words of a British select committee report, cited in a ruling of my predecessor on June 23, 1977, which is as follows:
-the House should be slow and reluctant to use its penal powers to stifle criticism or even abuse, whether of the machinery of the House, of a member or of an identifiable group of members, however strongly the criticism may be expressed and however unjustifiable it may appear.
He went on to quote further words from the same report:
Nevertheless, a point may be reached at which conduct ceases to be merely intemperate criticism or abuse and becomes or is liable to become an improper obstruction of the functions of Parliament. For such cases, however rare, the penal powers must be preserved and the House must be prepared to exercise them.
I would point out that the whole thrust of the report from which the hon. member quoted was to discourage the raising of questions of privilege based upon abusive language. It is recommended that where a member feels he has been libelled or slandered, he should seek his remedy through the courts. I shall quote two of the recommendations of that select committee report:
In the future exercise of its penal jurisdiction the House should follow the general rule that it should be exercised (a) in any event as sparingly as possible and (b) only when the House is satisfied that to exercise it is essential in order to provide reasonable protection for the House, its members or its officers, from such improper obstruction or attempt at or any threat of obstruction as is causing, or is likely to cause, substantial interference with the performance of their respective functions.
In the ordinary case where a member has a remedy in the courts he should not be permitted to invoke the penal jurisdiction of the House in lieu of or in addition to that remedy-
It is relevant to refer at this point to the case alluded to by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in the course of his intervention. That case, in which certain members who represent the province of Quebec in this House were described as traitors in an advertisement published in a Quebec newspaper, was not raised here as privilege. Rather, the members concerned sought a remedy through the courts.
The question for the Chair to determine, therefore, is whether it is possible to sustain an argument that the words complained of by the hon. member constituted an obstruction of the hon. member in the discharge of his functions. Has his effectiveness as a member been impaired? Have the words uttered prevented the hon. member from discharging his duties in any way?
In a free society we must accept that the line between fair comment and abuse is sometimes thin indeed. Those of us who enter public life are frequently the targets, not only of criticism, both justified and unjustified, but also of abuse. As the hon. member for Yukon pointed out, it has been many years
since anyone was brought before the bar of this House to answer for a contempt. I suggest that if such action were taken on every occasion when a member of this House was a target of abuse, we should be summoning a very large number of people to the bar.
Although the hon. member finds the word "redneck" to be contemptuous and insulting, I cannot find that this alone amounts to a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament. With regard to the other comment, I suggest that the use of the words "that is not true" do not of themselves constitute an accusation of lying. Two people may dispute the facts of a matter in completely good faith without either of them being liars.
There are several relevant precedents of this House, and I will now refer to one in particular dealing with virtually the same point. On June 18, 1975, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) made a submission, claiming he had been the victim of attempted intimidation when he was attacked on a CBC radio program and described as a "McCarthyite" and a "screwball". The Chair gave an immediate ruling in the following terms:
-his privileges as a member of the House of Commons, his right to appear here and to participate fully as an active member of the House, his right to speak and to express his opinions, have not in any way been interfered with. Nor do I see that his rights would be interfered with by any commentary, editorial writer, speaker, television president or otherwise throughout the country. No member is subject to such intimidation, and certainly it does not seem to me that the hon. member has been intimidated in theory or in fact. Therefore, I do not consider that a question of privilege is involved.
I must therefore decline to accord this matter precedence over the regular business of the House, particularly in view of the fact that it does not appear to have been raised at the earliest opportunity. This requirement is not a mere technicality, but indeed in some respects a test of the validity of the complaint.


MR. BEATTY-ALLEGED BREACH OF SAFE CONTAINERS CONVENTION ACT
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, on Friday I gave notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege today. When I did so, I did not realize that the significance of the particular regulation in question would be underscored by the accident which took place near Orillia yesterday.
The reason for raising this question of privilege is that Parliament is being impeded in discharging its responsibilities due to the failure of the government to comply with the law as passed by this Parliament. I should also indicate that I have given notice to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who was the minister sponsoring the particular order in question, of my intention to raise this question of privilege.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Five minutes ago.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The particular regulation which I have in mind is an order under Section 8 of the Safe Containers Convention Act. The order itself is the Safe Containers Convention Act
March 1, 1982

Amendments Order, 1981, which was made on January 21 of this year and registered on January 22. It is SOR 82-156. The point that I would like to make this afternoon in explaining my question of privilege is that the government's failure to comply with the law as stated by Parliament prevents Parliament and the members of this House of Commons from discharging their responsibilities as members of the House.
I listened very carefully to the description which your Honour gave, I think quite properly, earlier this afternoon about what constitutes privilege. You stressed the fact that to demonstrate that privileges were being breached one had to demonstrate that action had been taken which impeded Members of Parliament from discharging their responsibilities, which affected the ability of this House of Commons to act. While that is a relatively conservative construction of what constitutes privilege in this House, I think it is absolutely correct, and I think it is absolutely applicable in this particular case I am raising today.
I refer Your Honour to the Safe Containers Convention Act and, in particular, Section 8 of the act, which gives the government the authority to amend, by order, the schedule to the act. Section 8(2) of the act provides the following:
An order under Subsection (1) shall be laid before Parliament not later than the tenth sitting day of Parliament after it is issued.
In this particular case the order was issued on January 21. It was registered on January 22. It is now March 1. Parliament has sat for more than a full month since the issuance of that order, and yet, as best I have been able to ascertain, the government has still not yet complied with Section 8(2) of the act.
Why is this particularly important to Parliament? It is important for a very good reason, and that is that Section 8(4) of the act provides:
Where a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in Subsection (3) with respect to a particular order referred to in Subsection (2), that House shall, not later than the sixth sitting day of that House following the filing of the motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been taken up and considered in the other House.
Subsection (3) provides:
An order referred to in Subsection (2) shall come into force on the later of
(a)	the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament after it has been laid before
Parliament pursuant to that subsection, and
(b)	the day provided in the order
unless, before the twentieth sitting day of Parliament after the order has been laid before Parliament, a motion for the consideration of either House, to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than fifty members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House and by not less than twenty members of the Senate in the case of a motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
In other words, what the law provides is, first, that the government must lay before Parliament within ten sitting days an order issued under the act. Second, it provides that 50 members of this House can put down a motion to disallow the order amending the schedule to the act which was previously laid before Parliament. Presumably it is not possible for 50
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
members of the House of Commons to lay down a motion proposing that the order be disallowed unless that order is first before Parliament. As yet the government has not complied with the law. Its failure to comply with the law prevents members of Parliament from putting down the motion that is specifically referred to in Subsection (3). Indeed, the government's failure to comply with the law prevents the consideration of the motion which is specifically provided for in Subsection (4). The House of Commons is required to hold a debate to consider that motion within six days of the motion's being tabled to consider the order which has been laid before the House. Parliament cannot do that. This House of Commons cannot hold that debate because we cannot yet put down a motion to disallow the order which has not been placed before Parliament.
If it were simply that the government was acting illegally and that did not in any way affect Parliament's rights and responsibilities or its ability to act under the provisions of the law, then it could properly be stated that this was a matter for the courts to determine and it was not a matter properly before Parliament. In an instance such as this, however, the government's law-breaking affects the ability of each member of Parliament to discharge his or her responsibilities in this House.
I want to expand briefly upon that because I think that is the crux of the issue Your Honour will be asked to decide this afternoon. The first point I would like to make is that this was not a matter which was frivolously put in there by Parliament. It was recommended by the government that the government have a positive onus put upon it to lay the order before Parliament within ten sitting days. That decision was consciously made by the government. It was consciously passed by this Parliament. It was not a frivolous decision.
Second, there is clear and valid reason for that being included in the act. The government and Parliament both felt it was sufficiently important that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider an order made amending the schedule to the act and possibly to strike down that order or disallow it if need be that they wrote that provision in there, and Parliament cannot act in that way unless the government has first complied with the law. Its failure to comply with the law impedes Parliament in discharging its responsibilities.
I should stress that the government itself in passing the law provided in Section 7 that it would be an offence to contravene provisions of the law and, indeed, it provides for a fine of up to $5,000 for anyone contravening a provision of the law. Section 7(1) reads as follows:
Every person who contravenes a provision of this act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars.
The government may very well claim that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is somehow immune from that section, but what it does underscore is that when this law was passed Parliament and the government felt that compliance with the law was sufficiently important that there should be sanctions

March 1, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
put in place for those people who would choose to disobey the law. For the government to maintain one standard for itself of a disregard for elements of the act and a totally different standard for anyone else in the country is, I think, totally indefensible and certainly not something that Parliament-and you, Madam Speaker, as the custodian and the guardian of Parliament's rights-should be prepared to allow.
One of the important questions to be determined is whether, as I said earlier, this is simply a legal question which is up to the courts to decide or whether in fact it is a matter properly before Parliament. I argue that the fact is that this has become part of the procedures of this House. It has become part of the operating procedures of this House and, indeed, one of the subsections of Section 8 of the act, Subsection (4), specifically puts a positive onus on the House of Commons. We do not have the luxury of ignoring the law in the way the minister has. If in fact the order had been properly tabled in Parliament within ten days and if in fact 50 members of the House of Commons on either side had put down a motion to consider the order, Parliament would be required, within six sitting days, to act upon that motion, and Your Honour, as the Speaker, would be required to comply with the law of the land.
So Section 8 clearly affects the operating procedures of this House of Commons. Not only does it provide the ability to Parliament to discharge its responsibilities and to examine a piece of delegated legislation made under its authority, but it goes beyond that. Subsection (4) puts a positive onus on the House to act within a certain specified number of days and, consequently, it would be impossible to argue that this section of the act does not constitute part of the operating procedure of this House of Commons.
I bring to the attention of the Chair pages 138 and 139 of Erskine May, which deal with the question of the importance of such a matter being considered part of the operating procedures of the House. In Chapter X, "Breaches of Privilege and Contempts", under the section "Disobedience to Rule or Orders of Either House" Erskine May states:
Disobedience to the orders of either House, whether such orders are of general application or require a particular individual to do or abstain from doing a particular act, or contravention of any rules of either House is a contempt of that House.
At page 139 Erskine May lists examples of possible contempts, and "neglecting to make a return" is one of them. I argue that even if Subsection (4) of Section 8 of the act was not there and even if there was not a positive onus upon Parliament to act within a certain specified number of days, the citation from Erskine May would still be valid, but it is doubly valid because of the fact that when Parliament passed that act, we specifically put an onus on ourselves in complying with the law to act within a specified number of days, within six sitting days of a motion being put down for consideration and possible disallowance.
It could also be argued by the government that somehow this is a matter which could properly be considered by the courts. I suspect that if the government were to take a look at Section 7 and the provision which imposes a fine of up to
$5,000 on people who are responsible for infractions of the act, the government would feel that did not apply to it, but it might very well say that questions relating to the enforcement of Section 8 of the act would require the courts to take a particular decision.
I would argue, in response, that the procedures described in the Safe Containers Convention Act are internal proceedings of the House and might very well be beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. In that respect I cite Erskine May's nineteenth edition, pages 199-201.
If you accept that point which complements the first point that I made, Madam Speaker, then it follows, using the May citation, that the courts may very well not be able to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it must be your responsibility to ensure that the government complies with the law if what we are dealing with is something that the government may claim is beyond the enforcement powers of the court. I do not know that the government will make that argument, but if it does, clearly that strengthens your position as the sole custodian of Parliament's rights and the person charged with the responsibility of making sure that the law of the land is complied with.
Lest anyone claim that there was a relevant precedent on a similar matter on February 1, 1979, which would sustain the government's failure to act in this instance-its clear breach of the law-let me deal briefly with that point.
On February 1, 1979, as recorded at page 2789 of Hansard, my colleague the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) rose on a question of privilege. He pointed out that the government had not complied with the law as it related to the tabling of the annual report of the Canada Council. In that instance the law required that within a certain number of days the annual report of the Canada Council be tabled in the House by the then secretary of state. In response the minister indicated that he did not have the report and therefore was not able to comply with the law and could not be forced to do so.
Mr. Speaker Jerome indicated very clearly that his decision was based precisely on that answer. At page 2791 he stated as follows:
For the moment the Secretary of State has put that point to rest because he has indicated he does not have the report. I must accept his word. If he does not have the report, he obviously cannot refer it to the House. If the report is in his hands at a later time, or if in fact there is some action to be taken against the chairman for failing to file the report with the Secretary of State, that may be so.
The essence of the hon. member's question of privilege at this time is the refusal of the Secretary of State to ensure examination of the report by Parliament. The minister told the House today, and I must accept it, that he does not have the report and therefore cannot ensure that at this time. There may be other matters the hon. member may wish to raise on further investigation. However, for the moment any question of privilege which is today related to a refusal of the Secretary of State has to be set aside subject, of course, upon further examination by the hon. member, to any action which might relate to a failure on the part of the chairman and the council itself.
Let us consider this very carefully, Madam Speaker. This particular precedent differs from what we are considering
March 1, 1982

today because the then secretary of state was able to say to the Chair and to the House-and the House was obligated to accept his assurance that his answer was factual-that he was unable to comply with the law because a report which he was required to table in Parliament had not yet been furnished to him; consequently, he could not table a report which had not been made available.
1 stress that such is not the case in this instance. The Minister of Transport or some other responsible minister is required-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could enlighten the Chair by telling me from the decision he is quoting precisely on this matter, the failure to table a report, whether the Speaker found there was a prima facie case of privilege. Perhaps he could continue with that decision. He seems to have an important piece of paper in front of him.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, that was the conclusion of the Speaker: because the then secretary of state said he could not table a report he did not have, that did not constitute a question of privilege in itself. The Speaker held open the possibility that had the minister had in his possession a copy of the report, that might very well have constituted a question of privilege. The relevant sentence reads as follows:
If the report is in his hands at a later time, or if in fact there is some action to be taken against the chairman for failing to file the report with the Secretary of State, that may be so.
In other words, the important distinction to be made is that in that instance the Speaker found there was not a question of privilege because the minister could not be forced to table a report which he did not have.
Mr. Speaker Jerome made it very clear that he left open the possibility that it might have constituted a breach of the privileges of members of the House if the minister had the report and had simply chosen not to comply with the law.
The distinction 1 should like to make in the instance before us, Madam Speaker, is that the Minister of Transport or whoever the appropriate minister may be to lay this instrument before Parliament cannot claim that he does not have access to it. It is an order made by the governor in council issued on January 21 and registered on January 22. No argument could be made that the government did not have in its possession an order made under the act. Clearly it is something that the government had and could have chosen to table at any time had it chosen to comply with the law.
On the strength of a reading of Mr. Speaker Jerome's ruling 1 would argue, first of all, that the fact that he ruled there was not a question of privilege because the minister did not have a copy of the report in question in his possession does not invalidate the point I make today. In fact, the government does have in its possession the order that it is required to lay before Parliament.
Second, I would argue that a reading of the decision by Mr. Speaker Jerome makes it clear that he was leaving it open that had the minister had the report in his hands-and he denied
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
having it-that might very well have constituted a question of privilege.
In any case, Madam Speaker, I think the fact that there is a positive onus upon Parliament to act within a specified number of days after the tabling of the order in Parliament adds further weight to the argument that this is a bona fide question of privilege. It means that if Parliament is to act at all, if it is to have a motion to consider the order when it is laid before Parliament, with the possibility of disallowing the order, it must act within a specified number of days. That includes having a debate within the specified number of days. That may not be the case in the instance of the reports of the Canada Council or other reports that are required to be tabled in Parliament, but I think it adds weight to the importance of the government complying with the law. It also adds urgency to the need for the government to table that order before Parliament so that it can discharge its responsibilities.
In sum, Madam Speaker, that is the argument I want to make today. Let me simply capsulize it by saying that no one can argue that the government has complied with the law. Section 8(2) of the Safe Containers Convention Act makes it very clear that the government has an obligation to act within ten sitting days of the order being tabled. That has not been done. Parliament has been sitting for over a month since the order was made.
There is a positive onus upon Parliament to act. It is clearly part of the operating procedures of this House. Parliament is being obstructed in the discharge of its responsibilities.
If members of the House were to review the ruling that Your Honour made earlier today in defining, quite properly, what constitutes a breach of the privileges of members of the House of Commons, they would see that it is clear that action which obstructs Parliament and obstructs an individual member from discharging his or her responsibilities is a breach of the privileges of all Members of Parliament.
I have one final point, Madam Speaker. The government may make two claims. First, because Parliament included a provision in Subsection (3) that said that the order would not come into effect until the later of either the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament after the order has been laid before Parliament or the day provided in the order, perhaps the government would argue that there is no injury in this instance; that the order is not being activated at the present time because it has not been properly laid before Parliament. Consequently, it could argue that no one's rights have been jeopardized in the interim.
I would argue that that claim would not be valid, Madam Speaker. The government has a positive onus under the law. For Parliament to discharge its responsibilities requires that the government obey the law. To claim that there has not been injury to Parliament's ability to discharge its responsibility would be patently false.
Let me elaborate on that briefly by saying that the very fact that the government recommended the bill to Parliament when

March 1, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
it brought it before Parliament that Parliament included in the statute a provision whereby an order made under the act would not come into force until 30 days after it was laid before Parliament underscores the importance in the minds of members of Parliament and of the government of the requirement to lay the order before Parliament. If Parliament had considered it a frivolous matter, we would not have required, and the government would not have recommended to Parliament in proposing the act, that the order could not come into effect until 30 days after it was laid before Parliament. This underscores the importance in the minds of Parliament and of the government of the day that it must be brought before Parliament.
It could also be argued by government that Parliament will still have the authority, if we choose at a later date, to put down a motion with 50 attached signatures and require that a debate be held on the consideration of the particular order, with the possibility of disallowance. It may very well be claimed the fact that may still be held at a later date means there will be no injury to the rights of Members of Parliament. I would say that is false. When the government has a positive onus put upon it by the law to act within a specified number of days,when the timetable of Parliament flows out of it, and Members of Parliament have a specified 20 days after the laying of the instrument before Parliament to put down a motion, and when within six days of that we must have a debate in the House of Commons, it is very clear that Parliament's ability to discharge its responsibilities is being obstructed at the present time.
No attempt by government to bring itself back into conformity with the law when it is breaking the law today rectifies the fact that today there is a grave impediment to Parliament's ability to discharge its responsibilities. In other words, it is false to suggest that if the government complies with the law at a later date, it makes everything all right, wipes the slate clean and there is no damage done to Parliament. Clearly Parliament has a responsibility to act and that ability is contingent upon the government's compliance with the law. If it obstructs Parliament today, the fact that it will remove the obstruction at a later date does not mean that there was not in fact at the time a bona fide breach of privilege.
I know it is a complex point, but 1 think it is a very important one for all Canadians, particularly for hon. members of the House. Parliament has a responsibility in protecting its rights and the rights of all Canadians to ensure that government sets an example of obedience to the law. When the government, with its own flagrant lawbreaking, takes an action which is clearly in breach of the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament, it sets a very sad example for other Canadians and it undermines respect for the rule of law in the country.
I thank Madam Speaker for the time to enable me to argue this complex case. If Your Honour finds that I have a prima
facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the government's failure to lay before Parliament an order made under Section 8 of the Safe Containers Convention Act, as required by Subsection (2), stand referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for study and report.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am not particularly familiar with the facts of this case.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That never stopped you before.


David P. Smith: But assuming that they are as set out by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), I do not see where it would draw the factual situation which he pointed out within the very narrowly defined ambit of what constitutes privilege. I have searched Beauchesne's and I do not see anything in Beauchesne's which would draw it within that ambit. It would seem to me that the only authority the hon. member was able to cite, which he felt would draw it within the ambit of privilege, is found on page 138 of Erskine May, which refers to disobedience to the orders of either House, whether such orders are of general application, etc. Then a number of examples of those types of orders are given on page 139. They include things such as neglecting to make a return, neglecting or refusing to withdraw from the House, etc.
I submit that there is a fundamental difference between an order of the House and the enforcement of the law in general. If the hon. member is suggesting, as it seems to me, that somehow Madam Speaker is to become the arbitrator as to whether or not the government, like any other citizen, must conform to the law, it would place the Chair in an impossible position. We would be really usurping the legitimate function of the courts. We would not be able, because of the rules of Parliament, to hear evidence provided by witnesses according to the strict rules of evidence, and things such as that.
What we really have here is something which belongs in the courts. There may or may not be jurisdiction in the courts, but who is to say until it has been tested? Certainly that is the place for an issue of this nature to be resolved, not in the House of Commons, taking up time we would like to use to pass important legislation.


Madam Speaker:: I will reserve on this question. At first blush it looks like a matter of compliance with the law rather than compliance with an order of the House. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) gave a very structured argumentation, but I must remind him that his quotation of Erskine May related to orders of the House, not to compliance with the law. In this respect the quotation was not entirely helpful. He quoted a precedent at which I would like to look, although I have other precedents of decisions taken in similar matters where quite clearly the Speaker refrained from determining what is a matter to be complied with according to the law and what is a matter for the Speaker to deal with. In case the precedent of the hon. member is relevant, I want to look at it before I make a decision.
March 1, 1982


MR. McDERMID-FAILURE TO DISTRIBUTE PRESS RELEASE
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I have given notice of a question of privilege, and I will be brief. It arises out of an incident which took place toward the end of last week but came to my attention early this morning. It pertains to material being distributed to Members of Parliament through the distribution service of the House of Commons.
In the past, material has been presented by various organizations that wish to make representations and to pass on certain information to Members of Parliament. As is required, they provide certain quantities of French and English versions of the information to the post office or the distribution centre. Over the past number of years releases have been distributed to Members of Parliament.
Last Friday a press release was distributed by the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association, as has been done many times for many years. We have all received such releases through the distribution service. Mr. Richard Mallette, who identified himself as a supervisor for the House of Commons post office, made the decision to censor the material and refused to distribute it to Members of Parliament. The particular press release concerned the firing of Mr. Neil Fraser. Because this has caused so much controversy in the last while, and because air traffic controllers have always been able to distribute press releases in the past, whether or not they criticize the government-most of them were critical of the government-I feel the supervisor in the House of Commons post office does not in fact have the right to go through this material and to make a decision on what material should or should not be distributed to Members of Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am somewhat uneasy about having the conduct of members of the staff of the House of Commons discussed in the House. I would rather think that this is a matter of management, which is under my jurisdiction. I would prefer the hon. member to come and see me with his complaint. I will investigate it to see whether he has been deprived of privileges which he should enjoy as they relate to services provided by the House of Commons. Obviously he knows it is not a question of privilege or a point of order. I suggest that this matter would be better settled if he came to see me, made his complaint, and then I investigated the matter.


ENERGY SECURITY ACT, 1982 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Bills (Commons):
Second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-94, 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 Corporations 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
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
Act, the Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act, the Energy Monitoring Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.-The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting Bill C-94 which I mentioned to the Chair last Thursday. The bill was given first reading last Friday and I have had the weekend to look at it.
In my view, this Energy Security Act, Bill C-94, is plainly and simply out of order. Standing Order 69 states:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
"Shape", according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, is a synonym for "form". Therefore, a bill according to Standing Order 69 must not be in imperfect form. The question of a bill's form is extensively dealt with in our parliamentary authorities, such as Beauschene and Erskine May, and I will show that the energy security bill violates not just one but several requirements as to form. To be precise, six requirements.
The title of the energy security bill is as follows:
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 Corporations 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.
That is the title of an omnibus bill with a capital "O" and a capital "B". Indeed, I would argue that it would be more accurately described as an "omnifarious" bill, meaning of all sorts, or perhaps an "omnific" bill, meaning all-creating. Certainly there has never before in the history of Parliament been included in one proposed bill such an incredible hodgepodge and mish-mash of such disparate items.
The Chair is well aware that the question of omnibus bills has been raised in this House on several occasions in the past. Various Speakers, including yourself, Madam Speaker, have made rulings on this question, but I will argue that Bill C-94 goes far beyond anything previously introduced in this House, far beyond anything on which Speakers have heretofore been requested to rule.
On the general question of omnibus bills, I would like to refer the Chair to the very excellent ruling made by your predecessor, the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, as reported in the House of Commons Journals for January 26, 1971, at page 284. Commenting on the fact that omnibus bills had been introduced in the House of Commons in the past, he went on to say:
However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the honourable member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the

March 1, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital "O" and a capital "B". But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
Mr. Lamoureux then went on to say that having reached second reading-and that was the time at which this point of order was raised to which he was referring-it was basically too late to take such drastic action suggested by the point of order, namely, that the bill be split up, and he said that in future such questions should be raised at first reading.
This is what I am doing today. Mr. Lamoureux then went on to say:
-it is much easier for the government to go back to the legislative mill to where bills are prepared, to the judicial luminaries of the Department of Justice for the consideration of Parliament.
If I may say so, I think that even those very learned gentlemen should take into account that this is an aspect of a matter that is of interest to all honourable members, of interest I am sure to the government, and certainly of interest to the Chair, namely that there must be a point where an omnibus bill becomes more than an omnibus bill and is not acceptable from a procedural standpoint.
Mr. Lamoureux, in order to emphasize this point a third time in his ruling, stated:
Having said this, I would have to rule-if I must rule-that the government has followed the practice that has been accepted in the past, rightly or wrongly, but that we may have reached the point where we are going too far and that omnibus bills seek to take in too much. All honourable members should be alerted to this difficulty of which the Chair is fully conscious.
My colleagues and I will show the Chair that this bill, in the words of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, "goes too far" and, therefore, it is unacceptable "from a procedural standpoint." Mr. Speaker Lamoureux suggested in his ruling that when another omnibus bill is proposed to the House it should be scrutinized at first reading, when all hon. members would be given an opportunity to express their views, and the Chair could express its view as to whether the bill goes too far or is acceptable from a procedural point of view. This, Madam Speaker, is what I am doing.
To establish the omnific and disparate nature of Bill C-94, one need go no further than to the press backgrounder supplied by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) last Friday after tabling the energy security bill here in the House. While this bill contains eight parts plus six schedules and would amend 11 existing acts and create five new acts, the press backgrounder supplied by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources divides the contents of this bill into seven separate stand-alone, independent subject matters. From the minister's statements these are, first:
A. Petroleum Incentives and Canadian Ownership and Control.
This part "A" is made up of the new petroleum incentives program act; the new Canadian Ownership and Control Determination Act; amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act, as well as amendments to the Foreign Investment Review Act.
This group of two amendments to existing acts plus the creation of two brand new acts, although spread throughout the bill, do in fact stand alone as a single item. The principle involved here, in the words of the minister is:
To implement and support the new incentives system for the oil and gas industry envisaged in the National Energy Program.
There is nothing else in Bill C-94 dependent upon these provisions, nor do these provisions depend on any other cautions or parts of the energy security bill. Those two new acts and two new amendments are in fact a stand-alone part that in no way are related to the rest of the bill or depend on the rest of the bill. Nor does the rest of the bill depend upon these parts.
Part B of the bill is energy monitoring. In the words of the minister this involves:
The new energy monitoring act replaces the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act and will enable the federal government to obtain on a regular basis complete information on the activities and financial performance of enterprises that have more than $10 million in oil and gas annual revenue or $10 million in assets.
Here again, Madam Speaker, these provisions stand absolutely alone. The principle involved here is to require oil and gas companies to supply the government with certain information about their activities. This has nothing to do with Part A of the bill, and no other part of the act depends on this. This is a stand alone provision. Whether it is desirable or not is something which this House should have the right to decide. It is in no way connected to other parts of the bill.
Part C deals with energy administration. This portion, which the minister has called energy administration, includes the oil export charge; the transportsation fuel compensation recovery charge; the petroleum compensation charge; the special compensation charge; the Canadian ownership special charge; the Canadian ownership account; the role of Petro-Canada and new energy corporations.
I would argue that these provisions, grouped by the minister in something called energy administration, are themselves an omnibus, omnific or omnifarious collection of disparate items that perhaps ought not to be included under one heading or one bill.
For example, the oil export charge has to do with the fact that Canadian crude oil is priced by government rather than by market considerations. An oil export charge is provided to collect the difference between that which is charged by foreign purchasers of Canadian oil and that charged Canadian purchasers. The ownership special charge, on the other hand, is moneys collected from the consumers of gasoline and heating oil to be used by Petro-Canada for the purchase of Petrofina. As such, they have no relationship with each other. It has nothing whatsoever to do with export charges or Canadian oil pricing regimes. Also, Madam Speaker, the amendments to the Petro-Canada Act and the provision for the creation of new Crown corporations are quite separate and distinct from other parts or this part of the energy security bill.
Most certainly those eight items, Madam Speaker, which the minister has called energy administration, are totally distinct, separate and in no way connected to other parts of the
March 1, 1982

act. They neither depend on other parts, nor are other parts dependent on them.
The other four separate parts of the bill as identified by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are amendments to the National Energy Board Act to broaden tht board's jurisdiction with respect to power lines, allocation of oil and gas, and to redefine the board's jurisdiction in relation to oil and gas exports. Another part is amendments to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, which again is separate, distinct and has nothing to do with the rest of the act. There are also amendments to the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, enacted last year, and here again these amendments have nothing to do with the rest of the energy security bill.
Finally, there is the creation of the motor vehicle fuel consumption standards bill, which would empower the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to establish a voluntary fuel consumption program. Thus, Madam Speaker, even using the minister's groupings-and as I have indicated one of his groupings is in my view all too inclusive-there are seven distinct, separate and stand-alone subjects dealt with under this one bill.
Citation 703 of Beauchesne reads in part, and 1 quote:
Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill.
Now, that citation is attributable to a ruling by the Chair on May 6, 1971, as reported in Journals, page 532, in which the Chair said:
It follows, of course, there should be a theme of relevancy between the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to the subject of the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title. It is of course a matter of judgment in each case as to when a bill offends to the point that it should be ruled as unacceptable because it contains disparate matters in the same bill.
The Speaker went on to say that in the case of the bill under consideration he did not think there were disparate matters being considered. However, Madam Speaker, I think it is clear from the minister's own press release that in this case there certainly are disparate matters being considered, and there is no umbrella and no theme of relevancy. The Oxford Concise Dictionary defines "relevant" as "bearing upon or pertaining to". So if there is some theme of relevancy, then one part of the bill must bear upon another. Yet we know from the minister's own comments that there are at least seven parts to this bill, each of which has no bearing upon any of the others.
The government might argue, Madam Speaker, that this bill flows from the National Energy Program and that provides the necessary relevancy. To begin with, that would not strictly be true. While most of the items were mentioned in the National Energy Program, there are parts of this bill which do not flow from the National Energy Program. They are separate.
Secondly, and more importantly, if that argument is to be given any weight then one clearly would have to accept the principle that a single bill could be brought in covering all intended legislation for a session, rationalized on the basis that all its component parts flow from the throne speech which commenced the session. As Mr. Speaker Lamoureux pointed out, that obviously would be going too far.
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
Presumably the government will also argue that the component parts have to do with energy and thus that provides the theme of relevancy to the bill. Well, Madam Speaker, to begin with, all the component parts do not deal with energy. However, if that argument were put 1 would only say that to accept it would be to accept that it would be satisfactory to bring in a single bill covering income tax, excise tax, appropriations, borrowing authority, and for that matter unemployment insurance, since all of these deal with money. It that is the theme, then we could have that kind of grouping.
As 1 pointed out, Madam Speaker, the bill includes more than just energy items. As one example, the amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act do not deal with energy companies exclusively. The bill has consequences for the entire capital markets of this country, and is not restricted in any way to energy.
When I first received a draft copy of this bill, Madam Speaker, I had the Library of Parliament undertake a study on the rationale for House of Commons procedures. They prepared the study and 1 would just like to read one short passage from it. It says:
The passage of a bill has only one objective in procedural terms: the making of a new law or the amendment of a law already existing. This implicit rule will sometimes lead to the division of a bill in two or more bills-for the sake of precision-on the other hand it may also lead to the fusion of two or three connected bills if they refer to the same principle. This process can happen at committee stage upon recommendation from the House. This implicit rule will also forbid the existence of omnibus bills dealing with separate matters referring to different principles-by definition a law is a statement on the application of a principle-not a hodge-podge of intentions.
So to conclude my first point, Madam Speaker, based on the evidence supplied by the minister himself as to the components of the bill, based on Citation 703 of Beauchesne, plus the excellent ruling of your predecessor, the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, I submit that the Chair has no choice but to send this bill back to the draftsman so that it might be broken up into more appropriate parts for proper consideration by Parliament.
The second point I would raise, Madam Speaker, is the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of having a coherent and proper second reading debate and vote on this bill as presently structured. Citation 734 of Beauchesne states, and I quote:
The second reading is the most important stage through which the bill is required to pass; for its whole principle is then at issue and is affirmed or denied by a vote of the House.
1 think it goes without saying, Madam Speaker, that it is impossible to have a vote on the principle of a bill which, on evidence presented by the minister himself, contains at least seven different principles. And I would argue there are perhaps ten different principles involved in this bill. It is surely reasonable to anticipate, Madam Speaker, that some members of this House might be in favour of the petroleum incentives program to provide grants to companies primarily Canadian-owned for the capital costs involved in drilling exploratory wells but, on the other hand, to be opposed to a special tax which goes directly to the account of a Crown corporation; or to be in

March 1, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
favour of the creation of new Crown corporations by the minister but opposed to the provision of subsidies to Syncrude and Suncor.
I could go on but I think it must be patently obvious to the Chair, indeed to everyone, that one cannot have a single vote on principle when there are so many different principles involved. That is especially true for this bill where there is every likelihood that many members of this House will be for and against various principles expressed by the parts of this bill.
It may be argued by the government, Madam Speaker, that a vote on second reading is not really a vote of approval for each and every one of the different principles at issue, but rather a vote to send the bill on for further study. This argument has been put in the past, but it is quite clear from various rulings made by the Chair that second reading is most definitely a vote in favour of or against the principle of the bill. For example, as reported in the April 2, 1974 Votes and Proceedings, page 90, in ruling on the admissibility of a report stage amendment by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), the Chair ruled the amendment out of order on the basis, and I quote:
The amendment . . . would, in the opinion of the Chair, negative the principle of the bill as determined by this House on second reading.
On July 2, 1975, as reported in Votes and Proceedings, page 677, Mr. Speaker Jerome, ruling on a report stage amendment proposed by myself, ruled that that amendment was inadmissible and out of order, and stated:
With the greatest respect to the hon. member who expressed his intentions clearly, it seems inescapable that the amendments fly directly in the face of the basic principle of the bill, and in order to confine it to its narrowest terms at report stage, they are just not procedurally acceptable to the Chair.
As a final example, as reported on June 29, 1976, in Votes and Proceedings at page 1384, it is stated:
There is a rule that amendments after second reading cannot contravene the principle adopted by the House on second reading.
Thus, not only does the citation in Beauchesne state that second reading is a vote on the principle of the bill, but various rulings by the Chair have clearly established this fact as well as the examples I have pointed out. The fact that the principle of the bill is established and concurred in at second reading very seriously proscribes the types of amendments which might further be put to the House. Hence, we have the double dilemma of the impossibility of having a second reading vote on a bill which contains so many disparate principles, as well as the very serious difficulty in which the Chair would be placed in trying to ascertain what types of amendments are acceptable or not during further stages of a bill's consideration. Thus, my second point is that this bill contains much more than one principle, and it is therefore impossible to have a single vote on the principle of the bill, which is the requirement of second reading.
I would now like to deal with the problems the Chair faces by virtue of the fact that certain types of omnibus bills have
been ruled acceptable in the past. In certainly recognize that in many instances omnibus bills are not only properly admissible, but, indeed, are also the best way to proceed since the grouping of certain amendments or certain items aids in providing a coherence to the debate and discussion, and attempting to handle the subject matter by a different set of separate bills would not only be wasteful of time but would also be confusing. An example of this type would be Bill C-40, passed by this House on July 9, 1980. Its title was "an act to amend the Pension Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans' Allowances Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act". This was an omnibus bill in the sense that it would amend a number of acts under one bill; but there was clearly a fundamental, underlying, principle, namely, the increasing of pensions to veterans and others affected by the war.
Another type is the Canada Post Corporation Act, which set up a Crown corporation for the post office and amended 14 other statutes to make them consistent with the new statute dealing with the post office. It is clear that grouping these is an aid, not a hindrance, to proper parliamentary discussion and decision.
Another type, which I frankly think gets a little close to the edge, is Bill C-43, referred to as the freedom of information act, but in fact it is not entitled that. In fact, it is entitled "an act to enact the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, to amend the Federal Court Act and the Canada Evidence Act, and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof'. This bill seeks to create two new acts as part of one bill. While I have some reservations about the way this bill was drafted, in fact the grouping of these two separate subjects under one bill is an aid to the discussion, and there is certainly a single underlying principle covering both of these, in spite of the draftsmen having proposed two acts and, I think, erroneously.
On several occasions in the past, points of order have been raised as to the appropriateness of omnibus bills, and the Chair has been called upon to make rulings. I would like to deal with what I believe to be the last three occasions on which the Chair has made such rulings and specifically addressed this question of what is an appropriate and inappropriate grouping of subjects in an omnibus bill.
Within the last two weeks, of course, the Chair was asked to consider Bill C-93, which combined the Borrowing Authority Act with amendments to the Excise Tax Act. The Chair ruled that she could find nothing wrong with grouping borrowing authority with a bill based on Ways and Means; thus, Bill C-93 was in order. I only want to emphasize to the Chair the narrowness of that ruling in that Your Honour did not discuss or comment on the general question of omnibus bills, but merely made the decision that a Borrowing Authority Act could be included with a bill based on a Ways and Means resolution. That was a decision which we argued against, but, nonetheless, a decision which has no bearing on the question
March 1, 1982

under discussion now, which does not involve a borrowing authority being attached to Ways and Means, which was the simple question Your Honour had addressed in your ruling.
The last major or substantial argument and decision by the Chair on an omnibus bill is recorded in Hansard on May 11, 1977, dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code. At that time, Mr. Speaker Jerome ruled that since the point of order was raised at second reading, he could find no authority which would allow the Chair to divide the bill into its component parts at that stage and, second, that the use of omnibus amending bills was enshrined in our practices. The point to be emphasized is that Mr. Speaker Jerome was speaking of omnibus amending bills. Throughout that judgment, he spoke of omnibus amending bills.
There is clearly a distinction to be made between an omnibus bill which would amend a number of existing statutes and an omnibus bill which would create a number of new statutes. Existing statutes have been passed by previous parliaments. They have a principle which has been authorized and okayed. To amend these, even several of them at the same time, seems to me to be taking a much smaller step than creating a whole new series of acts since, by definition, a separate act has a separate principle. If the principles of two acts were the same, there would not be two acts. They would be one act.
I would also like to point out that in his ruling on May 11, 1977, Mr. Speaker Jerome was very troubled by the difficulties caused even with omnibus amending bills, let alone omnibus creating bills. Indeed, he was moved to say:
This still leaves and it has in the past, every time this kind of argument has been put forward, some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of bills do in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint of the hon. member that a bill of this kind gives the government, under our practices, the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related subjects.
He went on to propose a potential or partial means for dealing with this dilemma in the case of that particular bill. However, since the Energy Security Act, Bill C-94, which we are considering, must be considered in Committee of the Whole, the remedy suggested by Mr. Speaker Jerome to deal with that dilemma does not apply in this instance and is not a remedy which is available to this House. One could safely conclude that Mr. Speaker Jerome would have been exceedingly troubled by the Energy Security Act.
I have already mentioned the only other ruling to which I would like to refer at this point, namely, the ruling on January 26, 1971, of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, who said:
For hon. members to express their view in Committee of the Whole on a particular clause of the bill is not the same as being given an opportunity to express their views on a clause of the bill by way of a recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux was saying that it is an essential element of the reasonable conduct of this House, when dealing with legislation, that hon. members have the ability to call for a recorded vote of this House on each and every clause. Because of this grouping we have here with the ways and means resolution which requires the bill to go to Committee of the Whole, that essential feature which Mr. Speaker Lamoureux identified is not available to us. The remedy for that
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
problem posed by Mr. Speaker Jerome is not available to us either. Therefore, we find that between those two Speakers, the concerns they have raised and flagged as being serious concerns are ones which cannot be addressed by any available procedures in this House except by splitting up this bill into reasonable parts. Thus, both Speakers have said that it is essential that hon. members of the House require a standing vote of the House and not just a vote in Committee of the Whole on every clause of the bill.
As Your Honour will recognize, this is impossible concerning Bill C-94. Such a requirement might not exist for an omnibus amending bill. If such a requirement exists for an omnibus amending bill, about which they were speaking, it most certainly and absolutely exists for an omnibus-creating bill which is creating brand new statutes. Surely, if we are to have any adherence to the hundreds of years of tradition in this place, there must be that ability for the House to express itself on each and every clause. It is quite clear from rulings of Your Honour's predecessors that the conditions placed upon the reasonableness of omnibus bills are conditions which are not met and cannot be met in the case of Bill C-94, the Energy Security Act. Thus, the Chair, in the words of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, should send this bill "back to the legislative mill, to where bills are prepared, to the judicial luminaries of the Department of Justice for the consideration of Parliament".
The fourth difficulty or reason why this bill should be sent back to the draftsman arises from the fact that in its present form it needs to be treated in Committee of the Whole.
A part of this bill, called by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the energy administration part, deals with taxes and therefore was preceded by a Ways and Means resolution. That means that, according to our rules, it must be treated in Committee of the Whole. In Committee of the Whole, Madam Speaker, there is no ability to bring in officials or outside experts in a way that members can address questions directly to those officials or outside experts. There is no ability to go into the detailed clause-by-clause consideration that is necessary, desirable and prudent when considering new and complicated legislation-and this is certainly new and certainly complicated.
I think I can say without exaggeration that on every piece of legislation that I have followed carefully through committee there has been, as a result of the committee's work, several and in some cases numerous amendments brought forward and passed by the committee because of anomalies, inaccuracies or drafting errors brought to light by reason of this very useful committee consideration.
There is a paper that, Madam Speaker, I had the Library of Parliament prepare for me on the rationale for House of Commons procedure. I would like to quote from that paper:
Bills that are retained in Committee of the Whole (budget bills) are very similar from one year to the next and can allow general discussions because there are fewer things to be changed. The Standing Committee is thus a committee specializing in a certain area and it can review a bill in an expert manner. The task of a committee is thus to permit the possibility of a detailed discussion.
15484

March 1, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
The fact that we treat most bills by sending them to a standing committee is a very valuable part of the scrutiny that the House of Commons gives legislation. By and large it is budget bills that come through Committee of the Whole- amendments to income tax, to the excise tax. There are annual kinds of changes that come here and it is not necessary to go through the same kind of detailed discussion.
Furthermore, most of the time they are preceded by a six-day budget debate. They are also preceded by Ways and Means resolutions which also provide the House with an opportunity for examination. So the treatment of bills based on ways and means motions should not be confused, united and joined with bills that most properly are treated by a standing committee because of the two different intents and purposes of the types of procedures.
Moreover, Madam Speaker, there is no reason for us to have this uniting of Ways and Means motions with the rest of the bill, because the Ways and Means part stands alone and does not depend on the rest of the bill. The fact of the matter is that the non-Ways and Means portion of this bill are quite separate. It can go to standing committee. The Ways and Means portions are in no way related to the non-Ways and Means portion. There is absolutely no reason for them to be attached. There is no hindrance to the discussion and debate on the bill that would occur as a result of these being separated. So there is that fourth reason for ruling this legislation out of order, namely, that it is an inappropriate mixing of Ways and Means and non-Ways and Means.
The fifth reason I believe this bill should be ruled out of order has to do with the schedules. Citation 708 of Beauchesne states:
At the end of many bills there is found a set of schedules which contain matters of detail dependent on the provisions of the bill. A schedule is part of the bill and is dependent on one or more of the preceding clauses, by means of which the provisions of the schedule are carried into effect.
Schedules 1 and II of the Energy Security Act are schedules of the regular, ordinary type in that they contain detailed amounts respecting the oil export tax and the transportation fuel recovery tax.
Schedules III, IV, V and VI, however, are separate, distinct acts. Their connection with the main body of the bill is essentially nil. For example, Schedule III is claimed to be dependent on Section 113 of the main body of the bill. Section 113 states:
The Petroleum Incentives Program Act set out in Schedule MI or any provision thereof shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation.
It would be a perversion in the extreme to suggest that Schedule III, a complete act, is simply a matter of detail dependent on the provisions of Section 113 in the main body of the bill.
Similarly, Schedules IV, V and VI are each separate and distinct, completely new acts and connected to the main body of the bill by Clauses 114, 115 and 116 respectively, each of which merely states that the schedule shall come into effect on a date to be set by proclamation. To suggest that these clauses, stating that the acts shall come into effect on a date set by
proclamation, legitimize the connection of the four separate, brand-new acts to this bill is quite frankly a perversion of the proper form of a bill.
I would bring your attention, Madam Speaker, to another practice where we have this kind of perverse behaviour. It arises out of Citation 777 of Beauchesne, which states:
Schedules to a bill are treated in the same manner as the clauses. They are considered, as a rule, after new clauses are disposed of. If a schedule is disagreed to, another cannot be offered to replace it, until the remaining schedules have been disposed of.
In other words, Madam Speaker, each schedule is treated in committee as if it were a single clause. To treat a whole new act as if it were a single clause is a total violation of our traditions and practices.
Erskine May at page 465 defines a bill as a draft statute. He says:
A public bill is in the form of a draft statute, and contains the following parts-
He then talks about the various parts. Beauchesne at Citation 703(2) states:
Some of the constituent parts of a bill are essential; some are optional. The title is an essential part; the preamble is not.
Since we know that amending bills do not have short titles, we know that a long title is an essential part of the bill. Indeed, Erskine May says that:
When the term "title" is used without qualification it usually refers to the long title.
In other words, the requirement in Beauchesne that the bill must have a title is a requirement that there must be a long title to the bill.
If we look at the Energy Security Act, Schedules III, IV, V and VI, we see that each of these is a separate act. Presumably, as separate acts they could have been brought in under separate bills. That is the definition of a bill. A bill is the draft statute or act. So we could presumably, if we were passing an act that is properly constituted, bring in a bill and pass that act. If we did that with these schedules, each of these bills would be out of order, for the simple reason that there is no long title. There is no long title for the petroleum incentives program act. There is no long title to the energy monitoring act and no long title to the Canadian ownership and control determination act. If we allow this bill to stay as presently constituted, we will be creating an act unlike any other in the Statutes of Canada in that it would be an act without a long title.
I have looked through the Statutes of Canada and I can find no example of an act or statute that does not have a long title.
I asked the Library of Parliament where this practice came from. They said that, as far as they knew, it was some 500 or 600 years ago. Acts have long titles. They are filed for reasonableness in alphabetical order of long titles.
March 1, 1982

In this bill we have four acts with no long titles. They will be created in a way that if the government attempted to do this by separate bills, they would be ruled out of order on the strength of citations in both Beauchesne and May. They are trying to do through an omnific kind of hodge-podge something that cannot be done if it is attempted in a regular way. I wish to quote Citation 1 of Beauchesne:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, have always been kept steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament; these are: To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner; to enable every member to express his opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time; to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.
This bill violates a number of those fundamental precepts of parliamentary law. It is impossible to have a reasonable transaction of public business in an orderly manner when one has this kind of omnibus bill to consider. It would be a travesty and a precedent of scary proportions to allow this type of bill to go forward with so many disparate and different items collected together for no other reason than to obfuscate and confuse. It will not be possible to have a reasonable and intelligent discussion and debate on the various parts when they are all collected.
The minister of energy will be talking about great things having to do with Canadianization. That will be the sum total of his contribution. The other side will be clouded over trying to identify the ramifications of the amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act which extends beyond energy companies. What about the Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act which flies in the face of the commitment of the government to cut red tape and cut the paper work burden? What about the implications of all those things? These will be all obfuscated as a result of trying to discuss that item and at the same time trying to discuss the petroleum incentives program and so on.
I want to make it clear to the House that I am not interested in breaking this bill up for the purpose of carrying on an interminable debate. Before Christmas I notified the minister through his parliamentary secretary that if they wished to separate what amounts to Part I, the petroleum incentives and Canadian ownership and control part, I would recommend to my caucus that this legislation be treated with some dispatch and carried through. The minister countered that if I would agree to treat it all with some dispatch, he would go along with it.
That was not something I was prepared to recommend to my caucus, nor would I guess that my caucus would accept it. I am certainly willing to negotiate with the minister the manner in which we might treat this bill in a more reasonable fashion. Some arrangements can be made. Parts of the bill are not controversial and, if properly formulated as separate pieces of legislation, could be dealt with quite quickly. There are other parts that need and deserve careful committee study in the standing committee with outside experts. People will be affected and influenced by this bill. They should have an
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
opportunity to bring their concerns to the attention of this House.
There are the taxation parts which by our rules must be considered in Committee of the Whole. We would be prepared to consider them. I have no interest in delaying, but I do have an interest in protecting the integrity of the House. I fear that if this precedent is allowed to stand, we will have reached that day when we will have a single bill covering the entire legislative program. It will be rationalized on the basis that this is what was promised in the throne speech. The bill will be called "the betterment of Canada act", and who could argue against that?
We do not argue against energy security. We are 100 per cent in favour of it. We just do not think that title is an adequate description of everything that is contained in this bill.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I apologize to you for the fact that you are being kept in the chair so long this afternoon to deal with a whole series of points.
Listening to the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), I was reminded of my time as a practising lawyer. Lawyers used to argue that the weaker the case, the longer the argument. My impression this afternoon is that my friend must be defending a very weak case indeed. On the reverse theory, the better the case the shorter the argument, I will keep my remarks as brief as possible.
First, Madam Speaker, I should like to point out to my hon. colleague that Bill C-94 has a single theme and objective. The theme and objective are both indicated in the short title of the bill itself, the Energy Security Act, 1982. The bill is the main legislative component of the National Energy Program. As you know, Madam Speaker, the National Energy Program was a wide-ranging set of proposals which attempted to provide a specific and stable planning framework for the energy sector in Canada. The program had three objectives: first of all, it was to establish the basis for Canadians to seize control of their own energy future through security of supply and ultimate independence from the world oil market. Second, we wanted to offer all Canadians a real opportunity to participate in the energy industry in general and the petroleum industry in particular, and to share in the benefits of industry expansion.
Finally, we wanted to establish a petroleum pricing and revenue-sharing regime that recognizes the requirement of fairness to all Canadians. As far as Bill C-94 is concerned, each component of our bill on energy security is based on the objectives and philosophy contained in the National Energy Program. I am now going to deal with supply, demand, Canadian ownership in the industry and a reasonable pricing system. All of these aspects are part and parcel of the bill, and I maintain that we cannot deal intelligently and consistently with the problem of energy security unless we look at all of

March 1, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
these aspects simultaneously. That is what this bill is trying to do. For instance, where oil supply is concerned, I may refer you, Madam Speaker, to the amendments to the Petroleum Administration Act, which will make it possible to establish adequate and sure prices for new supplies, so as to attract investors, and to the petroleum incentives program act, which will provide a direct incentive to investment in this sector. Furthermore, the tax measures contained in the Petroleum Administration Act implement the new system set forth in the National Energy Program and designed to provide adequate incentive to the industry, while avoiding unfair windfall gains. Finally, to continue with the measures contained in the bill that are aimed at improving the oil supply outlook, these include amendments to the Petro-Canada Act that will enable the corporation to act as a leader and catalyst in the implementation of these measures.
Thus, Madam Speaker, we have here a long list of the measures contained in this bill which have to do with oil supply.
I shall now deal with the measures concerned with oil demand. I am referring to the amendments to the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, which is intended to encourage a reduction in oil consumption by assisting the substitution of more abundant fuels for oil. The same applies to the motor vehicle fuel consumption standards act, which is part of a general conservation and liquid fuels policy designed for Canadian needs and conditions. In addition, amendments to the National Energy Board Act will enable the Board to ensure that oil and gas are distributed fairly across Canada, while amendments to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979, provide the means for a more effective response to the need for restrictions in emergency situations.
So we have now dealt with the matter of supply and demand. Another aspect of the National Energy Program is concerned with opportunities for Canadian ownership in the industry. Elere, Madam Speaker, I am referring to the petroleum incentives program act, which I mentioned earlier, and the Canadian ownership and control determination act. I am also referring to amendments that will make it possible to establish new corporations acting as agents of Eler Majesty. I am referring to the establishment of the Canadian Ownership Account and to amendments that will be made to the Canada Business Corporations Act and the energy monitoring act which will enable the Petroleum Monitoring Agency to play a key role in monitoring the financial position and ownership of the major oil companies. Two technical amendments will be made to the Foreign Investment Review Act which will not modify the interpretation of the act by the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
Finally, Madam Speaker, one of the main objectives of the National Energy Program was to establish a system in the energy sector that is fair to all Canadians. And that is the intent of amendments to the Petroleum Administration Act, for instance, in terms of the prices Canadian consumers will be
paying for oil and gas and of sharing oil export charge revenues with the producing provinces. That is also the objective of amendments to the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act, which provide for financial assistance to consumers wishing to convert to fuels in more abundant supply than oil.
Thus, Madam speaker, the components of the proposed legislation are all interdependent aspects of an over-all energy strategy that will make Canada independent of the world oil market and make it possible for Canadians to benefit substantially from increasing revenue from and expansion of the oil and gas industry in Canada.
My colleague has referred to a number of precedents. Most of his arguments, Madam Speaker, were heard during the debate on Bill C-93, and I am not going to discuss the matter again. However, I should like to point out that, as my hon. colleague indicated, there are many precedents for the fact that one bill can include a number of subjects provided there is a single central theme. And as I indicated earlier, this bill has a single central theme, and all components of the bill are closely linked to it. My colleague referred to the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on January 26, 1971. I simply want to remind the House that on that occasion, the Speaker pointed out the long-standing practice of introducing omnibus bills in the House. I want to refer to another ruling made by the Acting Speaker Mr. Honey on May 4, 1971, as reported on pages 5585 and 5586 of Hansard, when the Acting Speaker specified that the issues dealt with in a bill must be relevant to the subject indicated in the long title. He also noted that each case must be analysed to determine whether a bill is unacceptable because it contains too many disparate elements. Finally, Madam Speaker, on February 16, 1982, you turned down a request concerning Bill C-93 stating that such provisions could be included in one bill on condition that the required notice be given.
My colleague tried to say that he was shocked by the schedules contained in the bill. I want to point out, Madam Speaker, that the bill was prepared in this way to facilitate its consideration by members of this House. It would have been just as easy to introduce a bill starting with Clause 1 and ending on the last page with Clause 356 and simply to line up one after the other the various elements contained in this bill which, as I have already said, are all interrelated. To make it easier for parliamentarians and the public to examine this bill, we have attempted to group subject matters so that, during the debate, we may truly focus our attention on clauses of the bill instead of simply having a succession of unrelated provisions.
There is no doubt that every provision contained in this bill and the schedules can be debated and amended in the House. As for us, we are willing to debate it without delay. My colleague also argued that the bill is such that some members might be willing to agree to certain provisions while objecting to others, and that they could therefore not be asked to vote on
March 1, 1982

second reading on such a bill. I must remind him that this is the case with almost every bill introduced in the House. I think there must be few bills about which certain opposition members do not say: For my part, I would be willing to agree to such a clause, but I find other clauses inadequate. Such bills are still debated, and no one argues that they should be divided simply because the opposition is willing to accept some parts of them and opposes others.
In addition, my colleague stated that he would readily agree that the provisions of the bill which involve payments to companies be passed very quickly by the House. However, he noted that some provisions involving taxes should be debated at length, that his party is not sure to agree, and so on. This also is too easy, Madam Speaker. The implication would be that the House could easily provide for expenditures but when it came to collect funds for those expenditures, it would be another matter altogether. As I said, what is involved here is a total package. This bill includes proposals for significant expenditures and grants to corporations, but it also includes significant and most varied taxation features to finance those expenditures. I submit that my colleague has no valid point when he suggests that the bill should be divided to allow easy passage of the expenditures, but that all sorts of tactics will be resorted to in order to deny the government the means of paying for the proposed expenditures. Madam Speaker, I said my argument would be brief, because 1 feel it is valid and I see no need to review one by one the points made by my colleague at considerable length. 1 know that most of these points have already been covered during the week of February 16, when Bill C-93 was debated, and I see no need to delve unduly into the points made by my colleague.
1 want to flatly reject the point made by my colleague that these provisions, the various chapters or parts of the bill are not connected. Quite the opposite, they are closely connected, closely interdependent. They have to do with that basic goal that we as a government have been putting forward since 1980, the goal of securing for Canadians energy security through a reasonable price structure, by acting on supply and demand and at the ownership level, in order that Canadians may have a share in that industry.
1 will conclude with what might be the most telling argument. When I was a lawyer 1 learned that the best argument should be saved for the last.


Mr. Rose:: And the loudest.


Mr. Blackburn:: Is that why you are in politics?


Marc Lalonde: My colleagues opposite are afraid. They should not worry; the arguments will come from themselves.
My colleague referred to a number of precedents and developed his argument in relation to them. I have said a few words about that, but I think the best argument, again in support of what we have been doing, has come not from my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre, but from his
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
predecessor, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), when he was energy critic. On January 27, 1981, as recorded at page 6596 of Hansard, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre said that the House of Commons should be given the opportunity to consider the National Energy Program in, and I quote:
-one place, in one forum, not spread among five different forums as a result of the different pieces of legislation?
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre thought this would result in a clearer understanding of the National Energy Program. I say amen to that, and I hope it will have the support of the opposition.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker,
I do not want to add unduly to the length of deliberations on this particular point. There has been a repetition of some of the arguments in relation to Bill C-93. It is true that the Chair did find against us. We may have to accept the ruling, but we do not agree with it.
I come back to the charge that it is not right to mix Ways and Means motions with a number of other subjects. This time it is not just a case of borrowing authority with a few Ways and Means motions. The Ways and Means motions referred to in this bill number seven or eight, and then there are all the other matters referred to by my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), and by the minister-the Petroleum Administration Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Petro-Canada Act, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act and the Oil Substitution and Conservation Act. Then there is the repeal of the Energy Supplies Emergency Act and then a further act to amend an amended act. There is also new legislation. What is the forum, Committee of the Whole or a standing committee? That is one of the points.
What the minister has done here again is to adhere to the well-known principle which seems to guide this administration, that the end justifies the means. We say this has to do with a particular plan dealing with an aspect of energy, but to say that it is an Energy Security Act is grandiose boasting because it does not secure energy for this country at all. All it touches is the petroleum part, and it has nothing to do with other forms of energy.
There is no way we can take all these references-acts here, acts there, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Foreign Investment Review Act and all those I have cited-and say that there is one principle to this bill. All one can say-and perhaps this is what the Chair will come to-is that this is a bill and that the principle of the bill is to amend certain acts in relation to petroleum and the taxation and production thereof. That is all. However, should amendments be put forward, there will come a very difficult question, and that is the question in relation to which Mr. Speaker Jerome got into trouble. With respect to the criminal law bill which eliminated the death penalty, an amendment to vary the form of death penalty was deemed to be contrary to the principle of the bill

March 1, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
since the abolition of capital punishment was the principle of that bill. I continue to insist that was not so. There were pages and pages of amendments dealing with all other types of crime from A to Z, and the same problem faces the presiding officers in this case, whoever they may be.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that if he wishes to criticize decisions of former Speakers, that is not very relevant to the debate we are having now. I would very much appreciate it and it would be very helpful to the Chair-this is the reason the Chair has recognized several speakers-if the question itself were not debated but the point of order were discussed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect, I am discussing the point of order, and it is by showing the error in relation to a previous omnibus bill that one shows the error that is easily led into with this type of bill. It is wrong. After all, this House must be given an issue on which it can declare itself. Hon. members of this House might be strongly disposed to voting against certain features of this bill-let us assume taxation-yet they find that they are fully supportive of some of the many other features of the bill. How are they going to vote? That is something about which the Chair has to concern itself. How is the House going to proceed with this type of bill?
What we are talking about are the great omnibus bills that have been put forward. This is a highly complicated and very extensive bill, one of the most important to come before the House in years. Yet we seem to dismiss it because it concerns energy. The government wishes to tidy things up, and therefore the House will have to deal with all these matters in one bill.
One could as readily say that we could deal with the problems of agriculture-the price of beef, the price of pork, support prices, the foreign market-in one bill. In a sense, that is wrong. It is impossible to do so and that is what I wish to underline.
My colleague has covered the subject very carefully and the minister has presented the case for the government. I wish to emphasize the particular difficulty the House may have in coming to a resolution of particular points when the bill is referred to the committee that deals with energy. What about the rule that Ways and Means motions should go to Committee of the Whole?
Those are the points that present difficulty when we encounter them in an omnibus bill.


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order but I shall be as brief as I can. I think my colleagues, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), have covered the arguments very well. There are a few points that I want to reinforce, however, which are covered in Citation 703 of Beauchesne regarding the umbrella caused by the terminology in the long title of the bill. Citation 703 also deals with the point of relevancy among the contents and
Citation 734 deals with the principle at stake. After that, Madam Speaker, I have a few general remarks to make.
The minister said that the single theme of this bill was energy security. That simply is not the case, Madam Speaker; it deals with a whole range of subjects that have nothing to do with energy security. He also said that the bill is the main legislative element of the National Energy Program. That is not the case either. There are 18 different parts in the bill, of which five sections and one part relate to the National Energy Program while 12 sections and part of one other section are not mentioned anywhere in the National Energy Program. The bill does not constitute the main legislative element of the National Energy Program nor does it deal with energy security.
Citation 703 of Beauchesne reads in part as follows:
They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill.
The operative word is "umbrella", Madam Speaker. There is no umbrella in this bill. How can there be an umbrella when it deals with 15 different acts in a wide range of legislation? How can the Foreign Investment Review Act and the motor vehicle fuel consumption standards act be said to fall under the same umbrella, for example? Citation 703 also deals with the theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill. How are hydro transmission corridors relevant to the motor vehicle fuel consumption standards act?
The point that the minister was trying to make-and I do not think he succeeded-was that each part of the bill is interdependent on the others. That is simply not true. Most parts of the bill stand on their own. How can the Canada Business Corporations Act be relevant to the transportation fuel compensation recovery charge? How can the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979, relate to the Canadian ownership and control determination act? They are poles apart.
I will not go further in demonstrating my point under Citation 703, Madam Speaker. Citation 704 of Beauchesne deals with the question of the whole principle at stake. The hon. member for Calgary Centre dealt with that at some length. There are seven different principles at stake in this bill and the minister admitted that in his press release. Is energy security the whole principle that is at stake here? It is not at issue at all. Many other subjects are dealt with in the bill that have no bearing on energy security. I have made the point that they do not relate to the National Energy Program either.
Let me conclude with some general observations, Madam Speaker. I have spent a good part of my life in the oil and gas business. This is the most comprehensive and complex document that I have ever seen. It makes Mr. Benson's white paper look like child's play. It is a gross abuse of a member's ability to perform well for his constituents. I am not trying to argue a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, but I say to you in all sincerity that I do not think six members of this House can debate this bill intelligently. I cannot, and I have been in the industry for 20 years. I will have to get some help. I will need expert witnesses if I am to serve my constituents and I believe
March 1, 1982

that every member of the House will need help in order to debate the bill intelligently. Apart from the politics of it, this legislation is highly controversial and will have far-reaching effects. Surely it is incumbent upon the government to allow time for proper debate of its contents in the interests of public disclosure.
I believe that to present a bill on such a complex subject in this fashion is a gross abuse of the government's power. I let my argument stand there, Madam Speaker.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, we have heard three interjections from the other side. I should like to emphasize a couple of points in response to some of the concerns expressed.
In response to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), it is fair to say that the bill is complex, comprehensive and very complicated; there is no getting away from it. The bottom line, which really determines whether or not a bill is in order, is whether it deals with one subject. It does. It is all energy-related; there is no question about it. Basically it implements aspects of the national energy policy which were not implemented in Bill C-48. I think this is the only manner in which it can be done in a cohesive, rational and orderly fashion. Notwithstanding the fact that the bill is complicated, it contains a couple of entire acts for which there are precedents for it to be in order.
Going back to the early 1970s, the Unemployment Insurance Act was very comprehensive and was of similar magnitude. The government organization, 1970 bill contained within it entire acts.
Today we heard the suggestion that Mr. Speaker Jerome thought that there was something basically different in terms of an omnibus bill which amended an existing act as opposed to one which created one. With respect, I submit that I do not see any difference. I think the precedents would indicate quite clearly that on numerous previous occasions there have been bills of similar magnitude which have in themselves contained entire acts.
Because it is a tax bill, it is based upon a Ways and Means motion; there is no doubt about it. Some complaints were made today that because of this it will go to Committee of the Whole and falls under Standing Order 74(3), which reads:
Any bill based on a supply or a Ways and Means motion, after second reading thereof, shall stand referred to a Committee of the Whole.
Citations 521 of Beauchesne reads:
Bills related to Ways and Means resolutions are referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
This is not something new or something which has been suddenly sprung upon Parliament. If the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) had the opportunity of its going to a standing committee, he would probably find witnesses, if he searched long and hard enough, who might not like certain aspects of it. I am sure the government could find some witnesses who liked it. Then we would have some witnesses saying that it was great and others saying that it was not. It is
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
not a question of discretion. It is based upon a Ways and Means motion and therefore it goes to Committee of the Whole; it is as simple as that. This does not mean that members cannot move amendments; of course they can. We can have as lengthy a discussion of those amendments in the Committee of the Whole as we would have if it were referred to a standing committee.
With the greatest respect, there is really no precedent for Madam Speaker to split the bill. Of course, there is the precedent which occurred on a motion during the flag debate, but I would suggest that to break such ground would cause considerable problems for the Chair in the future. I cannot conceive of any omnibus bill or complicated bill, which may deal with several principles, being brought before the House by the government when we would not have the opposition imploring Madam Speaker to split it.
There was the comment of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux when he asked, "Where do we stop?" In a sense that was really an obiter dictum, because he did not do anything about it. He was sort of musing out loud, "At what point do you go too far?" Notwithstanding the fact that the bill may contain several different aspects, all of which are part of the National Energy Program, it is not going too far or crossing the bounds to which he referred but never really defined. He was sort of hypothesizing a situation which did not develop, and I suggest that it has not developed here.
There may be some fine-tuning which has taken place since the announcement of the national energy policy, but no one can deny that there is a common thread, denominator or common link through all aspects contained in the bill-that this implements the national energy policy. Some people may say that it is complex; there is nothing new about that. Some people may say that it contains more than one principle; there is nothing new about that. Many bills have been complex and contained a number of principles. Members can move amendments as the bill goes through its various stages. It may create difficult decisions for hon. members when it comes to the final vote as to whether or not hon. members like it. It may contain some things they like and some things they do not like. This is nothing new. This happens. This is why we are elected. We are elected to make decisions.
With regard to the schedules, they can be amended; there is no doubt about that. I do not see why the fact that some schedules are incorporated, which in themselves are entire acts, somehow means that they are removed from the main body of the theme running throughout the entire bill. There is no question of this bill being rammed through or anything like this. I think the first draft was published last summer. As the hon. member pointed out, it is a complicated bill. There has been an appreciation of that fact on the part of the government, which accounts for one of the reasons the first draft was released some months ago-in order to give those interested members a considerable amount of time to review it. Of course, it implements a policy first announced back in the fall of 1980.

March 1, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Basically we get back to the ruling which Madam Speaker made on February 16, as reported on page 15053 of Hansard. In dealing with the point of order raised at that time as to whether or not it was appropriate for the borrowing authority to be combined with Ways and Means motions relating to excise tax, Madam Speaker said:
As I indicated to the House on January 19, 1981, I have no quarrel with the practice of combining in the same bill taxation matters based on Ways and Means motions with the borrowing authority, provided the notice provision was respected.
I submit that the same principle applies here. We have a Ways and Means motion which is related to the bill. There are other matters in it, but there is a common denominator or thread throughout it. We are implementing one package, namely, aspects of the national energy policy which were not included in Bill C-48. I submit that the bill is perfectly in order.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) for raising the point of order and other hon. members who have contributed to elucidating it. I will take the matter under advisement and rule on it later.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table a copy of the commercial and economic co-operation agreement signed between the Government of Canada and the government of New Zealand. Of course, those documents are being tabled in both official languages.


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. 2,769, 3,304, 3,445, 3,463 and 3.891.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the annual salary of Mr. Donald Marriott, Director of Restaurants and Catering of the National Arts Centre, and what is a complete history of his education and employment experience that was a consideration in his hiring, including all the businesses where he worked and the type of work he performed?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows: The position Mr. Marriott occupies is classified at a salary range of $39,100-$52,700. The additional background information is of a personal nature concerning Mr. Marriott, the disclosure of which is governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is a complete record of employment in the Public Service of Mrs. Bonnie G. Trotman?
2.	Is Mrs. Trotman presently employed by the Department of Employment and Immigration Centre at Prescott, Ontario in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so, what are her duties?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. In so far as the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission department records indicate, the reply is:
November 26, 1969-Appointed on a term basis at the ST 3 level, Canada Immigration Centre, Prescott
June 6, 1970-Tenure of employment changed from term to indeterminate status
January 1, 1971-Position and incumbent reclassified to the ST 4 level
September 24, 1973-Position and incumbent converted to the ST-SEC 1 level
November 3, 1975-Promoted to the CR 3 level
Mrs. Trotman received acting pay at the PM 1 level as a Border Examination Officer, Prescott, for the period October 3 to 30, 1977.
2.	Yes. Mrs. Trotman is presently employed as a CR 3, secretary/clerk receptionist at the Canada Immigration Centre, Prescott.
Her duties are: to provide secretarial and general clerical services; to perform financial functions; to receive and counsel clients, referring in-depth cases to the immigration counsellor; to receive immigrant and non-immigrant applications; to action case files.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the government receive representations from any organizations or persons to relocate the Canadian International Development Agency and the Export Development Corporation from Ottawa to Montreal and, if so (a) what were the names of all persons or groups making such representations and on what date were they made (b) to the knowledge of the government, is the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton extremely concerned about this matter and has the government given full consideration to the damaging impact that this might have on the economy of the municipality (c) will the government guarantee that
March 1, 1982

it does not intend to move either institution to Montreal and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: The government has received representations from Montreal-area organizations to relocate the Canadian International Development Agency and the Export Development Corporation from the National Capital Region to Montreal.
(a)	The representations were made on various dates during 1981, by representatives of the Board of Trade and Chambre de Commerce of Montreal.
(b)	Mr. Andy Haydon, Chairman of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has expressed concern about this proposal, which the government has taken under review.
(c)	The government has, at this time, no intention to move either agency to Montreal.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What was the total number of CBC staff involved in the coverage of the Manitoba provincial election campaign and the election results on November 17, 1981 and, in each case (a) what were their functions (b) how much time was spent on actual election coverage work?
2.	Were any brought into Manitoba from other parts of Canada for the specific purpose of the election coverage and results and, if so (a) how many (b) who were they and what were their functions (c) from which locations and what were their transportation costs (d) what was the cost for food, lodging and other expenses while in Manitoba (e) what was the total cost of bringing these employees into Manitoba?
3.	(a) What was the total cost to the CBC for computer services and staff for election results coverage (b) who was hired (c) how many computer operators and related staff were involved (d) what was the total cost for all of the computer related services?
4.	What was the total cost of covering the election campaign and the results and what were the costs involved in reaching this figure?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: 1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	One hundred and fifty-fourth staff members took part at one time or another in actual election coverage work, i.e. coverage of the campaign and/or election night results, on behalf of four services-English television, English radio, French television and French radio-for local, provincial and national use.
(a)	(b)
English Television
1 national news reporter	10	days1 producer	II	days1 cameraman	10	days1 soundman	10	days1 producer	6	days1 executive producer	35	days1 cameraman	35	daysOrder Paper Questions	13 reporters	35	days (total)1 film editor	22	days3 ENG cameramen	25	days (total)1 producer	12	hours2 researchers	28	hours (total)2 hosts	30	hours (total)2 commentators	20	hours (total)3 reporters on remotes	19	hours (total)8 reporters-editorial desk	50	hours (total)4 reporters-decision desk	25	hours (total)1 roving reporter	6	hours3 technical producers	100	hours (total)French Television	1 reporter	5	days4 reporters	12	days (total)1 executive producer	4	weeks1 producer	2	weeks1 production assistant	1	week3 script assistants	12	weeks (total)1 anchorman	5	days1 co-ordinator	4	weeks1 Vista Operator	2	days1 co-ordinator	4	days1 producer	4	days1 script assistant	4	days1 anchorman	4	daysEnglish Radio	2 news reporters	23	days (total)5 news reporters	270	hours (total)1 news producer	II	days1 news supervisor	8	days1 news editor-in-charge	85	hours1 news editor	12	hours1 project manager, computers	9	days1 executive producer	120	hours4 producers	292	hours (total)2 associate producers	56	hours (total)3 writer/broadcasters	129	hours (total)1 writer/broadcaster (freelance)	100	hours2 researchers	16	hours (total)1 researcher (freelance)	100	hours2 commentator/analysts (freelance)	96	hours (total)
March 1, 1982
Order Paper Questions
1 host/announcer	3	days	1 reporter, TV	Toronto1 guest commentator (freelance)	5	days	2 producers, TV	Toronto2 announcers, host/results	26	hours (total)	1 cameraman	Toronto1 technical supervisor	35	hours	1 soundman	TorontoFrench Radio	1 news reporter, radio	Ottawa1 host	3	days	1 host announcer, radio	Toronto1 reporter	3	days	1 news producers, radio	Toronto1 producer	4	days	1 news supervisor, radio	TorontoJoint English/French-Results Gathering Group	1 project manager, computers	Toronto6 runners	24	hours (total)	1 guest commentator, radio (freelance)	Toronto12 telephone operators	48	hours (total)	10 production assistants	110	hours (total)	French Services	6 CRT operators	72	hours (total)	1 co-ordinator, TV	Montreal1 election results co-ordinator	35	days	1 producer, TV	Montreal1 secretary	30	days	1 script assistant, TV	Montreal2 casuals	12	days (total)	1 anchorman, TV	Toronto1 communications specialist	4	days	1 producer, radio	Montreal1 corporate co-ordinator	5	days	3 program analysts	17.5	days (total)	Joint ESD/FSD	1 software analyst	6.5	days	1 election results co-ordinator	Toronto1 operations supervisor	5	days	1 communications specialist	Calgary1 telecommunications manager	5	days	1 corporate co-ordinator	Ottawa1 departmental assistant	6.5	days	1 programmer-analyst	Montreal2 operations analysts	19	days (total)	1 programmer-analyst	Toronto1 systems analyst	6	days	1 telecommunications manager	OttawaPlus associated technical and staging staff.	1 departmental assistant	Ottawa1 operations analyst	Ottawa1 systems analyst	Montreal2. Yes. (a) English Services Division-12	1 operations analyst	TorontoFrench Services Division-5	Joint ESD/FSD-10 (b) With reference to names, see	reply to part 4 below re	See reply to part 4 below for transportation costs and foi 2(d) and (e).	individual employees.	3. (a) See reply to part 4 below.	Functions (this staff also included in	answers to part 1 and/or	(b) Only CBC staff were used.	part 3(c):	(c) No people classified as computer	operatorsinvolved. CBC Information Systems staff involved totalle	English Services	(c)	(d) See reply to part 4 below.	
1 project coordinator, TV 1 technical co-ordinator, TV
Toronto
Toronto
4. It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as
March 1, 1982

the names of individual employees and the costs involved in specific program projects. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, answered November 6, 1975.



Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 3,027 given on February 15, 1982 and which stated "See response to question No. 3,273 answered on December 17, 1981", for what reason was the answer to question No. 3,027 delayed until two months after a similar question was answered, which had been placed on the Order Paper after question No. 3,027?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: The
government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions and does not consider it appropriate to provide information about internal administrative arrangements.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,284 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. It is the pleasure of the House that question No. 2,284 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CONTRACTING OF PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES PERSONNEL BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Blenkarn: Were persons employed by private employment agencies under contract to government departments and agencies during the fiscal years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 and, if so (a) how many (b) by which department and, for each department, how many and for what term (c) what was the cost (d) what was the average term of each person's employment (e) how many were (i) male (ii) female?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Housing



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 25, 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.
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, once again it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-89. The other night I managed to get in perhaps ten minutes, at which time I dealt with some of the remarks of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who belaboured his concern and the concern of his party about the absence of property rights in the Constitution when dealing with the mortgage and housing portions of the bill. I had to say then, and I repeat now, that this kind of argument is being used around the country in some way or the other to indicate that this government is not concerned about property rights-


An hon. Member:: It isn't.


Paul Edmund McRae: -when the hon. member knew, as they all knew, that this was a matter strictly within the realm of the provinces.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why was it accepted?


Paul Edmund McRae: Most of the provinces had Tory governments. They were very much concerned that we move into this area.


John Horton McDermid: NDP blackmail.


Paul Edmund McRae: The fact that the rights were not included in the bill of rights in no way changes the relationship of property in terms of the provinces and the property rights of individuals.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why did you put it in in the first place, then?


Paul Edmund McRae: The other point which the Tory party often mentions, and which the hon. member mentioned, is the whole question of the mortgage deductibility scheme.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Paul Edmund McRae: The Tory party did not stay around long enough to have that scheme enacted. But I think there are many reasons why that was an untimely bill. First, given the amount of freedom with indexing, and so on, which ministers of finance have, it meant that the minister of finance was tied almost totally to mortgage deductibility. It was the only thing he could add given the restrictions on money. It meant that $2

March 1, 1982
Housing
billion or $3 billion would be going out of the treasury for this purpose. It would be going to people who did not need it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Be careful.


Paul Edmund McRae: It would be mostly welfare for people in very high income groups.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Do you really believe that hogwash?


Paul Edmund McRae: That same amount of money would not be available for people with a great need.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: What about those losing homes?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Do people lose their homes on purpose?


Paul Edmund McRae: Another objection to that bill, and I think it is an objection which we should still take very seriously, that kind of over-all bill which was a reverse income tax type of bill in the sense that it provided more return to the wealthier people in our society than it did to the poor is that it tended to come at the wrong time in terms of the growth of the country.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Property ownership?


Paul Edmund McRae: The rate of family formations, which was a very important aspect of life in the early 1970s, was the time when we were putting a lot of money into housing. We were putting it basically where there was the greatest need. But at this stage of the game, large portions of capital are not needed. There is not that kind of inducement at this stage of the game in this area, at least not as much as needed in other areas, such as energy.
In a sense, the minister of finance was moving money into an area where there was some need, but moving it away from an area where there was a great need. These basic needs will still have to be met.
Another point I find interesting when debating this bill with the opposition is the opposition's great concern about housing for Canadians. Put that together with the few months the Tories actually were in power and take a look at the Matthews report, which was a rather interesting document, a report put out by a task force chaired by a former national president of the Conservative Party. That document basically underlined why that government did not remain in power.


Mr. Howie:: Because a report came out?


Paul Edmund McRae: Basically this report said that we must get away from subsidies and support in general for non-profit housing, and all kinds of things like that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You would have people live in the cold?


Paul Edmund McRae: Over the years these have been basic social requirements in this country. Over many years and under successive Liberal governments, as well as under the Diefen-baker government, we have arranged to make sure that these
things were available to Canadians. I think that housing report was a very big step away from that kind of support that Canadians have learned to expect.
The same thing, I think, could be said about the move away from Petro-Canada. That was another move away from things that Canadians were beginning to expect in a more complex world.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: They love it now.


Paul Edmund McRae: On the other hand, I have not heard that many speeches from the New Democrats. But once again, we are caught in this in-between business. One side says we are doing too much and another side says we are not doing enough.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Who said you are doing too much? Nobody ever said that.


John Horton McDermid: It is too much of the wrong thing.


Paul Edmund McRae: It seems to me in this day and age one tries to get more, but at least we support what is here. I would like to see this mortgage assistance increase. I would certainly like to see that, but I want to get through what we have in this bill as soon as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down, then.


Paul Edmund McRae: We have had six days of debate. We should get along with this legislation and get this thing going. I want to get this bill going because I have constituents here and I am sure others have constituents here who need some assistance at this point and for whom the bill will provide assistance.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You said nobody needed assistance.


An hon. Member:: He has changed his mind.


Paul Edmund McRae: There are some very serious cases. I am sure if I recite two or three of them that all hon. members could duplicate them.


John Horton McDermid: You had better get your act together.


Paul Edmund McRae: They need the assistance that is going to come from this bill.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: They need mortgage interest assistance.


Paul Edmund McRae: Let us take one example. What about a person who has a serious health problem?


Donald W. Munro: Is he helping you?


Paul Edmund McRae: This serious health problem arose very recently. This person has a mortgage with the Bank of Montreal. I specify the Bank of Montreal because that bank is the harshest of all the major chartered banks-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Next to the government.


Paul Edmund McRae: This bank concerns me the most. This bank, alone among all of the other major chartered banks, refuses to
March 1, 1982

pass on to its managers information about the mortgage scheme. The Bank of Montreal has refused to do that. That is in sharp contrast to what the Royal Bank does. Not only does the Royal Bank pass on the information but it sets up possibilities for other things to happen. This bank advertises how people in an emergency can cut their interest rates back, and so on. It also suggests how to roll back the 20.5 per cent interest rates that were negotiated last summer. The Commerce has done the same sort of thing. But the Bank of Montreal refuses even to discuss the passing on of information to its managers. It refuses to discuss this whole business of mortgage assistance.
I can cite one case of a citizen who went to this bank, is caught with a 20.5 per cent mortgage, who has a serious health problem and cannot go to another bank because likely he would not be able to get a mortgage since he has financial difficulties. He is one of those persons holding on and waiting for this bill. He cannot last much longer. I think that is the fact with a lot of people. Therefore, I think this bill should be moved along.
I have been critical of high interest rates for at least two to two and a half years.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You will get fired, just as Neil Fraser did.


Paul Edmund McRae: I was very critical of high interest rates when the Conservative Party was in power. I was quite disturbed last week, and I have mentioned this earlier, when my name was being used as one who should vote to get this government out of power so we could put these people in power.


John Horton McDermid: You should be disturbed.


Paul Edmund McRae: The Tory government was the government that had the largest spread that ever existed in real interest rates between Canada and the United States. Real interest rates are the prime rate minus the inflation rate.


An hon. Member:: You like yours much better?


Paul Edmund McRae: On October 26, 1979, I asked a question in the House with respect to a five-point spread in interest rates between the U.S. and Canada. That was the highest spread ever. The U.S. inflation rate was higher than ours, yet our interest rates were five points above theirs. That is the kind of government we put into power.


John Horton McDermid: What were the interest rates in those days?


Paul Edmund McRae: Now, I make it quite plain that I want to see interest rates come down, which I think they will. At this stage of the game it is very pleasant for me to stand here and see that we have our prime rate at or slightly below the U.S. prime rate. I hope the government will continue to keep it at that level and that the Americans' will come down, and we will come down also. I would like it to move faster, but that certainly is one of the things we have to do.
I would like to make two suggestions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the first one having to do with the
Housing
banks themselves. In studying the Bank Act in the last ten years it seems to me that we would just get started but never finish because an election, end of a session or something like that occurred. However, in late 1978 or early 1979 the member for York-Simcoe at the time, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) now, suggested very strongly that it was time we took a look at our banking system and compared it with systems in other major industrialized nations such as the U.S., Japan, Switzerland and so on, to see whether our system was effective.
I thought at the time that made some sense, and I think it makes a great deal more sense right now because during the last six or 12 months I do not think our banking system has functioned well enough with respect to mortgages and those people caught in the mortgage vice which occurs when we have high interest rates. This is not to condemn the banks because I think some of them-and I mentioned the Royal and the Commerce-have functioned very well and have done their best. However, it seems to me that the whole system should be looked at. Let us see if there are not better and more effective ways that our banking system can work.
I have brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance my very strong suggestion that we form an all-party task force, possibly from the Senate as well, and give it a fair period of time to have a good look at other banking systems and see if there are ways in which Canadians can be better protected.
One of the things which has bothered me, and I think it has bothered most members, about our financial institutions-not just the banks, but all financial institutions-is the absence of long-term mortgages. The idea that a mortgage would only run for a year or two, or five years at the most, is most disturbing. It used to always be that when you bought a house, you took a mortgage at a fixed rate for whatever period was required to discharge the mortgage. That is not the case now, of course, but it is the case in the United States. So I think there are a lot of things we can look at, and I suggest very strongly again that a task force of this kind be put together.
This would not in any way duplicate the proposed reference to standing committee with respect to bank profits. That is an entirely separate item which 1 support strongly. The task force would be totally separate and would look at our banking system and our financial institutions, not in a critical way but rather comparing them with other financial institutions around the world, to see whether there is anything we could introduce which would serve Canadians better than they are presently served.
The final point I would like to make has to do with where I think we have to go with respect to housing and a whole series of things. Over the last several years I have come to the conclusion that the macroeconomic ideas that we put forward, the fiscal and monetary policies that we use, have become less and less effective as time goes on. I would think that even people like Milton Freidman would be very upset if he thought that the economies of the countries where monetarism was being tried were so inflexible that it takes a doubling of

March 1, 1982
Housing
interest rates to have any effect on inflation at all. I would think the whole theory is based on the fact that marginal increases would have an effect and reduce inflation accordingly-
What has happened is that the system is so inelastic, for all kinds of reasons such as multinational corporations and trade unions, that these things are not working. Similarly, increases in demand and government spending, which is very popular in the NDP, lower taxes and so on, do not have the effect they used to have. We used to say that if you could increase the flow of money by so much, you would have a multiplier effect of so much. That is not so at this particular time. Therefore, I think we have to look at other ways of producing the effects we want to produce.
The problem that bothers me most is high interest rates, because I think they are having an opposite and inflationary effect to that which was intended. At the same time, particularly with respect to mortgages and small businesses, they are very indiscriminate in application. If you have a house with a long-term mortgage, you may not be affected. Someone else has a mortgage of, say, $400 a month and all of a sudden he has to pay $800 a month. So while it may be only a small inflation factor across the country, it is a very major factor for that particular home and family. There are a lot of families who cannot survive because their way of life is based on a certain income plus an inflation factor. It is that indiscriminate application of interest rates which creates the real problem.
If, for instance, the dollar were to drop and imports cost a little bit more, then instead of buying 12 oranges this week, buy six, or whatever it is. You can adjust because the change is only a marginal one. However, when the mortgage loan or very large business loan interest rate goes from 10 per cent to 20 per cent overnight, that family or business is put under severe strain, and in many cases it is a total disaster.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Why do you support the bill, then?


Paul Edmund McRae: The point of this legislation is to try to put some kind of floor under that family in crisis. And we are just talking about families in crises because governments today cannot afford to take hold of things as they could in the early 1970s when growth rates were higher.
I would like to conclude by just speaking a little bit about an approach that we must take. I was a principal of a mediumsized high school in northern Ontario up until 1972. Around 1970, all of a sudden, almost within a year, we went from a situation in which there was a great shortage of teachers to one in which there was a glut of teachers on the market. It happened very rapidly. I was aware that this would happen some time before because I was trying to keep my school down to a certain size, and the board wanted to build a great many extra rooms, so I had done some demographic work and was certain that this would happen. However, it did not appear to the school system that this would happen before it did happen. It happened suddenly. There were four or five years in education
in Ontario and, I am sure, in other parts of the country, where there was much turmoil and strikes, annoyed teachers, students who were being shuffled around and parents and teachers who were fighting. There was much of an upset in education. I am not condemning anyone, but that could have been avoided if we had had sufficient foresight in Ontario and in other places to see that that particular growth pattern was no longer there, and that the pattern of upward mobility, with new schools opening, new jobs for principals, new vice-principals, new department heads and so on, would disappear. What came to my mind, having looked at it somewhat beforehand, was that we had to look at alternative approaches to slower growth. In this case, there was a sudden drop. However, even gradual, slower growth should have been considered.
I think that the particular case that I mentioned can be applied to a broader range of matters. We can look at the facts and say that it is not likely that we will resume, for any sustained period of time, growth rates such as we had in the early seventies, in the sixties and through the fifties, and that that 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 6 per cent growth rate cannot be indefinitely sustained.
There are all kinds of reasons for this. Considering only the notion of exponentiality, if there is a 5 per cent growth rate, that means a doubling every 14 years. It doubles and doubles and doubles. If resources like oil run out, all kinds of problems are created concerning the environment, and so on. There are kinds of reasons for this being likely. I think governments must accept the principle that gradually, over the years, there will be some lowering of the growth rates, not suddenly, as in the teaching profession in Ontario and in other parts of the country, but a gradual reduction. It seems to me that the first principle the government must consider is how we will provide alternate solutions which Canadians can choose and which will provide some hope and good feelings. I think we are speaking about quality of living. I think we are speaking about the same kind of things as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke about in 1975 and 1976 concerning some lifestyle changes. However, it seems to me that we must make some of those adjustments.
I am not satisfied when someone says that we must pull in our belts. I do not think that is what we are talking about. I think we are talking about looking at other approaches to this kind of situation. This is not the time to develop this thought because we are talking about a housing bill, except to say that in housing itself there are ways and means which can be found to provide people with good, decent housing, although not as lavish as some of the housing people have been forced to get into over the last several years. I am reminded of a type of house which was built in Thunder Bay during the war. Many very attractive homes were built and hundreds and thousands of people still live in them today as they have been kept up well. This is a basic, core floor type of housing. I mentioned this to the minister and he told me that he grew up in one of those houses. It was a very sensible approach to housing. There is no way we can build one of those houses today. No one is
March 1, 1982

building them. Houses are being built which are much more expensive.
I think that at some particular point we must be able to consider a starter home, a home in which a new family can start, and when their circumstances improve they can move into something larger. I do not mean poor quality housing, but I mean a small, modest type of house. I think that is the kind of thing we must consider.
I say that the first principle is that we must anticipate that we will have a slower growth rate, and then we must provide alternatives to people in this country so that they will have hope and alternatives in quality living which do not demand a larger use of goods and services. The second point is that we must be very careful. The reason I belong to this party is that I believe very strongly that we have always held, as a small "1", liberal principle, not a nineteenth century Liberal principle, that if there are groups in our society which are, in some way or another, put under more strain than they can handle, then the state, the government, whether the provincial, the federal or the municipal government, must be able to provide some support. This is the essence of this bill. Much as I would like to see more in this bill, this is the essence of the bill. We should ensure that no one loses their homes because of quick, high interest rates and because they cannot make adjustments to survive. I emphasize the word "adjustment". That does not mean that people will not have a tougher time; I mean that they should not be asked to pay mortgages which rise from 20 per cent or 25 per cent of their total income to 40 per cent or 50 per cent of their total income, which this bill covers. I think that is a cardinal principle which we must keep.
It seems to me that those two principles are the ones we must consider for the future. We must consider the adjustment to a somewhat lower growth rate and provide incentives in the way of quality of life and a more stable type of environment. Second, we must ensure that no individuals, whether businessmen or families, are made to suffer unduly because of some of these changes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy)-the Economy-Inquiry whether minister will meet provincial ministers to establish program to stimulate economic recovery; the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)-
Housing
Disasters-Sinking of Ocean Ranger-Lack of rescue craft, (b) Introduction of legislation in United States Congress.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for York-Sunbury.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the basic reason for the crisis in housing in Canada today is high interest rates. High interest rates have created widespread unemployment in the building trades. Carpenters, electricians, plumbers, artisans, masons, bricklayers and labourers are unemployed in near record numbers. In the Atlantic provinces, three quarters of our lumber mills are closed and millworkers, lumberjacks and woodworkers are unemployed in very large numbers. Many businesses which have existed for generations by selling building products are now closed; their employees, too, have joined the lengthening ranks of unemployed Canadians who live in the Atlantic provinces.
According to CMHC, as many as 40,000 Canadian families may lose their homes this year because of high interest rates. Generally, a $45,000-a-year income is needed for a person to be able to afford an average-priced home in Canada today. Serious shortages are developing in many centres. Housing starts in 1981 were barely one half the level needed to keep up with housing requirements. In terms of rental housing, this bill provides interest-free loans of $7,500 per unit to a maximum of 15,000 units. What the $7,500 a unit interest-free loan means is that rent for an $800 a month unit would be reduced to $700. It is a good measure, but its impact is restrained. The prospect of paying $1,000 a month on a mortgage is not as attractive to a couple who can rent an apartment, if they can find one, for $300 a month; yet, if that couple had purchased a home, their apartment would have been available to someone else.
The reason the mortgate interest and property tax deductibility plan of the Clark government was a good thing was that it encouraged home ownership. It would also have had the effect of stabilizing the rental market by increasing the supply to meet the demand and make rental units more competitive, thus lowering the price.

March 1, 1982
Housing
Another measure in the bill, the mortgage deferral scheme, is a good measure. It means to some people who receive the benefit that what you do not pay today you will pay tomorrow with interest and you will pay interest on the interest; but to others there is a good financial benefit. The bill's intent is, first, to provide the necessary legislative authority to put into effect the Canada mortgage renewal plan and, second, to enable the government to act more effectively in stimulating production of rental housing and make possible new kinds of assistance to young families who are buying their first home.
I do not think there could be any serious disagreement with this intent-indeed, it is a laudable one. My concern is with the magnitude and the impact of the measures proposed in the bill in relation to the enormous problems that it seeks to attack, and in this regard I find the measures inadequate.
The plan will offer interest deferral guarantees of up to $3,000 to borrowers who have some equities in their homes and are obliged to renew their mortgages at rates of interest which could require an excessive proportion of their income. For borrowers with the same problem but with no substantial equity, the government will provide assistance up to $3,000. The program will apply to mortgages renewed between September 1, 1981 and November 12, 1982. It will only be for home owners who are required to pay more than 30 per cent of their gross family income.
It is really a scheme for home owners to borrow against equity, to pare down their payments and pay off the amount at a later date. This grant and loan guarantee program will assist a total of 50,000 home owners out of nearly a million who renew their home mortgages during the time limit imposed by the government. In fact, 37,500 of the 50,000 assisted receive temporary help, but only 12,500 will receive real financial assistance.
On the subject of housing and the high cost of rents, I wish to refer to an ominous note sounded in some of the material tabled with the budget.
One of the tax expenditures referred to in the budgetary paper on this subject that was tabled by the minister with his budget, was the subject of imputed rent to ordinary Canadians who live in their homes and own their own homes. By imputing a charge for rent and making it subject to tax, the government would be able, according to the paper, to achieve a saving of a further $4.5 billion for its tax revenue. That was based on the fiscal year 1979. According to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), if the government chose to charge that imputed rent, that $4.5 billion would have resulted in a tax increase of an average of $458 per tax filer in Canada.
It is in the same tax paper that saw other tax expenditures terminated by the budget. It is significant that computations were made to see how much revenue could be gained by a tax on imputed rent. The minister decided not to do it this year, but when you consider the fact that other measures in the same paper did find their way into law, and considering also the goverment's tax record and its role as a tax master,
Canadian home owners and families have good cause for concern that the trial balloon floated by the Minister of Finance in November of 1981 may very well turn out to be the reality in the coming budget.
The best plan to have seen the light of day in the House to assist home owners with high interest rates and to stimulate the building trades, is the Clark government's mortgage interest and tax deductibility plan. To Canadians facing high interest rates, $1,250 provided by that plan would have been a big help this year. Where is the government's better program to replace it? Where is the shelter assistance program for lower-income Canadians facing massive rent increases? Where is the energy tax shelter similar to the one proposed by the Clark government for Canadians faced with high heating fuel costs?
I would like to express thanks for the small blessings that are contained in the bill before us. The basic problem is probably outside the mandate of the minister and is rooted in the high interest policies of this government. The best answer was the Clark government's interest and property tax deductibility program; and the present government has not proposed a better alternative.
Another group of home owners who are on the short end of the stick when dealing with the government are those who insulated their homes with urea formaldehyde foam insulation on the advice and with financial backing of the federal government. Anyone who is currently trying to sell or renew a mortgage on a home with this insulation knows all about UFFI.
It took the government over a year after it banned UFFI to bring in a program to help clean up the very mess which it helped create. The government is taking its sweet time to begin processing applications, obviously wanting Canadians to shoulder the financial burden themselves, at a cost which can easily run into thousands of dollars per household.
If the government had acted more quickly, it would not be faced with so many angry Canadians, not to mention the problem of removing the foam. There is no question that the government has a responsibility to help remove UFFI, because it pushed for Canadians to use it.
It is clear that the most common sense approach would be for the government to own up to its responsibility, to recognize a mistake was indeed made, to stop dragging its feet, and to pay full compensation to home owners involved in this government-sponsored mess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I consider this is a very critical bill that we have before us at this time, Bill C-89, dealing with the housing measures that were produced in the budget. I have been rather interested, listening today to various Liberal members get up and in a somewhat backhanded way try to defend the measures that have been put forward. Obviously, try as they will, they cannot bring much empathy to it. They cannot put much
March 1, 1982

of their spirit into it, because they too know that the bill is only a very partial solution. In fact, it is no solution at all but a band-aid to a very serious and critical problem.
The minister, when he was speaking about this bill, purported to show that it responds to a crisis which has spread across the country, touching cities large and small, urban and rural areas, depressed and prosperous regions, a housing crisis which touches all parts of Canada.
When I refer to the housing crisis in Canada, Mr. Speaker, I have to stress that this is the best indicator of the economic malaise and the stagnation that so bedevils this country today.
We know, Sir, that it has been a long tradition in Canada that everyone has the right sometime to own their own home. That has been the view, the dream, the hope, the belief of our forefathers and foremothers down through generation after generation. But here, today, that tradition is being lost. It is being lost for tens of thousands of home owners who can no longer afford to pay to keep up that right, to have that right to own a home. It is also being lost for so many young Canadians who will never be able to afford a home in the first place.
How does this loss of the right to own one's own home affect the very fibre of our nation, of our society? I submit that the home is the traditional foundation of the family, of a strong family, and that that very convention is today under attack. Rents and mortgages are skyrocketing. Housing starts cannot keep pace with the demand. Homes that are being built become much too costly for even middle-income families. The one million poor, many of whom are single-parent families and elderly pensioners, are in a desperate position as inexpensive housing becomes non-existent. It is just impossible for them. As well, the national vacancy rate is edging toward the zero mark.
Faced with the cold, hard facts pointing to a housing crisis, the government has responded, as it did in this budget and as it is doing in this bill, with a quick-fix measure. No long-term solutions are proposed. They are not even attempted. The minister has ignored the gloomy housing outlook documented in memoranda given to him by people in his department some months ago. It shows the gloomy picture that lies ahead in the housing area. It is all there in those documents. He may remember one which he himself signed. It is all there in the words used in this document such as "little hope", "standards of living set back", "unmanageable burdens on housing budgets", "substantial regression in housing conditions". These are all in the documents provided to the minister.
We must come to terms with the severe shortage of housing in Canada today or embark on a regressive course from which we may never recover. That seems to be the way at the present time. The regressive course of which these documents speak seems to be the way we are going.
Looking over the history of housing in this country, we see that some 13 years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) authorized a task force to examine housing and urban development in Canada. That task force was set up under the then
Housing
minister responsible for housing. It was to report on ways in which Ottawa together with the provinces and the private sector could meet the housing needs of all Canadians.
That is the way the Prime Minister thought of going some 13 years ago. He was going to work with the provinces and the private sector to try to bring a viable, healthy housing industry to this country. At the present time we know he has dismissed any kind of co-operation with the provinces from here on in. However, those were the terms under which he wanted to operate some 13 years ago.
As a result of the work of that task force, conducted under the then Liberal minister, Mr. Hellyer, some recommendations were brought forward. It outlined some principles on which housing policy should be based in Canada. I will quote two of those principles because they very much bear repeating. They are:
Housing and urban development are an urgent priority for the people of Canada.
If it was an urgent priority in 1968-69, how much more urgent is it today? I quote the second recommendation:
Every Canadian should be entitled to clean, warm shelter as a matter of basic human right.
That is what was espoused by the Liberal government of that day. Today these same principles that I have just enunciated should be the cornerstone of the housing policy. We are faced with the most severe housing crisis since 1945. I do not think the minister would deny that, yet this government's token response shows that the basic principles enunciated in 1969 by that task force meant nothing to the Trudeau Liberals. Whatever they meant then, they mean nothing today.
What does Bill C-89 mean to the more than 900,000 home owners facing mortgage renewal this year? I submit it really will not mean very much. A mere 12,000 out of 900,000 who are facing mortgage renewals will receive direct assistance. Those "dire straits" home owners were told last fall by the minister responsible for housing to grit their teeth and hang on until the budget.
Many of them did that in great expectation. For a few weeks prior to the MacEachen budget, the minister held out hopes to the thousands of home owners faced with high interest and foreclosure. I know the minister to be a decent man. I believe he really hoped he would be able to offer people a great deal more than the budget allowed for. I am sure the minister expected more from the tight-fisted Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) than was finally produced. I am sure he shared in the disappointment of many Canadians from coast to coast. I only hope he has expressed that disappointment and his reaction to the Minister of Finance on every possible occasion so that some of the difficulties that lie ahead for Canadians may be somewhat modified.
The assistance plan contained in this legislation before us offers no long-term solution to the chronic housing shortages in Canada today. I, of course, do not oppose any measures, however small or however inadequate they might be, to provide relief to home owners. What I oppose, and I say this in all

March 1, 1982
Housing
seriousness to the minister, is this government's token efforts to deal over-all with the housing crisis.
The minister will have received different reports and analyses of his bill. The Canadian Council on Social Development, an agency which does a great deal of analysis of social problems throughout Canada, branded the housing plan as a stop-gap measure. The budget's proposals to assist home owners do not begin to meet the needs of the more than
100,000	households documented by CMHC whose mortgage payments will exceed 30 per cent of income after renewing their mortgages. This situation has been outlined to the minister by his own officials. It is not something trumped up as some partisan issue.
The interest deferral plan we are being asked to consider simply puts home owners into greater debt. Mortgage interest rates are reduced by shifting the lower cost to the principal amount of the loan, thus increasing the over-all mortgage debt for a short-term reprieve. If interest rates do not go down, home owners may well face the loss of their equity. Second, home owners with little equity to use as collateral in deferring interest payments are eligible for one-time grants of $3,000. This will provide a little help, very little, to a small number of people.
What the bill really shows is that the government does not want to face up to the housing crisis. Whether the minister wants to or not, he cannot get the cabinet collectively to face up to the housing crisis. Nowhere is this more evident than in the bill before us today and the token assistance it provides. Further, the bill does not respond to the chronic shortage of rental units in Canada. The national vacancy rate went from 2.8 per cent in April, 1980 to 1.2 per cent in October of last year. Relief in the federal budget is virtually non-existent. The net effect of the budget may in fact be fewer housing starts, a point to which I want to return later.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the House rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) had the floor.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when I was reviewing this bill before the dinner hour, I stated that it did not respond in any way to the needs of the 100,000 families which Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has stated will be paying more than 30 per cent of their income for accommodation this year. It will affect only approximately 15,000 families.
Furthermore, the bill does not respond to the chronic shortage of rental units in Canada. Anyone who comes from a metropolitan area will know how those shortages are becoming increasingly acute. The national vacancy rate fell from 2.8 per cent in April, 1978, to 1.2 per cent in October of last year. Relief in the federal budget is virtually non-existent. The net effect of the budget may, in fact, further reduce housing starts. This is a point to which I will return later.
The dream of owning a home in Canada may sson become just that, a dream which can never be realized. High mortgage interest rates have had a grave impact on the affordability of homes in Canada. In the third quarter of 1981, the average price of a home in Canada was $77,900. Assuming a 10 per cent down payment, $1,000 in property tax and the rule of thumb that total payments for principle, interest and taxes should not exceed 30 per cent of gross income, when these facts are added up the result is that a family income of $44,500 is now needed in order to afford an average-priced home in Canada.
According to the Canadian Real Estate Association, a family income of $56,000 is needed in order to afford an average-priced home in Toronto. An income of $79,800 is needed in order to afford that same average home in Vancouver. Mortgage rates today are 18 per cent to 19 per cent compared with 10.25 per cent in 1978. The price of an average house now is $77,900 compared with $54,800 four years ago. The combined effect is an increase of about 130 per cent in the cost of servicing a mortgage or a new home. Furthermore, 1.2 million Canadian families all across this country have to renew their mortgages over the next two years. Those renewing mortgages, which they presently hold at 10 per cent, will, at the new rate of 18 per cent or 19 per cent, see their payments rise by 40 per cent. How many families will be able to afford 40 per cent increases each month? When the CMHC looked at these figures, it estimated that 40,000 Canadian families will lose their homes because of high interest rates. Where will these people go when vacancy rates are now registering zero?
Ben Gestrin, the chief economist at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, says that the five-year mortgage rate may soon be a thing of the past. If the five-year mortgage rate is dying, it will be replaced by mortgages of one year or less-six months, perhaps making life all that much more difficult and much tougher for home owners and those buying homes.
The Progressive Conservative Party's mortgage interest and property tax program would have helped provide some relief. It was a program we put forward knowing it would not resolve all the difficulties, but we knew it would be helpful to hundreds of thousands of Canadians across this country. For instance, for a person renewing a $40,000 mortgage at 18 per cent, the tax credits which would now have been in effect would have lowered the effective interest rate to 14.75 per cent for the 1981 tax year and to 13.5 per cent for the 1982 tax year. To anyone who has to take an 18 per cent or a 19 per
March 1, 1982

cent mortgage at this time, how much better a 13.5 per cent mortgage rate now sounds!
During the 1980 election campaign, in February 1980, the Liberals promised to increase "affordability of ownership so that more Canadians can choose between renting and owning". What a hollow lot of words that is at this point, because there are very few Canadians, given the present high mortgage rates, who have that choice of renting or owning.
However, facts and Figures aside-and I have been dealing with a number of facts and a number of figures-how can the government ignore the human cost of its failure to deal with the serious housing problem and the housing crisis which confront this nation? The homeless in metropolitan Toronto provide a very dramatic illustration of this. Hundreds of expsychiatric patients, battered wives, single parents, unemployed, welfare recipients and evicted families-the have-nots of our population-have joined the traditional down and out people and the drifters. They have joined them in not being able to find accommodation. They have joined the ranks of the homeless. They are the real victims of the so-called equity budget of the Minister of Finance.
According to a recent series on the homeless in the Toronto Star, as many as 3,000 people could be homeless in Toronto at this time when vacancy rates and housing starts have fallen to an all-time low, with nowhere to turn at night and no shelter they can call their own. Usually metro's hostels and their 1,100 beds are taxed and overbooked in January and February, but in October of last year they were already full before the real depth of winter occurred. They were already full, and people were looking for places to stay overnight. In December one of the churches in Toronto set up an emergency shelter and took in some 250 people. They had to sleep on the floor, but at least this provided a roof over their heads. That is how desperate things are, and that accounts for only half the 3,000 people who right now are homeless in the city of Toronto.
Toronto alderman Gordon Cressy is quoted as saying that if more affordable housing is not provided, more vandalism and more theft will result. To quote Mr. Cressy from a Toronto Star article of December 10, 1981:
We're on a collision course. The survival instinct is very strong in people. If they are left on their own, they'll go out and get what they need.
Jay MacGillivary, a hostel worker at Nellie's Home for Woman, says that the housing crisis has already claimed lives. Think of the seriousness of that statement! Jay MacGillivary was quoted as saying that people are literally dying because there is not enough housing. She went on to cite the illustration of four women aged 28, 29 and 30 and already distressed by their personal problems, to the point that they committed suicide last fall because they had no place to go. These four women were alone, abandoned and homeless, and they ended up committing suicide. They had no place to go.
There are cases in my constituency in Kingston. I meet people when I go to my office on Saturdays. A woman came to see me. She had worked hard all her life, as had her husband, and through no fault of their own, both their jobs in the manufacturing sector were terminated. Both found themselves
Housing
unaccountably on unemployment insurance for the First time in their lives, although each of them had worked for a number of years. They came to a point where they were faced with a great increase in the mortgage rates they had to pay. Their renewal had increased their mortgage rate tremendously. One of them came to me and said, "What are we going to do?" They have unemployment insurance on which to live. They have to face the fact that their mortgage payments will increase drastically, and they have no help. The alternative is that their home will be taken away from them. It was solutions to these kinds of problems people were looking for when they knew there would be assistance in the budget respecting housing needs. People hoped for assistance that would help them personally, but it did not come. It did not come to the hundreds of thousands who desperately need that kind of help.
Canada needs something in the vicinity of 220,000 new housing units each year. Back in 1980 only 159,000 housing units were begun. In 1981, last year, 178,000 units were built. Each time the number was well under the 220,000 units it is estimated we need every year. The latest forecast I have seen for this year has been by HUDAC. That was in February of 1982, and HUDAC predicted that only 155,000 units will be built in 1982. If we were to take the results of the last three years together, we would see that there is a shortfall in Canada of 168,000 new units. High interest rates have made construction of badly needed apartment buildings unproFitable for anyone to take on. In Ontario a landlord would have to charge in the order of $800 per month for a typical one-bedroom apartment just to break even on a new building financed at today's interest rates. How many people can we find who would pay $800 for a one-bedroom apartment? This is more than double the current rental rates in most cities; not surprisingly, apartment construction has ground to a halt. I want to elaborate on what I think is the plight of renters. Just what has the government offered to deal with the rental shortage? Instead of increasing funding for rental units, it is reducing it.
The MURB program was responsible for the construction of approximately 25,000 units in 1981. This program should be reinstated.
The assistance proposed to builders is expected to result in only 15,000 starts or 10,000 fewer than were built last year under the MURB program. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the government's commitment to social housing has been reduced to 25,000 starts this year, from 30,000 last year. In every sector we see that the number of units, whether social housing units or MURBs, will be down this year.
The poor and the sick, who need shelter the most, Find it toughest to get. In Toronto, renovations and demolitions have claimed many of the old boarding houses which used to be rented to people with little or a very subsidized income.
More than 8,000 people are on waiting lists for government subsidized public housing. The minister's own officials told him in the leaked CMHC document:

March 1, 1982
Housing
The prospect is not only for tight rental markets but for waiting lists and doubling up with family and friends. We will thus witness a substantial regression in housing conditions following 35 years of gradual improvements.
Suddenly we see a turnaround. Instead of more units being built to meet the demand, we are facing a regression in the housing sector.
The same CMHC document predicted that we will have a zero per cent vacancy rate by 1983. If the present trend continues, we should approach that by this summer. In the city of Kingston, the vacancy rate dropped from 3.2 per cent in April, 1981, to 0.6 per cent last October. This is a steep decline.
I want to reiterate that this government deliberately ignored the advice of its own officials. The CMHC report stated that the situation of renters will worsen as a result of the short-term rental market prospects. To quote the CMHC report again, referring to the rental situation it states, on page 21, that it is "the most fundamental housing problem today."
Clearly, the government does not see it as being fundamental. But to thousands of renters, Mr. Speaker, this government's inactions may result in homelessness.
The Canadian Council on Social Development shows the devastating impact the housing shortage is having on low income Canadians. In 1979, almost 56 per cent of renters, both families and individuals, had income before taxes of less than $14,000. Over half of this group had income less than $5,000.
Rent increases have averaged 8 per cent to 10 per cent in the last two years in most provinces. Recently, there is growing evidence that increases have exceeded these rates by as much as 20 per cent, even in provinces where rent regulation is in effect.
The Canadian Council on Social Development says the budget emphasizes mortgage renewal, even though the rental housing sector is of more serious concern.
To quote the CMHC document again, it reports as follows:
Close to half a million low income renters already pay over 30 per cent of their income for shelter.
These are people in the lowest income bracket in the country-and 500,000 of them pay over 30 per cent of income for shelter!
With predicted rent increases in Toronto of over 12 per cent, the council estimates a single parent in the labour force, with a $10,000 income, will be paying 40 per cent or more of his or her income for rent by the end of this year. What is going to happen to those people? I would classify these people as being in the most dire straits.
HUDAC predicted on February 16 this year that there will be large rent increases in months to come because a great number of rental projects were built in 1978 under the government's assisted rental program. Half of these had mortgages at 10.5 per cent to 11.75 per cent interest rates and five-year terms. People had something that they could manage, but all
these mortgages will be coming up for renewal this year at rates of about 18 per cent or 19 per cent.
HUDAC estimates that monthly rents in these buildings would have to increase $200 to $250 per month per unit to cover the mortgage increases. Such forecasts are cold comfort for those on low and fixed incomes. The simply do not know where they will get the extra money each month to meet the increase in rent.
Foreclosures, and the doubling up of families predicted by the housing minister's own officials, may well provide fertile soil for family breakdown, crime, violence, alcoholism and suicide. With more than a million unemployed Canadians, social unrest and hardship are bound to grow.
The government has failed to see the link between a strong housing sector and a more vital and stable economy. HUDAC estimates that for every 1,000 housing starts, 2,210 jobs are generated for one full year in our economy. For every 1,000 lost housing starts, the national economy loses $83,500,000 in income. That is what a healthy, viable housing sector means to the economy-more jobs, more income.
Yet, we must recall the words of the finance minister who told his provincial counterparts in Halifax last November, that the unemployed would have to be sacrificed in the short term to bring down inflation over the longer term.
Sir, our criticism of Bill C-89 relates to the government's failure to bring in adequate relief measures commensurate with the severe housing crises and not just band-aids such as this bill provides.
I come back to the second principle that I mentioned earlier of the task force established by the government in 1969. That principle was that every Canadian should be entitled to clean, warm shelter, as a matter of basic human right.
Canada has made great strides since the Second World War in providing shelter for its citizens. But, Sir, this government has lost sight of the principle I just enunciated. The government's own housing officials say there will be "a substantial regression in housing conditions following 35 years of gradual improvement". It will unfortunately be true that the principle that every Canadian should be entitled to clean, warm, shelter as a matter of basic human right, is slowly but surely being put behind us.
Owning a home will perhaps become a reality for only the rich, leaving low and middle-income Canadians to fend for themselves in a period of high interest rates, near zero vacancy rates and spiralling inflation. Their government holds out little hope for assistance.
Mr. Speaker, despite all the warnings about deteriorating housing conditions in the country, the government fiddles while Rome burns. The right of Canadians everywhere to adequate housing fades away, as did Mr. Hellyer and the many former members of the Liberal cabinet who are no longer gracing government benches.
March 1, 1982


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Montreal-Bourassa, a riding that includes the lovely town of Montreal-North, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. In spite of all attempts by the opposition to discredit Bill C-89,
I believe that the bill now before the House is sensible and takes into account both the needs of the Canadian people and the government's responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the unfavourable comments made haphazardly by the members opposite. I wonder whether they realize what is involved. I wonder whether they realize the extent to which the proposed amendents will help to resolve some of the housing problems confronting the Canadian people today. I wonder whether they are at all concerned, and whether they realize that while they are wasting precious time making insinuating remarks and criticisms that are not at all to the point and have no justification, Canadians are waiting anxiously for us to take some kind of action. Many of us will have seen on national television Tuesday evening, the story of a family that is desperately holding on to its home until the Canada mortgage renewal plan becomes effective. Mr. Speaker, these Canadians do not want rhetoric, they want facts. With a profound sense of responsibility, the present government has taken the initiative. The minister responsible for housing has already made it clear to the House that after a number of meetings with lending institutions, he had received the assurance that they were ready to do their part in making the mortgage renewal program work so as to benefit the individuals and families that need it most. Mr. Speaker, we have clients who are waiting for this plan and we have people ready and willing to help put it into effect. We must get to work immediately, and to do so, we need constructive comments and not endless speeches that keep repeatig the same senseless cliches.
Mr. Speaker, another important point is the government's intention to take steps to help people who rent their homes. The budget provides $350 million for housing over the next two years, part of which is to finance the Canada rental supply plan. To refresh the memory of my hon. colleague, the rental supply plan is a stimulus for the construction of rental units, under which interest-free loans of up to $7,500 per unit are to be granted for the construction of 15,000 low-cost rental units in areas of the country where the rental market is tight or a substantial increase in the population can be expected. Of course, the loans will be in addition to assistance already provided under present non-profit and co-operative housing assistance programs. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their concern regarding the supply of rental accommodation across Canada.
Incidentally, I may point out that the province of Quebec has the highest proportion of renters in Canada. The percentage of renters in Quebec is 44 per cent, compared with 18 per cent in Newfoundland. Under the plan I just mentioned rental
Housing
units will be built in Quebec, as in the other provinces, in areas where vacancy rates are low and where the population can be expected to increase. This means that the program will be fair and adapted to actual need, thus benefiting people with low incomes.
Mr. Speaker, another interesting point is worth discussing. Renters have lower incomes and fewer assets than home owners. According to 1977 figures, renters have an average income of $16,800, while home owners have an average income of $27,800. The average home owner has net assets of $71,650, compared with $8,900 for the average renter. The Canada rental supply plan fits in very well with the non-profit and cooperative housing assistance programs, and will provide 25,000 units in 1982. Quebec has put the non-profit and co-operative housing assistance programs to good use, adapting them to specific needs. In all, the various plans will be providing 40,000 units during the next few months, which will be available to people on low and moderate incomes. I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will be playing a key role in providing 15,000 additional units for Canadians under the Canada rental supply plan. The bill will, in fact, enable the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide more substantial loans for rental housing.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by raising the loan value ratio and offering interest-free loans of up to $7,500 per unit, the government will be achieving two major objectives. It will be providing moderate-cost rental accommodation to the people who need it most and furthermore, it will be creating about
35,000	jobs in the construction industry and related sectors. In the present situation, this is an admirable initiative to which the members opposite cannot close their eyes, although they are asleep more often than not. Another aspect of the bill before the House concerns measures to assist home ownership. Canadians who want to own their own homes are having problems owing to high interest rates and especially because of the fact that mortgage funds are available only on a short-term basis. And when I say short-term, I mean as short as less than a year, in some cases. As a result, the individual who does become a home owner has high monthly payments to meet and has no way of knowing how these payments will fluctuate in the future.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-89 is certainly designed to make home ownership easier. Its provisions will enable Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to develop new mortgaging instruments. I must add that these new mortgaging instruments include mortgage loans with capital gains sharing, which will help many Canadians to deal with some of their present problems and will help future occupant home owners to obtain the required financing and to plan their future on the basis of the type of payments they will have to make. I would like to emphasize another point, Mr. Speaker, namely, that this bill

March 1, 1982
Housing
does not represent a complete answer to the issue of providing affordable housing for all Canadians.
I have already mentioned the assisted rental program, mortgage renewal assistance and the home ownership assistance programs. However, when I refer to additional housing initiatives, 1 am thinking about improvements which should be made to the worst housing conditions in Canada, those of our native people and rural poor. Much progress has been made to improve housing conditions for these people, but a lot remains to be done. As other government members have pointed out, in the last few months, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has made a comprehensive review of the rural and native housing program. Major amendments and improvements to the program, as well as a consultation process are now under way. Moreover, other amendments to the National Housing Act are now being prepared to make significant improvements to federal programs, concerning both residential rehabilitation assistance and construction of new housing under the Rural and Native Housing Program. This legislation will provide improved living conditions for rural residents and native people throughout the country.
Another long-term priority is the housing allowance. As we all know, because of financial restraints the government will not be able to implement this project immediately, but it remains the subject of serious consideration. A housing allowance program can take many forms and various options are now being considered. One possible approach would be to use the same indications for the housing allowance program as for the Canadian mortgage renewal plan. In other words, the housing allowance could be offered to those who spend more than 30 per cent of their income for housing.
Many Canadians are in that situation. Older people with fixed income and single-parent families trying to eke out a living with an income at or below the poverty line are particularly affected. A housing allowance program would be exceedingly helpful in their quest for better housing or to reduce the excessive amounts they have to spend for their current accommodation. I am referring to this long-term endeavour to show clearly that not only is the government acting now but it can also foresee future housing requirements and plan accordingly within the framework of a sound housing policy. Bill C-89 which is now before the House is a very significant step in that process and I urge all hon. members to adopt it.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to offer a few thoughts tonight on Bill C-89. I am extremely honoured that the minister has seen fit to sit in the House to listen to my words of wisdom and has given up some of his reading for a moment or two to listent to the concerns of my constituents, who are under a great deal of tension because of the policies of this government.
Bill C-89 is perhaps overblown as far as my constituents are concerned. This bill will be put forward as the greatest thing for housing since sliced bread. However, the people in British Columbia do not think the bill will be that valuable. The minister is going to tell us about how it will create 300,000 housing units and 70,000 jobs. I think that is a step in the right direction.


Ian Deans: It is also a lot of nonsense.


Mark Willson Rose: I beg your pardon.


Ian Deans: It is also a lot of nonsense.


Mark Willson Rose: You think it is a lot of nonsense. Well, that is your comment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should address his remarks to the Chair.


Mark Willson Rose: I was going to say that I had enough trouble being heckled by the opposition without having someone in my own party "helping" me.


An hon. Member:: Bring back Stanley.


Mark Willson Rose: I have a personal story to tell tonight. It is not about my hon. friend here because I do not think we should do that sort of thing in the House of Commons, but about a personal experience of mine.
In 1961, at the depths of the Diefenbaker recession, I purchased a "spec" home, just an ordinary, plain jane "spec" home for my family. It was a home for my wife and my three daughters in Coquitlam. It cost $13,000. The home was modest and frugal. It contained 1,500 square feet. It had three bedrooms and one bathroom and an unfinished basement. There was no carpeting and it was not even located on a road with a sidewalk or a pavement.


Ian Deans: Things were bad in those days.


Mark Willson Rose: My mortgage was 6 per cent for 20 years. The payments were roughly $100 per month-perhaps $107 but I have forgotten because it was such a long time ago. Today, because of the pressures on the housing market, one can purchase that kind of house in a municipality just across the river at Langley for $70,000.


Ian Deans: That is a rip-off.


Mark Willson Rose: The interest rate is 19 per cent and the payments are $1,000 a month, not $100. It takes an income of $40,000 a year to handle the purchase of a home at that price. The most interesting part of all is the fact that the house is worth $35,000 but the land upon which it sits is also worth $35,000.


Mr. Cosgrove:: There is the story.


Mark Willson Rose: When one considers that a house is made up of labour, material, contracting and profit totalling $35,000 and
March 1, 1982

that 50 per cent of the cost of that house is land and interest rates, that is something we should consider when we are dealing with a housing problem. So, one might ask, what is keeping people out of housing? It is not the cost of labour, or even the contractors' profits. It is two things only, land prices and interest rates. The land under the house I bought in 1961 was 10 per cent of the total cost. Today that same house costs $70,000, but the land under it is now 50 per cent of its cost. Perhaps the minister is going to say, "Well, that is all the fault of the municipalities".


Paul James Cosgrove: The provinces.


Mark Willson Rose: The provinces? Oh, well, I know, the Liberals are always out to bash the provinces these days, like the Tories are always out to bash the stand of the NDP because we are known, of course, as the western wing of the Liberal Party. I have heard that in about 16 Tory housing speeches to date, and I thought it would be nice to put on the record here that since last October the Tories voted with the Liberals 20 times.


Ian Deans: Twenty times?


Mark Willson Rose: Twenty times they sided with the Liberals, their ideological friends.


An hon. Member:: Good judgment.


Mark Willson Rose: And the NDP voted with the government 13 times.


John (Moody) Roberts: How many times did you vote with the Tories?


Mark Willson Rose: So who is the western wing of the Liberal Party?


An hon. Member:: The Tories.


Mark Willson Rose: The hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) is asking-


Ian Deans: The only party with two right wings.


Mark Willson Rose: I wish the Minister of the Environment would respect the fact that I am a meek and timorous member and that I get sort of bothered by that kind of-


John (Moody) Roberts: You have a lot to be meek and timorous about.


Mark Willson Rose: And humble, too. I think it is terrific that you read so much about Winston Churchill. I did not even know you could read.
I think it is obvious from what I have had to say here, Mr. Speaker, that land prices under the control of the provinces, or the municipalities if you like, are almost as important as interest rates in terms of why we have moved from what 1 think was a reasonably sensible housing policy 20 years ago, to one which puts interest rates in the position of impeding the kind of housing development that we need. I think it is all part of the problem of the federal government trying to privatize housing, mortgage interest rates and development so that the government can ease its way out. The minister shakes his head.
Housing
I did a musical dedication to him at Christmas with the little musical background that I have-


An hon. Member:: Very little.


Mark Willson Rose: -and I think he has had a very difficult time as the minister responsible for housing. I think it serves him right, but I know he has suffered as well. Because of his record of producing housing I did not know whether to dedicate to him that old tune "A Shanty in Old Shanty Town" or, for the many people who are doubling up and sharing accommodation, that song from "My Fair Lady", "All I Want is a Room Somewhere".
His record has not been all that terrific. It has been great, though, for developers, the banks and mortgage companies. But it has been really rotten for consumers, for people who desperately need housing.


Paul James Cosgrove: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member would entertain a question if time permits at the end of his comments?


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer any questions the minister cares to pose to me after I finish.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me talk to you a little about bank profits. We have had these record high interest rates and they were supposed to fight inflation. What happened, though, is that they have caused inflation. The minister knows that full well, but obviously he does not have the influence in cabinet to have that changed so we can have decent and affordable interest rates as we once had.
In the decade between 1970 and 1980 the average industrial wage in Canada rose 150 per cent to $317 per week. Direct taxes on individuals rose 300 per cent to a total of $41 billion. Now, contrast those figures with the record of the banks over the same period. Bank profits were up 210 per cent, their taxes were up only 14 per cent, and their tax rate was cut from 50 per cent to 15 per cent. So obviously there has been favouritism on the bank side of the equation. Some people say, well, what happened? We had a reasonably good housing policy in 1970. We might have even had a better one in 1960. I am sure the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) would agree that we probably had a better one in 1960 than we did in 1970, but we had a good one in 1970. What happened in the meantime? I will tell you what happened. In 1967 the Liberals freed the bank rate from the 6 per cent limit. It was said that if we could only eliminate that limit, we could have a lot more money for mortgages. So we eliminated it, and bank rates started rising for mortgages.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands talked about the housing report of the hon. member for-I have forgotten, but I think it was some Toronto Trinity riding-who had a big housing report on behalf of the Liberals. I can still remember that report; it had two big zeroes on the front of it and its author was the Hon. Paul Hellyer, a big "0", too. Later, and belatedly, he came over and joined the Conservative Party. I

March 1, 1982
Housing
will tell you what he advised. He said, "Remove the ceiling on NHA mortgages". So we did. That is what happens when the Liberal government takes the advice of a Conservative. Then, around 1969 Mr. Hellyer advised that we introduce five-year roll-over mortgages. That would put more money into housing. Now, where is that man today? He is usually up there in the gallery, but they just sold out The Toronto Sun to MacLean-Hunter, so he is probably down in Bermuda clipping coupons. I do not know where he is today, but I do not think that advice helped us at all. I do not think that advice helped the housing industry one whit.
In 1973 the Liberals and the Conservatives encouraged high-priced housing by unrestricted interest rates. All that did was to allow the developers and lenders to put their money into high volume projects where they could make the most money. In 1974 the Liberals introduced the AHOP program which has become a disaster for many people. I am quite certain that when Barney Danson, who is no longer with us, introduced it, he did not intend that at all. His intention was that if you start out with a low mortgage, after a few years the breadwinners' incomes rose and they could perhaps pay the higher interest rates. But what happened? Because of this, government mortgage rates outstripped incomes and so people were stuck with them. They abandoned them right, left and centre, and in many cases, such as in Oshawa and Brantford, ended up selling them to speculators. As if that were not enough, in 1979 CMHC withdrew from direct lending. Gradually, over the years, there has been a withdrawal of CMHC from an active role in the housing market to becoming observers and guarantors for the mortgage companies. That is their role today, and it is not satisfactory because it does not solve the problems we face.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a few more gimmicks. We have the mortgage interest deferral, and what does that mean? It means that after five years of deferred mortgage interest rates you end up owing the lending institution more money than you did five years previously. Then we have the other little thing imported from the United States, and I will speak about it a little more later; the variable rate mortgage. A no-limit mortgage is really wonderful. That sort of thing gives a great deal of stability to our country-that is nonsense.
We have a minister over there who is laughing about all of this while many people are crying because they are seriously concerned about losing their homes, their propects and their dreams. I do not think the minister should laugh about peoples' problems. I think he should cry in shame as well. I do not think he feels comfortable about it, though. I am not suggesting for one minute that the minister feels great about this. He probably feels very frustrated, like many people do.
What is the current situation? The current situation is that most people in this country think that an affordable home is a constitutional right. We have heard stories in this debate about property rights.


Mr. MacBain:: Not from us.


Mark Willson Rose: We have heard that people should enjoy in the Constitution, federally, despite what the provinces might say, the right to own property. I can understand that, notwithstanding the fact that I think the enshrinement of property rights federally is an intrusion on provincial rights. I think that we can understand the peoples' desire for property rights. The fathers, mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers of people sitting right here in this room came to this land from Europe and Asia for a dream, for land they could own, land that was there, because they did not have it where they came from. Therefore, they could be owners of property. They could have their own homes and farms. I think perhaps the right to shelter, like the right to health, like the right to medicare and like the right to legal services, should have been enshrined in the Constitution as a constitutional right, because what is happening right now is that more and more people, not fewer and fewer, are becoming tenants on their own land. The number of tenants is rising and the number of owners is declining. Why is that? Is that because of the wicked socialists? No. It is because of the rapacious interest of the mortgage companies, banks and private developers.
I just heard the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands say, "That was not me, I did not do that."


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I did not say that. I said it was great up here for you to be an audience.


Mark Willson Rose: I think it is terrific that you are an audience, and I am really pleased that you are interested.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you.


Mark Willson Rose: In British Columbia, where I come from, the average family earns about $30,000 a year. The average house price over in the Vancouver area, anyway, although I believe it is cheaper up the valley in suburbia, where I come from, was about $140,000 last year.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mark Willson Rose: If one spent 30 per cent of one's income, with a 16 per cent mortgage, and that is a low one, one could probably qualify for a $50,000 house, except that there is just one snag in that whole scenario-there is no $50,000 house. One needs an income of $80,000 to $90,000 to purchase a house. So what has happened to that dream of home purchasing? It has gone. It is out the window. No young person can aquire a home unless he has a mother or father who helps him.


Ian Deans: The Liberals are destroying them.


Mark Willson Rose: Home ownership is being destroyed.


Ian Deans: By whom?


Mark Willson Rose: The minister might say that the private housing market will fix it up. The private housing market cannot fix it up. It is impossible for it to do that. What will happen in future? We have a zero vacancy rate for rental units in Vancouver and that area. Yet, houses are sitting vacant, unsold,
March 1, 1982

because of high interest rates. No one wants to buy them because they cannot afford the mortgages, because they do not earn enough to afford the mortgages. In my riding, 30 per cent of the forest workers and the millworkers are unemployed. Many shingle mills in the riding I represent have just closed down. The workers are out. They are out of work. We have a country with money, we have a country with skills and we have a country with raw materials, yet we are short of housing. Zero vacancy rate! That must say something about mismanagement somewhere. It does not matter whether one points a finger at the minister responsible for housing, whether one points a finger up in the air, or points the gun at the foot and shoots the foot off. There is something wrong in this country when that happens. This mismanagement is totally unacceptable. People will be forced to double their mortgage interest rates.
Let me tell hon. members a little story about a constituent of mine. Approximately six months ago, a very nice young woman with three pre-schoolers came to see me at my office. She told me her story. She will have to give up her family AHOP home because it will soon be five years since they bought their place, and the mortgage is due for renewal. She is extremely worried about this. Out of her husband's net income of approximately $1100 or $1200 a month, they pay $465 for house payments. If the interest rates remain around 20 per cent, this young couple will face a mortgage payment of more than $750. That is out of $1100 to $1200 a month. I do not know how your math works out, but it looks to me like approximately 60 per cent or 66 per cent of family income goes to mortgage payments. So what will they do? They will have to do one of three things. They will have to sell the house and find something cheaper, which will be very difficult, or they will have to go renting, which is almost impossible, or else she will have to go out to work if she can find a daycare centre for her children. That situation is replicated all over Canada. I know it is much more tense in high-cost areas such as Calgary and the lower mainland of British Columbia; but I think it is only one example of the tragedy which affects many people and the tensions which build up in the family, the sort of policy in human terms, the stress and the scrimping of many households, as a larger and larger hunk of the family income goes to pay off mortgage payments, just for shelter.
We must talk about these things in human terms, because it is happening to people. It happens to people whom I represent. Hon. members cannot be unfeeling about this. We should freeze mortgage rates. At any time the family income goes above 30 per cent for shelter, we should freeze mortgage rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: There is no question about that. We cannot let it go on. We had it before in the thirties. We had it in Saskatchewan. What did the CCF do? Banks were threatening takeovers of farms. The new government forbade that to happen, and the people of Saskatchewan have never forgotten T. C. Douglas for that.
A lame justification was offered by the minister when I approached him with this. He said, "Well, you would be
Housing
helping home owners, but you would not be helping renters. Besides, after all, they are increasing their equity." I have forgotten exactly whether the minister said this to me or to the House. He further said, "It would be unfair because many renters would be caught in the same squeeze if it were not for rent controls." My view is that that is no excuse for doing nothing or for cutting rent controls, which is what he suggested in order to stimulate house purchases or more building of rental accommodation. He said AHOPers could claim an extra subsidy under certain circumstances and implied that the people were getting wealthy because their home values had doubled. Listen to the minister. Here is his advice. Great! "Sell your house and be rich and homeless." That is what he is saying.
Approximately 300,000 people are due for mortgage rollovers in the next few years, approximately three or four years. In Saskatchewan alone, there are 15,000 in distress, and it is what, two thirds the size of British Columbia? Probably. We are in a high-price area. However, most people do not talk about that. They are embarrassed to admit that they are scrimping on food, giving up on insurance, clothes and entertainment. Other people sell just to beat the foreclosure. They sell before the bailiff comes in. I do not understand why we have not had mass civil disobedience over this sort of thing, mortgage strikes, or rent strikes. I think a time will come when people will both refuse to pay and refuse to move out.
I will refer back to the 1960s. We had a 6 per cent legal ceiling. We cannot go back to 6 per cent, and everyone knows that. However, there certainly ought to be some place between 6 per cent and the inflation rate of 12 per cent, and perhaps 2 per cent or 3 per cent for a reasonable kind of mortgage interest rate. I think the minister agrees with me because I do not think he is a heartless man. He has been under a great deal of pressure. I think he has attempted to convince his colleagues that the matter is serious. The minister just cannot convince his colleagues to go along with him. At least, I hope he cannot. I think something has to give somewhere. It is not going to splash all over the household. What we now have is a shelter shambles. Nobody can quarrel with that. What do we need? In the Vancouver area we need about 2,000 co-op units next year. Last year it was over 1,000 we built. Next year, building will be down around 900. Why? Because federal funding has been withdrawn from the co-op units for senior citizens and others on low income. We need 14,000 total units per year on the lower mainland alone. The minister says that if we pass this bill there would be an additional 3,000 units. We would have
3,000	for all across Canada. We could use that many in our lower mainland without any difficulty at all.
I know that one has to make a start somewhere. But what has happened is that the government has cut back and is not going ahead.


An hon. Member:: They are starting to go backwards.

March 1, 1982
Housing


Mark Willson Rose: They are starting to reverse. That is what concerns us. The hon. member must believe, as the Frenchman said when he kissed the girl on the hand, "You have to make a start somewhere." I do not think making a start is an answer to our problem. The question is, who is doing what to whom?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You wouldn't say that if you had women in your caucus.


Mark Willson Rose: That is very interesting coming from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. We have a few women in our caucus. You have even fewer in yours.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You cannot even count.


An hon. Member:: Try percentages.


Mark Willson Rose: A recent report of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation said that the housing starts for British Columbia were going to be down 8,000 units in 1982. That is an extremely serious matter for the people in an area where the housing starts are already too low.
What is that going to do for rents? I do not know if the minister really thinks that rents should go up in order to entice more people to build more rental accommodation.


Ian Deans: Sure he does.


Mark Willson Rose: Unless rents somehow keep pace with the income increases of the average person, I do not think rent hikes will be the solution. We know that incomes have fallen behind the inflation rate now for five years in a row. The abolition of rent control is going to be particularly harmful to Canadians.
The minister says in this bill, essentially-it is unstated, it is said sotto voce, it is subliminal, it is a kind of implicit assumption-that if we would only allow the private sector to look after things, everyting would be fine, that if the government would only get out of the housing business directly and maybe go into guaranteeing things and propping up things here and there, things would work out and we would do pretty well. I am not so sure that that is going to be the case.
What we need in this country is a mix of housing. We do not need just public housing, we do not need just private housing, because no matter how efficient the private sector is, and it is efficient, we have one of the best housebuilding industries in the world, more than that is needed.
I would like the government to take some of that 97-cent petroleum incentive program dollars it intends to give to the oil companies for puching holes in the Beaufort Sea, and give it to our housing industry and see how they would do it, with conservation measures and solar measures and heat pumps and all that kind of thing. That would create far more jobs. We need to review the kind of policies this government has been following.
Anyway, the government cannot just sneak out and leave the private sector to do it all alone. The privte sector cannot do it. The reason it cannot do it basically is because of interest rates. Other people have highligted that. It is not a sort of new
discovery by me and my party as far as interest rates are concerned.
I talked today to the spokesperson from the real estate board of the Lower Fraser Valley. He said to me, "We see the light at the end of the tunnel; we have some optimistic kinds of things happening now, especially in low-cost housing, low-cost private housing, but interest rates are the biggest impediment to progress."
As long as blind adherence to high interest rates prevails, I do not think anybody, the private or the public housing sector, is going to be able to solve housing problems. But, remember, the Tories and the Liberals do not disagree on high interest rates all that much.
On June 5 or June 6 of 1981, on a television program on CTV, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said, and I quote in part: "Yes, I would continue to back Mr. Bouey." This is our former finance minister from the Tory party. He said: "Yes, I would continue to back Mr. Bouey, he is doing his best on the monetary side, the interest rate and the money supply." And then Michael Wilson, Etobicoke-Centre, has no quarrel at all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would call it to the attention of the hon. member that the practice is not to refer to hon. members by name, but rather by the constituencies they represent.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for referring to Michael Wilson. I should have said, that the hon. member for Etobicoke-Centre (Mr. Wilson), who is the critic on financial matters for the Conservative party, speaking before the Canadian Club, said that he agreed with the high interest rate of the government. He was telling us that the Conservatives would do nothing differently.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is a misquote.


Mark Willson Rose: A misquote? You are missing a lot. They are exactly the same. They are identical.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is just the opposite.


Mark Willson Rose: Just the opposite? They are both high-interest-rate parties. The Conservative Party is the western wing of the Liberal Party.


Gordon Edward Taylor: How can you say that?


Mark Willson Rose: I guess you have forgotten the numbers. I say the Tories have been voting with the Liberals 20 times and we have been voting otherwise.


An hon. Member:: They are the supporters of separatism in Quebec.


Mark Willson Rose: What the CMHC has told us, essentially, Mr. Speaker, is that we can predict continued high interest rates, a continuing decline in housing starts. We already have a problem, and the minister's own department says that if we
March 1, 1982

carry on the way we are going, we will have an even worse problem. Those are the facts. Is that irrelevant?
I was speaking a little earlier about the area I represent, a suburban riding which constantly needs a lot of housing. And the housing means growth, it means economic development. Our party is not against economic development.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Nationalization.


Mark Willson Rose: That is not the answer to everything. If nationalization made a social utopia of any country, every one of the countries would have been doing it by now.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It never will.


Mark Willson Rose: You do not have all the answers, either.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We do not say we have them all, but we have got some of them. Nationalization is not the answer.


Mark Willson Rose: The hon. member said that. He has a few ideas, that is right. I represent a suburan riding, and when the housing starts go down in a suburban riding, and they are, the growth is down, the lumber sales are down. I have already said that about 30 per cent of the people whom I represent who work in the mills are out of employment. The retail building sales are off. The subtrades-the electricians, the plumbers and such types of contractors-are not fully employed. In my riding we expected a 5 per cent growth in population per year. We have had a housing glut. We have not been able to sell the lot we had. We are now moving into lower-cost housing, as I described in my opening statement. A $70,000 house in British Columbia is a low-cost house. It is a 1,000 square-foot house with an unfinished basement, a plain Jane. The contractors are now cutting their price. Prices have dropped 30 per cent and the builders are building on smaller lots and they are taking lower profits. But the average price is still $90,000 in my area. If you have an $80,000 mortgage on it, that is $1,224 a month. If you multiply that by three, and that is about $40,000, you have to have that in order for it to be 30 per cent of your income. So it is a Catch 22. It is a bad state of affairs for most people. It is. Read that to your children some day. The builders will need all the help they can get. They need mortgages through CMHC. In my area they are now moving into building houses, not mansions as they were doing for the previous ten years because of the policies of this government.
Why do we have high interest rates? That is probably the greatest single impediment to cheaper housing. I will give a few ideas about why I think we have high interest rates. We have inhererited a lot of the American policy in terms of interest rates. We cannot ignore that. We cannot limit interest rates all by ourselves. We can have a made-in-Canada interest policy, but it will certainly reflect what is going on in the United States. We have put all our eggs in the big basket of megaprojects as the hopeful economic solution. The other day we heard that the Alsands project is in trouble. That is a serious matter. No one can say it is not. Do members know how much Alberta intends to put into Alsands? Between $3
Housing
billion and $5 billion. How much is the Government of Canada going to put in? Two billion dollars.
Four billion dollars is being spent through the petroleum incentives program to poke holes in the Beaufort Sea. Those are 93 per cent public dollars. We are prepared to make a $6 billion subsidy to sell four Candu reactors to Mexico. We are going to subsidize B.C. North-East coal transportation at the same time as we are cutting the Crow subsidy on grain from the prairies. God knows how much we will spend on the prebuild of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline through Alberta.
If we are going to put that kind of money into megaprojects, it is obvious there will not be money left for the housing assistance plan of the minister. If you plunk all those billions of dollars into megaprojects, you must cut back on housing projects, post-secondary education, medicare and hospitalization. This will be necessary because there is not that much money. That is why our interest rates go up and our dollar declines. The high rollers opposite are suffering from megamania. That is why we do not have enough money.
What is the government's solution? Cut back on social housing, protect the banks from excess profits, and support mortgage deferrals as it grasps the straw available to the minister of housing. Talking about mortgages in 1980, Peter Carter of the Royal Bank said:
As a responsible banker, working in a consumer-oriented society, I just cannot agree with a plan that sees the borrower ending up owing more money than he borrowed in the first place.
Well, they are in it in spades. The banks cannot see it, but they are in it. Lately we have been talking about six-month mortgages. Soon we will be talking about variable rates with no restrictions. At least in the United States there are some restrictions; a 1 per cent rise every six months. The government policy of high interest rates did not bring down inflation. It added to it. It is a wrong-headed, dumb policy, and members opposite are following it blindly. It will not help anyone.
What are we asking for? I will conclude with this, and possibly there will be time for the minister's question. We want a six-month freeze. We cannot carry on in this way. We want to bring down interest rates with a made-in-Canada interest rate policy just a little higher than the inflation rate. This need not be for the whole portfolio. The banks may still want to lend money for shopping centres or something similar at an interest rate of 22 per cent. However, it should not be for housing. It is too important. We want CMHC back into direct lending. It helped my father, it helped me and it would help a lot of other people to gain shelter. If 1 were not able to help my children, they would not be able to acquire any kind of shelter. They would always be victims of rapacious land owners.
We want a lid on bank mortgages and a capital gains tax on speculative housing. It is not hard to be a speculator. Most of us need only look in the mirror. Whether we like it or not, our housing assets grow up with the times.
I do not think anyone has the entire solution. We hear about do-it-yourself subdivisions, changing our zoning and having smaller lots. There are all kinds of ideas. The point is there is a

March 1, 1982
Housing
serious housing problem. It is not a simple matter. But it cannot be something that defies solution in a country with all kinds of land, materials, resources and a labour force which is at least 10 per cent unemployed.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member indicated that if there was time he would entertain a question. My question arises out of news reports of an opinion of his colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) who has a seat quite close to him in the House. That hon. member indicated that if elected premier of an NDP government in the province of Ontario, he would move to augment the federal non-profit program with a commitment of $100 million to the non-profit co-op program. Can the hon. member explain why the NDP governments of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have not adopted a similar policy?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody has about one minute remaining.


Mark Willson Rose: I do not know the figures. I did not see the news release. All I know is the excess profits of the banks in 1981 over 1980 amounted to something like $700 million. The new leader of our party in Ontario is not more than 31.1 know he is over 21. If the minister would like to ask why this mature individual put forward this program, the best place to direct that kind of question would be to the new leader of our party in Ontario.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to become involved in this debate on Bill C-89. I would like to point out that I really cannot understand the rationale of members opposite tying up the valuable time of this legislative body with such a ridiculous debate as we have heard over the past few days. I say this knowing full well that by now most Canadians fully understand the many options available under the budget put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). As a matter of fact, we spent about three weeks debating and discussing some of these endeavours in this very House, with a proposal by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) for the amendments to the National Housing Act and other matters.
It is obvious that members opposite still do not have a real perception of what is being done and what will be done. At the same time, while they are not fully cognizant of the many fine features contained in the housing and rental measures of the budget, they are telling us to spend more and more money. This is particularly true of the party of which the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) is a member.
In these times, that is surely the advice of fools and followers. That is the basic difference between this government and the other parties and that is surely why we are the government and they are not.
Our policies are based on sound reasoning and judgment. Our policies are for the times. With this in mind, let me just remind the House and refresh the memories of my colleagues that the measures contained in the budget were specifically designed to help those Canadians who need help the most.
What kind of nonsense would it be if we were to write a blank cheque? No, these measures were responsive to the needs of Canadians at this particular time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is the kind you got from Mexico and Russia.


Arthur Allister MacBain: We had to use Standing Order 75c to get this bill to conclusion. Yet, you see the response, Mr. Speaker. They do not want to let me speak. There is no one in the House to vote. They will try to get clear of voting.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You introduced the closure, not us.


Ian Deans: Don't threaten or we will have a vote. I promise.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Specifically, I would like hon. members to recall the Canadian mortgage renewal plan which was proposed to help borrowers who are renewing mortgages at admittedly high interest rates.
Basically, there are two major components to the program. The first component involves the government's guarantee of interest deferral by lenders to home owners experiencing a cash flow problem upon renewal of their mortgages. As defined under the program, these are home owners who have to spend more than 30 per cent of gross household income on principle, interest and taxes, but who otherwise have substantial equity in their homes and therefore cannot be described as hardship cases. The interest deferral component of the plan is therefore intended to ease the cash flow problems of those home owners by allowing them to borrow against the equity in their homes.
However, the CMRP recognizes that interest deferral is not an appropriate solution where there is not sufficient equity in the property against which to borrow. Therefore, the program provides that in those cases where people have little or no equity in their homes, the government will offer guarantees.
I would like to talk for a moment about the guarantees. The government will undertake to compensate lenders in amounts of up to $3,000, plus accrued interest during the deferral period, for any losses incurred for deferral of mortgage interest payments provided that the borrower's mortgage payments, including principal, interest and municipal taxes and 50 per cent of any condominium fees exceed 30 per cent of household income at the time of renewal. Household income, in this case, is family income from all sources.
The guarantee will apply only to one mortgage period, the first, second or another encumbrance, according to the borrower's choice, provided it was assumed or arranged at the time the property was purchased, and will apply to only one renewal period. Payments on these encumbrances may be taken into account in calculating the proportion of monthly payments to income.
The guarantee will apply to properties occupied by the owner, including duplexes and triplexes. In the case of duplexes and triplexes, gross rent from the space not occupied
March 1, 1982

by the owners must be considered income in calculating eligibility for assistance.
The guarantee will begin on the date on which the mortgage matures and continues for ten years but is discontinued when the property is sold or the mortgage is fully paid or until such time as the equity in the property returns to the same level as at the mortgage renewal date. The grants will be paid to the lender on the borrower's behalf in monthly instalments of up to $250 and are not taxable income. The grants will begin on the date on which the mortgage matures and continues for 12 months or until the property is sold, the mortgage is paid in full, or mortgage payments fall into serious arrears.
What about AHOP recipients? The maximum level of support available under the proposed Canada mortgage renewal plan is $3,000 annually. The government has increased the level of contributions available under the extended AHOP contribution program from $1,500 to $3,000 per annum. Current recipients of AHOP contributions will be eligible for assistance under this extended AHOP plan rather than the proposed Canada mortgage renewal plan. AHOP home owners who receive interest reductions loans under AHOP, rather than contributions, will be eligible for the proposed Canada mortgage renewal plan.
By focusing assistance to those home owners who need it most, CMRP provides a fair and equitable response to the renewal program. CMRP recognizes that home owners have significantly higher incomes than renters-$28,000 as against $17,000-and much greater wealth-$72,000 in net assets for owners as against only $9,000 for renters. A general and therefore high-cost program of mortgage renewal assistance would simply have transferred income-and wealth, in the long run, because of real house price increases-from less wealthy households to more wealthy households.
The government's program takes into account home equity and the proportion of income used to meet housing costs. There is general acceptance of the need for the explicit consideration of these factors. Without this, the mortgage renewal plan would not assist those who need assistance and would not ensure that federal tax dollars are used appropriately.
Beyond the questions of equity and fairness, the cost associated with a universal program would have been prohibitive and impossible to reconcile with fiscal restraint and the budget objective of bringing down inflation and interest rates.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the Canada mortgage renewal plan was designed with forethought and compassion for Canadians who are experiencing difficulty with current interest rates. It is meant to assist those Canadian families and individuals whose payment for shelter exceeds 30 per cent of gross income.
I believe that this program has another important facet with respect to administration. Although the federal government will administer the plan through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the lender will initiate applications for assistance. I believe that this is very important because the plan will not alter the essential close relationship between the
Housing
mortgagee and the mortgagor in any way. Also, the participation of lending institutions in the administration of the plan reduces the administrative and financial load which the government would have had to bear under a strictly governmental program. It allows the government to administer the plan without establishing a vast bureaucracy. The participation of lenders is restricted to screening applications and advancing the moneys. Financial institutions will not derive direct over-all benefit from the plan.
It is vital that the government not act as a middle man in this situation. Instead, the government chooses to offer financial assistance to those Canadians who are really in need.
We believe that this is equitable and fair. We also believe that it is more cut and dried than the current situation in Saskatchewan where the provincial government's assistance plan is mired in legal confusion. On the other hand, Manitoba's position closely follows the rationale of the federal government plan.
But these programs alone will not solve all the problems. For this reason I would like to acknowledge certain other elements contained in the amendments to the National Housing Act. One of the most disturbing aspects of the current situation is its volatile nature due to the increase in uncertainty regarding the future of interest rates, which affects both lenders and potential home owners. It almost goes without saying that such measures dampen both the effective demand for housing and the supply of investment capital.
It is obvious the changes to the National Housing Act would allow the CMHC to be even more responsive to consumer needs and to the concerns of the lending industry, builders and experts in the mortgage field by removing the loan guarantee restraint. They would also permit the government, through the CMHC, to widen the choice of mortgage options available to home purchasers. What this country needs is action by government, not complaints about perceived shortcomings in the proposals which do not take into account the current fiscal climate in this country. That is why it is very important that Bill C-89 be adopted by the House without further delay. The principles of equitable and targeted assistance are set out in the Canada mortgage renewal plan. That is what Canadians need.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, several times the previous speaker mentioned encumbrances. After his remarks I would say that he is the legal encumbrance of his wife.
Bill C-89 is evidence of the centralist attitude of this government. It is taking more and more of the national product and sharing less and less with the provinces and municipalities. With respect to housing, nowhere is the centralist attitude of the government better illustrated than in its decision to scrap the community services contribution program. I understand that funds for this program run out this month and that when they do, the program will be terminated. I think this is very

March 1, 1982
Housing
sad. In my view this kind of root canal economics escapes all logic.
The community services contribution program generates about $1.5 billion in construction each year and assists municipalities to provide essential services and rehabilitate older neighbourhoods. To my way of thinking, what government is all about is not to interfere with the free enterprise business community and not to buy oil companies, but to assist communities.
Speaking in the House, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), who is responsible for housing, asked:
What is the appropriate responsibility of this level of government? What is the appropriate level of responsibility of the provincial or municipal governments? Should the federal government be funding the construction of municipal buildings? We have to ask ourselves, does that make sense in this day and age?
The minister continued:
We have to ask ourselves whether there are other programs to which the government should respond that have a higher priority.
I see the minister is in the House tonight. Where are these programs which have a higher priority? Where are the government programs which will rejuvenate our slumping construction industry? Where are the programs which would enable Canadians to purchase homes at affordable prices and at affordable rates of interest? Where are the programs which have a higher priority which would provide shelter, a basic roof over our heads?
The great Canadian poet, Robert Service, once wrote:
But the gnawing hunger of lonely men for a home and all that it means; For a fireside far from the cares that are, four walls and a roof above;
In this day and age and under this government it is unlikely we will see that.
Where are the programs which have a higher priority which would ease an already tight rental unit market? Does the minister realize that in some urban centres the percentage of unoccupied or unrented units is well below 1 per cent? That is the case in my riding. Where are the minister's programs which have a higher priority which would provide jobs for Canadians in the construction industry and which would provide spin-off jobs in the supply and services industries and plants right across this great Canada of ours?
One of my closest associates is in the building business in my home riding. He has progressed and is highly respected in the community, but for the first time in the history of that company he has laid men off. Where are these programs which have a higher priority which would keep the forest industry and sawmills from closing down and throwing employees out of work? The hon. member from British Columbia who spoke mentioned this.
The answer to all these questions is that the "higher priorities" simply do not exist. The priorities of this government have been the Constitution and a phony charter of rights, metric forced from the top down, bilingualism and closure. Those are the priorities. The government is devoid of solutions and, indeed, I am not even sure if it fully understands the problems.
The minister responsible for housing insulted Canadians right across this bountiful country when he suggested that the Canadian dream of an ivy covered cottage was perhaps beyond the reach of Canadians. Imagine that in this land! The minister is right; the laissez-faire attitude of this government about the economy is what is crippling us.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, February 25, 1982, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

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.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Madam Speaker:: It being past ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.12 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 2, 1982