1982-02-22

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
31 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 22, 1982


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and to take strong umbrage at remarks about western separatism attributed to the Prime Minister in a headline story in Saturday's Toronto Star. In the Canadian Press report the Prime Minister is alleged to have blamed provincial and federal politicians for aiding and abetting the cause of western separatists. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Prime Minister tell this House who is ramming unpopular federal programs down the throats of Canadians by orders in council; who yelled at western grain growers about lagging sales of wheat, "You grew it! You sell it!", and who said "I came into politics to save Quebec in confederation-someone else can save the west."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE SALVATION ARMY
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of great public importance. The Salvation Army is celebrating 100 years of service to God and man in Canada this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: During this time, in peace and in war, the Sally Ann has demonstrated the "heart to God and the hand to man" service of a voluntary association, motivated by a strong religious faith and a deep social conscience that goes for souls and goes for the worst. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons):
That this House through you, Madam Speaker, expresses its appreciation to the members of the Salvation Army and its leaders, and extends best wishes for continuing progress in its humanitarian endeavours in Canada and around the world during this time of growing spiritual need.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under S.O. 43. In light of the fact that on February 17, 1982, a by-election held in the Alberta constituency of Olds-Didsbury elected western Canada's first separatist-oriented legislator, and in view of the fact that in subsequent days there has been an enormous expression of jubilation from many western Canadian citizens arising primarily from the belief that perhaps for a change the federal government will now pay attention to western issues, and since the potential for separation is far more serious and possible in western Canada than it ever has or probably ever will be in the province of Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House call upon the Prime Minister to initiate the one act that would most unify this nation, which is to lay aside his suggestions of a system of proportional representation and opt instead for an elected Senate with equal representation from all provinces and territories.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order


43 on a matter of pressing importance. 1 hope in view of the comments made by the Solicitor General, together with my consultations with him and with members of the official opposition, that we might have unanimous consent for this motion. All Canada views with disgust and dismay the announcement by mass murderer Clifford Olson that the sensibilities of Canadians may soon again be abused by his memoirs. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That while this House will and must always uphold the principle of freedom of the press, we unanimously urge all Canadian book, magazine and newspaper publishers to act in accordance with their responsibility to the people of Canada to the end that neither Clifford Olson nor his estate should be enriched by compensating him for the publication of his crimes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Today marks the sixth anniversary of the election of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: And we congratulate him on his survival in that position. In view of his outstanding performance as Leader of the Opposition for most of the past six years, and in view of the incisive judgment he demonstrated as Prime Minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):
That this House unanimously urges the Progressive Conservative Party to support the leadership of the Right Hon. the Leader of the Opposition with a view to having him lead his party in the next general election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a minute or two to speak to this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I am glad to see that all members of the House join with us on this side in marking the sixth anniversary of the leadership of this party by the right hon. gentleman with whom I have the honour of sharing this desk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I should note in passing, however, that the mover of the motion failed to include his own leader in those same urgings, because the only thing we have going for us on this side is his leadership over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Erik Nielsen: That may not have emerged as I intended it, Madam Speaker. What I meant to say is that the only thing we have going for us over there is that leader, and we urge him to stay where he is until the next general election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I am sure he will. I would like also to say to all of those hopefuls over there, the smiling Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts), and the leader's seatmate, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: He is among the hopeless.


Erik Nielsen: -that I am sure he will stay where he is until the next general election. So we wholeheartedly join in those urgings, Madam Speaker, because had they the courage a week ago Friday to go ahead with the designated allotted day, that general election, much to the relief of the Canadian people, would have come about and saved this country from the disastrous policies which are being stubbornly adhered to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, as selfserving as it might just seem to be, I would like to suggest to the House leader of the Conservative Party that, speaking for all 33 hon. members of the NDP caucus, we would accept this proposed motion.


Erik Nielsen: Where were they last Friday?


Madam Speaker:: It being 2.15 p.m., I must interrupt this debate. Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, and it arises out of the tabling of the terms of reference for the inquiry into the sinking of the Ocean Ranger. They were tabled in the House on Thursday night. Would the minister assure the House that the inquiry will be held in public, with a report which will be public and, regardless of the high seas aspect of this tragedy, that relevant, compellable witnesses will be called to testify on all matters, including any evidence of prior notice concerning the seaworthiness of and the safety procedures on the rig?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the difficulty is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I are both partly in charge of that inquiry, in the sense that it was created under the Inquiries Act and also under the Canada Shipping Act. I think I can answer "yes" to all the questions, as I heard them. This will be a public hearing. There will be a public report and witnesses will be heard. What was the fourth aspect?


INQUIRY RESPECTING PRIOR WARNINGS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My supplementary question really relates to the last part of my first question as to whether the terms of reference were wide enough to include any prior notice of seaworthiness of or the safety procedures on the rig. I would like to know whether, prior to the tragic sinking, there was any communication, letter or report to the government or to any of its agencies warning about the seaworthiness and safety procedures of the Ocean Ranger and, if so, what action was taken?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The answer is that to the best of our knowledge, no, there was no such communication.


REQUEST FOR HOLDING OF JOINT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL INQUIRY
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As I understand the situation, the government of Newfoundland sent a message to the minister last Friday, proposing a joint inquiry with respect to the tragic sinking of the Ocean Ranger. The government of Newfoundland has suggested that the commission of inquiry of the federal government be combined with the royal commission of the Newfoundland government and that they have joint terms of reference. It has suggested that there be one federal-provincial royal commission with the Honourable Gordon Winter and the
Oral Questions
Honourable Chief Justice Hickman as co-chairmen, and that the federal government could appoint other commissioners if it so wished. It has also suggested that the report may be made public.
Has the government now considered this request from the government of Newfoundland that there should be a joint inquiry? Has there been a favourable consideration of that? If so, when will the necessary changes be made so that we can have a joint inquiry? I might add that this would conform with the wishes of all of the religious denominations of Newfoundland, as expressed by Archbishop Penney last Friday.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada did offer the proposal of a joint inquiry to the government of Newfoundland last week. My executive assistant phoned the government of Newfoundland on my behalf to propose such an inquiry. Unfortunately, this offer was not taken up, and the government of Newfoundland decided to go ahead with its own inquiry.
This morning I received the telex which the minister responsible for energy in Newfoundland sent us on the weekend. We have not had time to examine the situation. I will discuss this matter with my cabinet colleagues and I will give our answer in the next few days. I might just point out to the hon. member, however, that there are limits to the number of commissioners who should be envisaged, and we will look at this matter.


TIMING OF DECISION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I am not too concerned about who suggested the joint inquiry first. However, let me tell the minister that there was no suggestion, I am advised by the government of Newfoundland, from him or the federal government that there should be a joint inquiry; rather, all that was done was to contact the government of Newfoundland to ask whether they had any views to give on the terms of reference. The minister appointed and announced a federal commissioner last Tuesday, in this House. However, putting that aside for the moment, the government of Newfoundland has now proposed a joint inquiry, which is the wish of the people of Newfoundland. The majority of the people who were lost on that rig were Newfoundlanders. The people of Newfoundland want both governments involved in a full public investigation of this tragic event to ensure that every possible angle is covered.
There have been joint chairmen of commissions before. 1 remind the minister of the bilingualism and biculturalism commission of some years ago. Also, it would only make a total of six commissioners if the federal government wanted to appoint two additional commissioners. Can the minister tell the House when the government will make its decision? Could it be within the next 24 or 48 hours, in view of the very deep feelings about this whole matter in the province of Newfound-


Oral Questions
land, and the traumatic shock that has been experienced there?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am sure it would never cross the hon. member's mind to spread lies. I must tell him that the Government of Canada and my executive assistant on my behalf communicated with Mr. William Marshall last week and suggested to him that we have a joint inquiry. I know, through a third party, that this fact was communicated to the Premier of Newfoundland. The government of Newfoundland had decided to have its own inquiry. We now have a request or a suggestion that it should be joint. The government will examine this very carefully and see what arrangement can be made that will be satisfactory to both governments to ensure that there will be a full investigation and inquiry, and that all facts are brought to the attention of the public. In the meantime, it is very important that the record be set straight.


REASON FOR DELAY IN ANNOUNCEMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask a final supplementary. I spoke today with the Newfoundland minister of energy, Mr. Marshall, who has a solid reputation for honesty and truthfulness. He advised me that at no time has the government of Newfoundland been invited by the Government of Canada to have a joint inquiry. I would put his reputation for truth and veracity above that of anybody else one might care to mention in the Government of Canada. Be that as it may, suppose there has been some mistake about this matter, if the minister has already invited the government of Newfoundland to have a joint inquiry, why can he not say today that there will be a joint inquiry and that the details will be worked out in the next 24 hours? Why can he not do that?


Marc Lalonde: For a very simple reason, Madam Speaker. A number of conditions seem to have been put by Mr. Marshall in his telex. We have been served ultimatums before by the government of Newfoundland. I want to see what those conditions imply. We will discuss this matter. As far as the reputation of Mr. Marshall or my own is concerned, I will say before the House quite clearly that this government did offer a joint commission.


John Carnell Crosbie: Then let's get on with it.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last week I pointed out that in Canada we were losing some 3,000 industrial jobs per working day because of lay-offs attributed to a lack of sales in the domestic market and
because of declining export sales. On the weekend de Havil-land aircraft, which produces some of the best planes in the world, announced a lay-off of 475 men and women in Toronto because, it said, competing governments in the United Kingdom, Spain and France offer better financing arrangements for sales.
Will the minister agree that the time is overdue in Canada that, when we have a first-class competitive product, the Government of Canada should ensure that our financing for the sales of that product is second to none in any other nation in the world?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, we are working on ways of dealing with this financing situation. We hope to have some decisions to announce before too long. At the same time, there is no question that the sluggish world economy is affecting sales, not just of de Havilland but of all competing companies. A number of other companies in other parts of the world have also announced lay-offs. At the same time I am glad that my hon. friend confirms the quality of the de Havilland product. We are working actively to ensure the success of its sales in Canada and around the world.


REQUEST FOR FINANCING TO RETAIN COMPANIES IN PRODUCTION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister has missed the point. The company specifically noted that other countries were getting the sales. They are not laying off the same numbers. They are beating us, and more specifically they are beating the Government of Canada in intense competition.
I would like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, since we now have in this first-rate industry in Canada a layoff of 1,140 jobs by de Havilland of Toronto, and over 900 by Pratt & Whitney in Montreal, would he agree that instead of losing another first-class industry such as we had with AVRO Arrow, it makes immense financial sense in the short run, with high interest rates, either here or elsewhere in the world, that the Canadian government step in with financing to ensure that those jobs remain, so that when interest rates finally come down, here and elsewhere, these first-class competitive firms will remain in existence in Canada, employing the men and women in this country who need jobs?


Marc Lalonde: What about Candu reactors?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my recollection of the reason for the lay-offs announced by Pratt & Whitney was not the rationale linked with export financing but the slow sales of airplanes which were built by other companies outside of Canada and which


were major customers for the very fine engines built by Pratt & Whitney in Montreal.
At the same time, the hon. member has spoken of a problem of which we are aware and for which we are actively developing solutions. We recognize the need to enable companies like de Havilland to deal with the export financing situation. I look forward to having some announcements in this regard before too many more weeks go by.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The minister promised in private discussions, and publicly last Tuesday in answer to questions related to Ridley Terminals Incorporated that there would be a meeting to provide full disclosure of the reason why hundreds of jobs were given to Japanese rather than Canadians both in Ontario and Quebec. Both the National Harbours Board and Ridley Terminals Incorporated have refused such a meeting. If we cannot have the memos for which I asked, will the minister keep his promise, which he has made twice now, and arrange a meeting for full disclosure?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I said I would arrange a meeting between the company, Stephens-Adamson, and the consultant to the National Harbours Board, Swan Wooster, on the west coast, at which point both parties would have ample opportunity to exchange views, and that has been done. That is what I suggested I would do. Does the hon. member suggest that I should do more? Is he suggesting that I should obtain a letter, presumably from the National Harbours Board, explaining to me in detail why they made that decision?


John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, the minister knows full well that at the meeting between Stephens-Adamson and Swan Wooster, and the National Harbours Board, a week ago tomorrow, the terms of the meeting were full disclosure. Full disclosure was denied by the National Harbours Board and Swan Wooster unless Stephens-Adamson would agree that they would not disclose or use the information they received. Obviously, they cannot do that.


REQUEST FOR FULL DISCLOSURE
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, will the minister have in place, by perhaps this Thursday when I understand he will be speaking in Vancouver, a meeting which will include the same principals, with the intent of full disclosure?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this was not an easy decision to make. Due to the urgency in procuring the stacker-reclaimers, the decision had
Oral Questions
to be made very rapidly. At one point I had a choice between substituting my knowledge for the knowledge of the National Harbours Board of Canada and its consultant. When confronted with matters of this kind, a minister does and should hesitate a lot. I did that and, after waiting, I thought I should side with the National Harbours Board and the consultant.
My hon. friend might imply that he would have done differently had he been the Minister of Transport, but I suggest he would not have done so because the danger would have been great in the sense that the project, which is so important to the development of the west coast, might not have been built on time.


GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT POLICY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker,
I would suggest to the minister that he could have decided to take the Canadian company and provided jobs in Canada.
Is the minister aware that the unions on the west coast have said that on this first megaproject they will not permit the industrial spin-off to be in Japan and that they will close down the project, if necessary, in order to get the government to respond? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce could answer this question, in view of his answer to the question put by my leader. Is there a government procurement policy in Canada, a policy to procure jobs for Canadians so that 97 per cent of the jobs on this project could go to Canadians, two thirds to British Columbia and one third to Ontario, and so that we could have an industrial strategy for this country?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it is awfully easy for the hon. member to be that cocky when he does not have to make the decision. In this instance money was not the principal consideration. I want to emphasize that. The principal considerations had to do with technology and timing. What I did was make sure that a percentage-a substantial percentage, because it is 53 per cent of that piece of equipment-would be produced in Canada, which is somewhat of a compensation for the loss of the sale itself.
In matters of this kind the position of the minister is not easy-everyone will understand that-because the minister is not a technician. The minister does not have full knowledge of the equipment, technology and so forth. He has to rely on somebody, and I prefer to rely on the National Harbours Board rather than on the hon. member.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External


Oral Questions
Affairs. As the minister is aware, a Canadian citizen, Sidney Jaffe, was kidnapped forcibly and against his will by American bounty hunters in Toronto last September 23 and taken to Florida for prosecution. This kidnapping was a gross violation of Canadian law. It was a violation of our Criminal Code. I would like to ask the minister what steps have been taken by the Canadian government to see that these bounty hunters are extradited to face charges in our country, and what steps he has taken on the reported complicity of American border officials in this kidnapping. What is he doing to remedy this outrageous affront to Canadian sovereignty?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we have made very strong representations to the United States about this case. We have asked for the extradition of the bounty hunters, and the matter is under consideration by the United States state department.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, it appears to me that the government is not giving this priority attention. If the government is not really interested in this matter, perhaps it could arrange to hire these bounty hunters to find Mr. John C. Doyle, Hal Banks and other Liberal friends.


DELAYED RESPONSE BY UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In 1974, Ronald Anderson was arrested by American officials on Canadian soil and freed within six days. I want to ask the minister what has happened to Canadian-United States relationships that it now takes something in excess of six months before we get any response, let alone any action in this particular matter.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend knows that in a case of this kind, which involves state authorities and the courts, there is no easy way by which a strong representation made by this government-one repeated recently on a visit by our ambassador in Washington to the United States deputy attorney general-can automatically be acted upon by the state and judicial authorities in question. We have made very strong representations, as we are able to do, to the United States federal Secretary of State, and we believe that the United States government will respond to our request.


NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NATIVE HEALTH
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister will be aware that because of the desperate health conditions amongst native people discovered by our Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped, the committee issued a special follow-up report which strongly endorsed the upcoming national conference on native health. In view of the fact that plans for this all-important conference
have been scuttled by the minister's department, and because of the urgency of the matter, will the hon. lady give her assurance that the conference will be held at an early date?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, of course, Madam Speaker. I have not heard anyone say that plans for the conference on health to be held by Canadian Indians have been scrapped. I do not know where the hon. member got his information. As far as I know, native leaders are now making arrangements and will be submitting concrete proposals, which I shall support wholeheartedly.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET INDIAN REPRESENTATIVES
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, the information came from the National Indian Brotherhood, and representatives of that organization have been endeavouring to have an audience with the minister for several months, without success. Will she now take the opportunity to meet with them at the earliest opportunity with a view to putting plans for the native health conference back on the rails?


Monique Bégin: I quite understand that the hon. member wants to give me all the help he can in promoting projects to help Indians suffering from various physical handicaps. However, I am not very happy with the manner he has chosen to raise the subject. When native groups want to see me, they call my office and I see them regularly. This has always worked and it will continue to be my policy.


DISASTERS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. After the intervention of Archbishop Penney at the ecumenical service for the crew of the Ocean Ranger, the Newfoundland provincial government announced it was willing to participate in a joint commission to investigate the accident. If the federal government goes ahead with the joint commission, can the minister tell us whether the federal government will allow labour participation on that commission?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I answered a similar question put by the hon. member for St. John's West a few minutes ago. The government will examine the situation and announce a decision in the next few days.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the minister obviously did not hear the question, probably because it was not addressed to him. I specifically asked the Minister of Labour whether the government would allow labour participation on any joint board, if it was decided to have one.


FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION FOR WORKERS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the same matter. It has been said by some federal officials that any inquiry will take over a year to complete. In the meantime will the minister allow the workers to be protected under Part IV of the Canada Labour Code so that they will at least have some protection?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had been here last week he would have heard the answer to a similar question, namely, that we are very interested in resolving this matter through the next package of amendments to the Labour Code, and we hope when that time comes all members of all parties in this House will give it their full support.


An hon. Member:: When?


PUBLISHING
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question, which was raised in the Ontario legislature but appropriately referred to this House, is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In light of the fact that last week this House approved a motion expressing its strong disapproval for the publication News from the Ukraine, a Soviet publication distributed in Canada which deliberately spread hate literature about a former member of this House, the former member for Park-dale, and considering that this publication compared Mr. Shymko with the would-be assassins of Pope John Paul II and President Reagan, and in view of the fact that this kind of malicious propaganda by a foreign publication against a former member of this House cannot go unchallenged, what appropriate steps is the minister prepared to take to ban such publications from invading our borders and attempting to destroy the reputations of certain Canadian statespersons?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, last week I joined this House in supporting the motion which was passed. The statements made about Mr. Shymko were indeed deplorable.
We, being a free society, do not ban publications at the border. We do not have the power to act in that way but we have power, under our domestic legislation as in the anti-
Oral Questions
propaganda legislation for instance, to take action against publications which may attack individuals. I have written to Mr. Shymko advising him along those lines, and I have no doubt that he is seeking advice from other quarters as well.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Catharines.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I have a short question for the minister who answers for the Canada Post Corporation. He was in the House a moment ago. I wonder if I might reserve my question until later in the question period.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I have given the Minister of National Defence notice of my question. Ordinary Seaman Emery was court-martialled in early January and sentenced to six months detention and fined $750 on a drug related charge. The detention portion of the sentence was suspended by the court. Five weeks later, the commander, Pacific Command, using his authority to remit, remitted the fine but lifted suspension on three months of the detention, thus greatly increasing the punishment. Can the minister assure the House that he will take steps immediately to rectify this miscarriage of justice?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for advising me of the question ahead of time. I am well aware of the case of Private Emery. As soon as I got the telegram from his lawyers-and I think the hon. member received a copy-I asked that the proceedings of the court martial be sent to NDHQ to be reviewed quickly.
Despite the strict discipline that we must have in the military, and also the very strict regulations, I am always careful to ensure that the fundamental rights of all members of our forces are well preserved.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence concerning the tragic sinking of the Ocean Ranger. From the time the distress call came in to the Armed Forces Rescue Coordinating Centre at 1 a.m. on January 15, can the minister tell us why it took almost eight hours for the first National Defence plane to get to the scene? It did not arrive until 9 a.m. that same day. A helicopter from Universal Helicopters Ltd. in St. John's which had received the distress call at the same time


Oral Questions
was on the scene at 3.20 a.m., 35 minutes after the order had been given on the Ocean Ranger to abandon ship.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the answer to this question is very simple. In rescue operations there is a big difference between what can be accomplished with an airplane and what can be accomplished with a ship. As the hon. member knows, the weather at the time made it impossible for the plane to take off on time. Some of the rescue planes were ready to fly and some helicopters were also ready to fly, but they could not take off because of the adverse weather conditions. I think this is the only answer I can give the hon. member. From the information that I have, I am not aware that there was any abnormal delay, or change from what we usually do in such cases; we made every effort to ensure that we were there as fast as was possible and that we responded as soon as possible after the call was received by us.


EQUIPMENT ON HELICOPTERS STATIONED AT GANDER, NFLD.
James Aloysius McGrath: As a supplementary question, Madam Speaker, could the minister explain to the House why the Universal Helicopter which received the distress call at the same time, 1 a.m., was on the scene at 3.20 a.m., while the Armed Forces rescue helicopters from Gander did not reach the scene until 10 a.m., nine hours later? Could it be that the helicopters at Gander do not have the necessary equipment to operate in this kind of weather?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think the last part of the hon. member's question is true; the civilian helicopter did not have the necessary equipment to rescue people. For example, it was not equipped with the hoist equipment which is very important in a rescue operation. Our rescue helicopters are equipped with that equipment.
I will inquire why there was such a delay, but as far as I am aware there would have been no reason why we could not have been on the scene of the tragedy, providing the weather had permitted.
I do not want to presume, but I think that the inquiry into the tragedy of the Ocean Ranger will indeed prove that regardless of the amount of equipment we could have had; twice or three times or five times as much, we could not have saved any of the lives lost.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister is probably aware that individuals who are employed in domestic service in Canada on work permits must pay the normal contributions for unemployment insurance and Canada
Pension even though they can never collect either benefit, since they must leave Canada as soon as their employment terminates. Has the minister considered the unfairness of these taxes which are imposed upon this group of people in his recent budget and, if not, will he give the matter consideration soon?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I do not recall having considered these particular cases specifically but I will keep in mind the hon. member's representations and consider the views he has expressed.


CHILD CARE TAX DEDUCTION
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. It is usually working mothers in Canada who employ these domestics so that they may go out to earn a living. At the moment the minister is allowing the magnanimous child care deduction of $1,000, which has been unchanged for the past six years, although child care expenses are many times that exemption. Would the minister please keep that in mind when he is considering the other matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker. The question of the child care exemption or deduction is presently under consideration, as I recollect, by an interdepartmental committee. It has not been possible to reach a conclusion but it is an area that I believe deserves consideration.


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As the minister knows, there are a number of small communities on the west coast which are very dependent upon the west coast fishing fleet, especially the trailers. I understand that representatives of the trailers' association met the minister recently.
In the allocation of the stocks of the salmon catch, which have been steadily reduced for the trailers from 30 per cent to 25 per cent then to 20 per cent, is it the policy of the department, to consider the effect this will have on the coastal communities? Has he considered that the consequence of reduced catches might cause the trailer fleet to withdraw from those communities?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Clem Tillion, the former president of the Senate of Alaska who is now the director of international fisheries for the Governor of Alaska. I had a very pleasant discussion with Mr. Tillion at lunch today.


In answer to the hon. member's question, I must tell him that I met with representatives of the trollers. I would point out that all segments of the fleet are a bit nervous at the present time because we are considering adjustments for the coming season. The same day that I met with the trollers I received a telegram from the vessel owners' association cautioning me not to make concessions to one fleet type at the expense of another. This will be the subject of the usual discussions, and there have been some discussions already. I will try to keep the impact on all segments of the fleet very much in mind before management decisions are made. This may not be as simple as it appears, because in some cases trollers are targeting or by tradition have targeted on fish which are in rather difficult shape. We will keep this in mind, as we usually do.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON ALLOCATIONS
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister could return to the question that I put to him. What will the policy of the government be with respect to these coastal communities and, most specifically, with respect to the allocations? Because trollers will have to move off the threatened chinook and cohoe stocks, what consideration is the department giving to allowing trollers to have some share of this year's Adams River sockeye run?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, that very question is being discussed now. I had a chance to discuss this very issue with the representatives who met with me last week.


FINANCE
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Finance. For several months officials of the United Steelworkers have, without success, repeatedly requested a direct meeting with the minister to discuss the impact of this coming November's termination of the tax moratorium on negotiated northern benefits and the need for a longer, more flexible transition to and consultation about his as yet undefined new regime north of 60. Will the minister finally agree to the oft-repeated and reasonable request for a face-to-face meeting? If so, when? And, if not, why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, of course in principle I accept the hon. member's invitation. I have quite a number of delegations which I must see in coming weeks, and of course I will attempt to give the group he mentioned the priority he wishes.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MINISTER WITHDRAW BUDGET MEASURE
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker,
I hope the principle turns into a reality very soon. Both construction workers and loggers in my constituency and elsewhere across Canada have calculated that the government's new taxes on employer paid benefit premiums, and camp room and board will cost each of them an extra $3,100 to $6,400 a year in taxes, driving some net incomes below the poverty line. Will the minister please consider dropping these new taxes before they cause irreparable harm to industrial relations and the economy, ceasing his experiment with "Dickensian" economics, and stop driving proud workers into either the poorhouse or on to the dole, as some of them are talking about doing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would really like to meet with a representative of the group reaching those extravagant conclusions, because there was nothing in the budget measures which would produce the annual tax increase of that amount.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It is supplementary to a series of questions put by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings which related to the deliberate awarding of a contract to a Japanese manufacturer over the Canadian Stephens-Adamson company, at a significant loss of Canadian jobs. On February 16 the minister said that he had arranged a meeting at which a full explanation of the decision would be given. Nothing at that time was said about confidentiality. When the company came to the meeting, it was told that it would be given an explanation only if it agreed in advance not to use the information to cause reevaluation of the decision. Why was that condition imposed, and exactly what is it that the minister is trying to hide about the decision, which is costing Canadians jobs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the reason for the confidentiality given by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, that is to cause a re-evaluation, is a personal one of his. I will find out about the real reason, which probably concerns commercial confidentiality. In answer to the hon. member who previously asked the questions, I more or less hinted that, if he were to suggest it, I would try to produce from the National Harbours Board an explanation in general terms as to the reason for the decision. Again I return to the basic difficulty I had. 1 had the choice of imposing my view on the subject or the view of experts. Had I gone the other way and had the project been a failure, the Leader of the Opposition would have been the first one to dump on me.


Oral Questions EXISTENCE OF MEMORANDA


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport, as with other ministers in government, has an obligation to make arrangements which protect Canadian jobs and advance Canadian development. He has done the opposite. He is not the minister of transport for Japan; he is the Minister of Transport for Canada, and he has responsibility to Canadian citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He said that the question of re-evaluation was entirely something I invented. I drew that language precisely from a letter written by Stephens-Adamson to Mr. Jacques Auger, the acting chief executive officer and vice-chairman of the National Harbours Board, who indicated that that qualification or demand for confidentiality was imposed in his presence; that was the testimony of Stephens-Adamson. Does the minister have in his possession any internal memoranda from any officials of his ministry which call into question the decision recommended to him by the National Harbours Board before the decision was taken? If he has, will he publish these memoranda?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 have such memoranda which prove that I was on the case quite extensively for a period of a week or more. I asked the National Harbours Board to produce the reason the decision had gone the way it did. I did my job, which was to ensure that the Canadian company bidding on the project had ample opportunity to present its case.
I want to emphasize the fact that 53 per cent of the piece of equipment is to be produced in Canada, again showing that, even because of technology and timing a Canadian manufacturer could not get the contract, but nevertheless offorts were made to bring about the maximum work done in Canada.


REQUEST THAT MEMORANDA BE TABLED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, perhaps inadvertently the minister is confusing this question more than need be. My question to him is simple. Does he have in his possession memoranda from officials of the Department of Transport which call into question the recommendations of the National Harbours Board? Does he have such memoranda and, if so, will he table them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not to my
knowledge, Madam Speaker. I have memoranda from the National Harbours Board explaining why the final decision was what it thought it should be.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, in the temporary absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to his parliamentary secretary.
Could the parliamentary secretary inform us whether he is aware of the case of Mrs. Gisella Confino-Levi of Toronto, who was ordered by the minister to leave Canada because she had entered Canada illegally? She was asked to leave Canada voluntarily, otherwise a deportation order would be made against her.
Can the parliamentary secretary inform us whether the minister is aware of this case and, if so, is there any hope that this lady will be allowed to remain in Canada under the appropriate legislation?


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, during the past weekend a major symposium on refugee status was held in Toronto. The minister and others attending the symposium were advised of the case of Mrs. Gisella Confino-Levi, and since Canada has a solid reputation in this area, the minister promised to look into the case as soon as possible and is expected to make a decision within the next few days.


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. It is now approximately two years since a promise was made of very early action with respect to parliamentary reform. We still have not seen any proposals from the minister, although he made a very interesting speech to the Federal Lawyers' Club of Ottawa before Christmas. When will the President of the Privy Council bring in the proposals which were described as imminent about two years ago?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the matter of parliamentary reform is under discussion among House leaders. We have already had a meeting. I have submitted documents to them, and I am expecting that they will come back to me with some proposals which I asked them to make. In so far as I am concerned I also have proposals to make, but at this stage it is at the level of House leaders. If the hon. member is in a position to say that his House leader is not interested in discussing this matter with me-and he certainly did not mention that to me; on the contrary, he seemed very openminded-then I am in a position


to discuss proposals with him or with other colleagues. At this stage I would prefer the matter to remain at the level of House leaders.


FORM OF PROPOSALS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there has been an agreement among House leaders to hold future meetings with respect to discussing some arrangement on parliamentary reform. Parliamentary reform is a matter for the entire House of Commons. What will be the form of the proposals of the President of the Privy Council? Will it be agreements among House leaders, a white paper, or something he will be tabling in the House of Commons so that all hon. Members of Parliament can see what is in mind, rather than it being part of House leaders' arrangements?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member that if some changes were to be proposed and to be implemented in the short term, they should not be controversial and they should be accepted by a great majority of members on both sides of the House. But at this stage what I have indicated to my colleagues is that we are discussing not only the substance of the change but the procedure and process as well.
If I understand the question put by the former Tory House leader as a refusal by the present House leader of the Tory party, then I will change my approach. But at this stage I do not want the debate to be politicized, I want to discuss with the House leaders what kinds of changes would not be controversial, changes that were already recommended to the House in former reports of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. If we cannot agree to go to our respective caucuses with proposals that were already made by a committee of this House, then we will see what other proposals we can make.


Walter David Baker: It has been two years.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, it has been two years. But last year the Tory party was not interested in talking about parliamentary reform.


Walter David Baker: We are always interested.


Yvon Pinard: The Tory party was hijacking Parliament at the time. What we want to do at this stage is to try to come up with proposals that will meet a broad consensus in the House. I would not like the atmosphere of the talks spoiled just because the hon. member asks why we are discussing this at the House leaders' level.
Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, following consultations with the other parties in the House and having achieved their agreement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Transport presented to this House on Thursday, February 18, 1982, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
February 19, 1982-The Minister of Finance:
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to review the profit situation of the chartered banks.
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I be permitted to put a question to the government House leader on a matter that appears on the Order Paper? I was interested to note that the government has placed a notice of motion on the Order Paper today that flows from a discussion that took place between the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and myself early last week. The government has indicated that it is intending to move a reference as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to review the profit situation of the chartered banks.
I want to say that I have no objection. In fact, I welcome the opportunity to review the profit situation of the chartered banks. However, would the government House leader consider one of two things: either placing before the House some terms of reference that might reflect more adequately the concerns that are felt on all sides of the House with regard to the direction that such an inquiry might take, or consider appointing a committee between now and, say, the end of the week, representing the three parties in the House for the purpose of drawing up some terms of reference in order that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is not saddled with the task of trying to determine what it was that the House of Commons would like to see studied.
The profit situation of the chartered banks may or may not take into account a number of the business practices in which the chartered banks currently engage. I would like to be sure when the reference comes through the House that the committee clearly understands what it is that we in the House of Commons want to see studied and what it is we hope the committee will be able to find. I would like to be sure that the committee is quite clearly given the power to hire expert staff,


Point of Order-Mr. Waddell
since it will be up against the wealthiest of wealthy institutions and the banks themselves will have done a considerable amount of homework in preparation for their appearances before the committee. I think it only fair that members of Parliament be given a similar kind of research assistance.
Therefore, will the government House leader consider meeting to discuss this matter further in order that we can get something clarified, or appointing a committee if need be in order to set up the terms of reference, or proposing some terms of reference himself so that we might discuss them in the House of Commons?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not object to a meeting to discuss the terms of reference. The intent of this motion is to have the subject of the chartered banks' profits referred to the appropriate committee. We do not intend to put a motion on the Order Paper that would require debate at this time. 1 am much more interested in coming to an agreement with the opposition parties on the terms of reference of an appropriate motion.
Therefore, I have no objection, provided we have unanimous consent today, to having this motion stood instead of being referred to government orders. In the meantime, I will speak to my colleagues, the other House leaders, and try to come to some agreement on the terms of reference.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, since the motion as it now stands on the Order Paper, if I read it correctly, would allow the broadest possible inquiry into interest rate policies and interest rates in the country and is in keeping with the urgings that have been made from time to time by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), we see no reason why this kind of inquiry would not be most desirable indeed. In fact, it should be very beneficial in assisting the government to find its way out of the economic mess into which it has led the country. We would be prepared to consent to such a motion. Such an inquiry is long overdue.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the question period, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) suggested to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that if members were to ask details about the Mitsubishi deal and Canadian companies he would provide the documents. He implied that no one had asked for details. I want to point out that last week the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and I sent a letter to the minister asking those questions precisely. I will deliver the letter personally to him.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is debating instead of rising on a point of order. He knows very well that he should not use points of order to continue to debate a question. Unfortunately, the Chair has to wait for a few moments in order to determine what the hon. member is trying to put before the House. However, I would urge the hon. member, who knows exactly what he wants to do, to refrain from continuing debate on a matter arising out of the question period under the guise of a point of order.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which involves the censuring of Hansard. As reported on page 15140 of Hansard for February 18, 1982, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said:
-I know from which end of the bull his statement comes from, too.
I interjected by saying "At least it is not all over my face!" My statement was omitted from Hansard, while the minister's statement remained. Has the minister used his influence to have my interjection left out? What I want to know is, if it was not "you know what" all over his face, what was it? It certainly wasn't mustard.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has made his representations. If those words were uttered in the House and not recorded in Hansard, it is obviously because the reporters on the floor did not catch that interjection. There is not much that I or anyone else can do about that. I guess it is in the record now, which I suppose satisfies the hon. member.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, when the blues came down it was certainly placed in there and returned immediately to Hansard. I therefore wonder why it was not published along with the rest.


Madam Speaker:: I will inquire into that. If the hon. member is saying that he added it into the blues, well, that is a different matter. What I was just saying to the hon. member is that obviously the reporters did not catch that interjection, therefore they did their duty as best they could. However, the hon. member made his point.


AIR SAFETY
Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I wish to table in the House, in French and in English, Volume III of the Report of the Commission of Enquiry on Aviation Safety, also known as the Dubin report.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,652, 3,084 and 3,558.
Order Paper Questions
2.	On what date did any purchases of Almaden commence?
3.	Were any purchases of Almaden made while Mr. Donald Marriott held the position of Director of Restaurants and Catering and, if so, what were the names of all the persons involved in such purchases either on behalf of the Centre or representing the winery?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Arts Centre as follows:


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does a contract exist between Gerry McKee Associates and the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of Communications and, if so (a) is the contract in the amount of $23,000 plus travelling expenses (b) what are all the details, including whether the contract is renewable and whether a renewal contract has already been drawn up or is under discussion?
2.	Did the company receive the contract in any way as a consideration for the fact that Mr. McKee was the Liberal party candidate in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville in the 1979 and 1980 general elections?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	Yes.
(a)	Yes.
(b)	Consulting services contract covering the period February 4, 1981, to June 30, 1981; as of the date this question was placed on the order paper, renewal of the contract was under discussion.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Does the National Arts Centre serve a house wine by the carafe and has this wine at any time been Almaden California Chablis?
1.	The National Arts Centre serves a house wine, Almaden California Chablis, by the carafe.
2.	Purchases of Almaden commenced September, 1980.
3.	All wine is purchased by the centre from the Ontario Liquor Control Board. See reply to question No. 3,085 tabled this day.


Mr. Cossitt: Since the date the last question on the Order Paper on the subject of applications by Soviet diplomats for travel between the permitted limit of Ottawa was answered, what are the names of all further applicants, the dates involved and the duration of the trip, the places visited, the means of travel and the diplomatic rank?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The answer to question No. 3,258, tabled this day, provides details of travel by Soviet diplomats outside the national capital region during the period June 26, 1981, to October 27, 1981. The attached list covers the period October 28, 1981, to December 16, 1981, giving the names and ranks of the diplomats, the dates involved, the durations of the trips, and the means of travel.
				Mode of	Duration of
Name of Soviet Diplomat	Rank	Date of Trip	Trip Destination	Transportation	Trip (days)Mr. V. Tsaregradski	Counsellor	October 29, 1981	Ottawa-Mirabel- Ottawa	Bus CDA-255	1Mr. V. louchine	First Secretary	October 29, 1981	Ottawa-Mirabel- Ottawa	Car CDA-258	1Mr. M. Danilin	Counsellor	October 30, 1981	Montreal-Ottawa- Montreal	Car CC-306	1Mr. V. Mechulayev	Counsellor	October 30/31, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Ottawa	Car CDA-249	2Mr. A. Arseenko	First Secretary	November 2, 1981	Ottawa-Mirabel- Ottawa	Car CDA-255	1Mr. V. Safonov	Third Secretary	November 2, 1981	Ottawa-Mirabel- Ottawa	Car CDA-292	1Mr. S. Krouglov	First Secretary	November 5, 1981	Ottawa-Mirabel-Ottawa	Car CDA-283	1Mr. A. Tretiakov	First Secretary	November 5, 1981	Ottawa-Mirabel-Ottawa	Car CDA-283	1Mr. I. Konovalov	Counsellor	November 16, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal-Ottawa	Car CDA-242	1Mr. A. Balashov	First Secretary	November 17/18, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Ottawa	Car CDA-272	2Mr. I. Konovalov	Counsellor	November 18, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Ottawa	Car CDA-242	1Mr. A. Novikov	Minister-Counsellor	November 18/19, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Ottawa	Car CDA-259	1
Order Paper Questions
Name of Soviet Diplomat	Rank
Mr. N. Plechanov	Attache
Mr. A. Plavinski	Attache
Mr. V. Iouchine	First Secretary
Mr. A. Plavinski	Attache (Commercial)
Mr. A. Novikov	Minister-Counsellor
Mr. V.P. Tkachenko	Attache (Commercial)
Mr. Y. Demkine	Attache
Mr. V. Mechulayev	Counsellor
Mr. S.M. Kachtanov	Second Secretary
Mr. V. Mukharkin	Third Secretary
Mr. A. Plavinski	Attache (Commercial)
Mr. V. Mukharkin	Third Secretary
Mr. S. Bulgakov	Attache
Mr. I. Konovalov	Counsellor
Mr. E. Pozdniakov	Counsellor
Mr. A. Plavinski	Attache
Mr. A. Balashov	First Secretary
Mr. V. Iouchine	First Secretary

Date of Trip	Trip Destination
November 18/19, 1981	Ottawa-Montrcal- Ottawa
November 19, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Mirabel-Ottawa
November 19, 1981	Ottawa-Mirabel- Ottawa
November 21/22, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal-Ottawa
November 23/26, 1981	New York/Point Champlain-Ottawa
November 26, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Mirabel-Ottawa
November 26/27, 1981	Ottawa-Montrcal- Ottawa
December 2/3, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Ottawa
December 2/4, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Mirabel-Montreal- Ottawa
December 3, 1981	Ottawa-Mirabel- Ottawa
December 4, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Ottawa
December 10, 1981	Ottawa-Mirabel- Ottawa
December 10, 1981	Ottawa-Mirabel- Ottawa
December 10/12, 1981	Ottawa-Toronto- Ottawa
December 12-17, 1981	Ottawa-Gravenhurst- Toronto-Ottawa
December 14, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Ottawa
December 14-17, 1981	Ottawa-Gander- Montreal-Ottawa
December 16-18, 1981	Ottawa-Montreal- Ottawa
Mode of	Duration of
Transportation	Trip (days)
Car CDA-259	1
Car CDA-239	1
Car CDA-258	1
Car CDA-243 Plane NA-730; AC-742	2
Car CDA-256	4
Car CDA-240	1
Car CDA-247	1
Car CDA-249 Car CDA-293	2
CC-271	3
Car CDA-255	1
Car CDA-239	1
Car CDA-255	1
Car CDA-214	1
Car CDA-242	3
Car CDA-297	6
Car CDA-239 Plane AC-601	1


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
AC-629	4
Car CDA-258	3
order and the name and job designation of the highest-ranking person authorizing the order (c) exact type of wine, including country of origin and name of winery or vintner (d) amount of purchase and the name of the person to whom payment was made (e) exact quantity of wine received, including the number of bottles, the size of the bottles and the cost per bottle?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 3,085 and 3,258 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 3,085 and 3,258 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: 2. Was the amount of wine received ever less than the amount of wine paid for and, if so, what were the details in each case, including the differences involved and the names of all persons and companies involved?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt: Since the answer to question No. 1,607 was prepared and up to the date the answer to this question is prepared, what is a list of all requests received from Soviet diplomats to travel outside the national capital region and, in each case, what was the (a) name of the diplomat (b) date of the trip (c) destination of the trip (d) duration of the trip (e) purpose of the trip (f) mode of transportation used?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
L Since Mr. Don Marriott became director of restaurants and catering at the Madam Speaker: Shall the remaining questions Stand9 National Arts Center, what is a complete list of all purchases of wine made by
the centre, including the (a) date of purchase (b) name of the person placing the


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
February 19, 1982-The Minister of Finance:
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to review the profit situation of the chartered banks.
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, just before we proceed to orders of the day, I had the impression that the government House leader was going to seek unanimous consent with respect to his motion referring to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs the situation of bank profits in the country. Is it his intention to seek that consent today?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in answer to a question raised by the NDP House leader I indicated I was willing to discuss with him the terms of reference. I took it for granted he would not consent to the motion on the Order Paper. If there is unanimous consent to the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), sure, we agree to it. However, if there is not, I am willing to discuss the terms of reference of the motion.


Erik Nielsen: Well, as I said a moment ago, we think the terms of reference are broad enough to include an in-depth inquiry into the interest rate policy in this country. I see the government House leader nodding affirmatively, and under those circumstances we are prepared to consent now.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would love to give unanimous consent but I do not share the view of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that the terms of reference are sufficiently broad to conduct a study into interest rates. In fact, interest rates are not even mentioned in the terms of reference. Because of that-


Mr. Blenkarn:: How do you think the banks got the profits without the interest rates?


Ian Deans: -I therefore want to suggest that the terms of reference are sufficiently broad to allow not only the study, but to allow the study not to take place. I would like terms of reference which are a little more pointed than those currently on the Order Paper. I appreciate the government House leader's offer of consultations, and I intend to take him up on it.


Madam Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. Orders of the day.
Labour Adjustment Benefits



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 15, consideration of Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and Motion No. 13 (Mr. Caccia); and Motion No. 14 (Mr. Kristiansen).
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned debate we were dealing with Motion No. 13 and Motion No. 14 on Bill C-78. I was rising to speak on the recommendation put forward by the minister. As a member who worked hard on the committee, I spoke to my House leader expressing my concern in the hope the House leaders would be able to speed things up by suggesting that the word "shall" replace the word "may" in Clause 12(3)(1)(6), thereby making it a positive move on the minister's part.
We have heard comments from the other side suggesting that our House leader was not at the committee meetings. The reason our House leader asked the question is that he was trying to speed up the process here, and at this time I would like to have the minister agree to that very small change, and then we would not be dealing with our amendment.
So I say to the minister that we on this side would like to have the word "shall" placed in the clause so as to protect those who do not meet the requirements by reason of illness, disability, lay-off or any other good cause. I do not think that is too much to ask, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the minister to make that small change so that we can get on with the next motion.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, we dealt with this question in the concluding minutes of debate last week when I indicated the reason this matter could not be dealt with in the way the hon. member suggests. I do appreciate his desire to improve the legislation and provide drafting assistance, but as I indicated, if "may" were to be changed to "shall" in subsection (3), then all the other basic requirements laid out in Section 12(1 )(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) would be nullified in the case of a person who could make a claim in accordance with that subsection. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the totally unnecessary change being proposed would create a severe problem with the application of the rest of the section. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we cannot accede to this request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 13. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Labour Adjustment Benefits


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 13 (Mr. Caccia) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question before the House is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen).
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, on motion No. 14-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. If I may interrupt, these two motions, Nos. 13 and 14, were grouped for debate. The debate has taken place, and the only matter remaining is for the question to be put to the House. Shall Motion No. 14 carry? All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion negatived on division.


An hon. Member:: No, five!
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 15 (Mr. Caccia) agreed to.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-78, an Act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 18 of the French version by striking out line 43 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
[ Translation]
"I'objet un employe, doit, par ecrit, aviser ce dernier et".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-78, An Act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 25 by striking out line 12 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"section 13(2) or (3), is communicated to him, or".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Motion No. 18
That Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 35 to 42 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"29.(1) The Minister shall, as soon as possible after March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31 each year, prepare a report on the administration of this act during the preceding three months, including a statement showing the number, during the three months, of applications under Sections 10 and 12 and of persons to whom labour adjustment benefits were paid and the"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall Motion No. 18 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 18 (Mr. Caccia) agreed to.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 30
(a)	by striking out line 23 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"of a group of twenty employees or 10 per cent of the work force, whichever is the lesser"; and
(b)	by striking out line 32 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"do so at least twenty-six weeks for 50 or less employees, or fifty-two weeks for more than 50 employees before the date".


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, we have proposed this amendment because we find that the clause is too restrictive. What we are addressing in the amendment is the problem occurring when there are larger lay-offs for longer periods of time. We feel that when the amount reaches as many as 50, there should be an extra length of time in which the bill could take effect and provide benefits. That is the provision in this amendment and is why we put it forward. We would ask for support of this amendment.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, we will not be supporting this particular amendment. I think it is very unfair that employers be asked to give a year's notice if 50 or more employees will be laid off, especially in the economic times we are now facing. 1 do not think it is right to ask an industry or a business of any type, whether a small business employing under 50 employees, which the NDP has termed as small business, or one which employs over 50 employees, to give a year's notice or to give a half year's notice. In this day and age, it is just completely unrealistic, and the Progressive Conservative Party cannot support that.


An hon. Member:: That figures! To hell with people!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Just try to run a business that way!


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, while those two opposition members are settling their quarrel,
I would submit to Your Honour that the amendment which we are proposing which, in essence, focuses on 16 weeks is a reasonable step forward, and we would accordingly seek the support of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The question is on motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Negatived on division.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next two motions, Nos. 20 and 21, will be grouped for debate but will be voted on separately.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-78, an act to provide for payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 31 by striking out line 23 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) In attain-".


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Motion No. 21
That Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 31 by striking out line 34 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"program as expeditiously as possible, to achieve this end the committee shall
have access to all relevant company information including financial statements
and records."


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in addressing Motions Nos. 20 and 21 together, as the Speaker has suggested, my first comment is a question. I quite frankly wonder why the amendment of the minister and the government party to the section
Labour Adjustment Benefits
under Motion No. 20 was undertaken. All that has been removed is "Subject to subsection (3)", which is found on page 25 of the bill. Subsection (3) states:
The members of a joint planning committee shall co-operate and make every reasonable effort to develop an adjustment program as expeditiously as possible.
1 have been searching my mind-never mind smart comment; I was waiting for that!


Mr. Lewis:: You have lots of time left!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: If you can find it, my friend, you are a better man than I am. I do not mean the mind; I mean the argument. However, I have been searching, as hard as I might, to try to find a reason why the subsection, which is basically a good faith subsection should have been removed. Subsection (2), as it would read, states:
-in attaining its object under subsection (1), a joint planning committee may, unless the members of the committee agree otherwise, deal only with such matters as are normally the subject matter of collective agreement in relation to termination of employment.
Perhaps at some point in the debate the minister will answer the question what is wrong with consideration being given to the expeditious development of an adjustment program. In the absence of being able to find a reason, one's imagination starts soaring. For the life of me, I cannot come up with a reasonable explanation why it should be deleted. Maybe it was simply sloppy in the first place. If that were the case, we could understand it. However, I would like some rationale from the government as to the reason for that particular amendment.
Dealing with Motion No. 21, the amendment is as follows:
That Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 31 by striking out line 34 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"program as expeditiously as possible, to achieve this end the committee shall
have access to all relevant company information including financial statements
and records."
It is vitally necessary, if the joint committees are to act, as envisoned by the original bill and as further envisioned by the two amendments which stem from consideration in committee-one which allowed the joint committees established to look into matters of the broader social and economic consequences, and the second amendment which was a positive statement empowering the joint committees to make recommendations which might result in the cancellation or reduction of the number of terminations-that the committees have the right of access, and certainly the right to inquire as to the relevant company information, including financial statements and records.
If the government does not want this provision, is it suggesting that the joint committees established to give force to the expressed wishes of the bill are to operate in the dark? Is that what the government wants? The joint committees will, in effect, be a fraud? If so, there is no better way of doing it than


Labour Adjustment Benefits
by ensuring they will not have access or the right to inquire as to information they will surely need to do their job.
I ask the minister to reconsider in this case. In committee we eliminated the negative and accentuated the positive. All I ask is that the joint committees, and thus the government, be given the tools to do the job required of them as a result of everything in this legislation. Without those tools it is a rather useless and a very hollow echo of a propaganda bill, attempting to kid the public that the joint committees have real effect or that they are to be listened to.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, the deletion of "Subject to subsection (3)" that we are proposing here is because these words are redundant. We have introduced in committee a measure that makes this reference unnecessary. Let me say that in Motion No. 21, which the hon. member is proposing, he is addressing himself to something quite different. We cannot support this amendment which the hon. member proposed in committee, which for very good reason the majority felt ought to be defeated, and it was defeated.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate a little more on why we want this amendment put forward. The minister well knows that in committee the example was given of Eldorado Nuclear at Uranium City. A month in advance it hired new employees, brought them to Uranium City to work and then gave notice of a total shutdown.
We feel these companies have a responsibility to the committee to answer questions as to why these lay-offs are necessary. The government is bringing in a bill to help alleviate the problems that this can bring about. It is imperative that this amendment we are suggesting be put in the bill. This committee which the government has authorized would have the authority not only to speak to laid-off workers to find the reasons for their lay-offs, the conditions and whether they qualify, but also to ensure that the company is dealing with them in a fair and frank way. That is what this amendment would do. We are not asking that it have any other authority than to be able to investigate a company once it has been designated, or if it is to be designated as a designated industry.
I appeal to the minister to support this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question will be on the two motions which were debated together, but will be voted on separately. The first question is on motion No. 20 standing in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 20 (Mr. Caccia) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 21 in the name of Mr. Kristiansen. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 33
(a)	by striking out line 10 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor: "employee";
(b)	by replacing the word "two" with the word "five" in line 11 at page 30; and
(c)	by striking out lines 16 to 18 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"employer".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 22 (Mr. Kristiansen) negatived.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 34
(a) by striking out line 6 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"under this act;"; and


(b) by striking out line 12 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor: "determined under this act; and
(/) the initial amount of any pre-retirement benefits of a person as determined under the Clothing Worker Regulations or the Footwear Worker Regulations is deemed to be his initial amount of labour adjustment benefit as determined pursuant to subsection 15(1)."
He said: Allow me to explain Mr. Speaker. This amendment was urged by a number of committee members, particularly members from Montreal and the surrounding regions. They felt, and quite rightly so, that a grandfather clause ought to be introduced in this bill to protect workers who already benefit from this measure. The government looked at this proposal, found it to be reasonable and fair and this is why the amendment is now before the House. I strongly urge the House to adopt it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 23 (Mr. Caccia) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House will now proceed with the deferred division on Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

The House divided on Motion No. 3 (Mr. Kristiansen), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 148)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Hovdebo	Ny stromAnguish	Ittinuar	ParkerBenjamin	Jewett (Miss)	RobinsonBroadbent	Kristiansen	(Burnaby)Deans	Manly	SargeantFulton	Miller Murphy
NAYS Messrs.	Skelly Waddell-19.Allmand	Bockstael	CooperAppolloni	Bosley	Corbin(Mrs.)	Breau	CosgroveBachand	Bujold	Cote (Mrs.)Baker	Burghardt	Cousineau(Nepean-Carleton)	Bussieres	CrosbieBeatty	Caccia	(St. John'sBeauchamp-Niquet	Campbell	Cyr(Mrs.)	(Cardigan)	DantzerBegin (Miss)	Clark	DarlingBerger	(Yellowhead)	DawsonBlais	Clarke	De BaneBlaker	(Vancouver Quadra)	DenigerBlenkarn	Coates	DesmaraisBloomfield	Collenette	Dingwall
Labour Adjustment Benefits
Messrs.
Dinsdale	Kaplan	NicholsonDion	Kelly	(Miss)Dionne	Kilgour	Nickerson(Chicoutimi)	King	NielsenDionne	Lachance	Nowlan(Northumberland-	Lalonde	OberleMiramichi)	Lambert	OuelletEllis	Lamontagne	PaproskiEthier	Lang	PennerFerguson	Lapointe	PepinFleming	(Charlevoix)	PetersonFlis	La Salle	PinardFoster	LeBlanc	PortelanceFrancis	Lewis	Prud'hommeFretz	Loiselle	ReidFriesen	Lumley	(St. Catharines)Gauthier	MacBain	ReidGourd	MacEachen	(Kenora-Rainy River)(Argenteuil-Papineau)	MacGuigan	RobertsGray	MacKay	SchroderGreenaway	MacLaren	ScottGuilbault	MacLellan	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Gustafson	Malone	SmithHamilton	Marceau	Speyer(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Masters	StewartMountain)	Mazankowski	TaylorHarquail	McCain	ThackerHawkes	McDermid	ThomsonHees	McGrath	TowersHerbert	McKenzie	TrudeauHnatyshyn	McKinnon	TurnerHopkins	McLean	VankoughnetHuntington	McRae	WatsonIrwin	Mitges	WenmanIsabelle	Munro	WhelanJarvis	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	WilsonJohnston	Murta	WrightJoyal	Yanakis-139.[English]
Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Kristiansen) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 14.		
The House divided on Motion No.		14 (Mr. Kristiansen).
which was negatived on the following division: (Division No. 149)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Hovdebo	NystromAnguish	Ittinuar	ParkerBenjamin	Jewett (Miss)	RobinsonBroadbent	Kristiansen	(Burnaby)Deans	Manly	SargeantFulton	Miller Murphy
NAYS Messrs.	Skelly Waddell-19.Allmand	Blais	CampbellAppolloni	Blaker	(Cardigan)(Mrs.)	Blenkarn	ClarkBachand	Bloomfield	(Yellowhead)Baker	Bockstael	Clarke(Nepean-Carleton)	Bosley	(Vancouver Quadra)Beatty	Breau	CoatesBeauchamp-Niquet	Bujold	Collenette(Mrs.)	Burghardt	CooperBegin (Miss)	Bussieres	CorbinBerger	Caccia	Cosgrove
Labour Adjustment Benefits
Cote (Mrs.)	Messrs. Hnatyshyn	Munro	CacciaCousineau	Hopkins	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	CampbellCrosbie	Huntington	Murta	(Cardigan)(St. John's West)	Irwin	Nicholson	ClarkCyr	Isabelle	(Miss)	(Yellowhead)Dantzer	Jarvis	Nickerson	ClarkeDarling	Johnston	Nielsen	(Vancouver Quadra)Dawson	Joyal	Nowlan	CoatesDe Bane	Kaplan	Oberle	CollenetteDeniger	Kelly	Ouellet	CooperDesmarais	Kilgour	Paproski	CorbinDingwall	King	Penner	CosgroveDinsdale	Lachance	Pepin	Cdte (Mrs.)Dion	Lalonde	Peterson	CousineauDionne	Lambert	Pinard	Crosbie(Chicoutimi)	Lamontagne	Portelance	(St. John's West)Dionne	Lang	Prud'homme	Cyr(Northumberland-	Lapointe	Reid	DantzerMiramichi)	(Charlevoix)	(St. Catharines)	DarlingEllis	La Salle	Reid	DawsonEthier	LeBlanc	(Kenora-Rainy River)	De BaneFerguson	Lewis	Roberts	DenigerFleming	Loiselle	Schroder	DesmaraisFlis	Lumley	Scott	DingwallFoster	MacBain	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	DinsdaleFrancis	MacEachen	Simmons	DionFretz	MacGuigan	Smith	DionneFriesen	MacKay	Speyer	(Chicoutimi)Gauthier	MacLaren	Stewart	DionneGourd	MacLellan	Taylor	(Northumberland-(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Malone	Thacker	Miramichi)Gray	Marceau	Thomson	EllisGreenaway	Masters	Towers	EthierGuilbault	Mazankowski	Trudeau	FergusonGustafson	McCain	Turner	FlemingHamilton	McDermid	Vankoughnet	Flis(Qu'Appelle- Moose	McGrath	Watson	FosterMountain)	McKenzie	Wenman	FrancisHarquail	McKinnon	Whelan	FretzHawkes	McLean	Wilson	FriesenHees	McRae	Wright	GauthierHerbert	Mitges	Yanakis-140.	Gourd
Madam Speaker:	I declare the motion lost.	(Argenteuil-Papineau) Gray Greenaway Guilbault
Messrs.
Gustafson
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Harquail Hawkes Hees Herbert Hnatyshyn Hopkins Huntington Irwin Isabelle Jarvis Johnston Joyal Kaplan Kelly King
Lachance
Lalonde
Lambert
Lamontagne
Lang
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
La Salle
LeBlanc
Lewis
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
MacKay
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malone
Marceau
Masters
Mazankowski
McCain
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
McRae
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Nicholson
(Miss)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Oberle
Ouellet
Paproski
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Schroder Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Simmons Smith Speyer Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Trudeau Turner Vankoughnet Watson Wenman Whelan Wilson Wright
Yanakis-139.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Kristiansen) negatived.
(Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The question is now on Motion No. 19 (Mr. Kristiansen).
The House divided on motion No. 19 (Mr. Kristiansen), which was negatived on the following division:


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

Motion No. 19 (Mr. Kristiansen) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 21. The House divided on Motion No. 21 (Mr. Kristiansen), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 150)
(Division No. 151)
	YEAS			YEAS	
	Messrs.			Messrs.	
Althouse	Hovdebo	Nystrom	Althouse	Hovdebo	NystromAnguish	Ittinuar	Parker	Anguish	Ittinuar	ParkerBenjamin	Jewett (Miss)	Robinson	Benjamin	Jewett (Miss)	RobinsonBroadbent	Kristiansen	(Burnaby)	Broadbent	Kristiansen	(Burnaby)Deans	Manly	Sargeant	Deans	Manly	SargeantFulton	Miller	Skelly	Fulton	Miller	SkellyMurphy	Waddell-19.	Murphy	Waddell-19.NAYS	NAYS	Messrs.	Messrs.	Allmand	Beauchamp-Niquet	Bloomfield	Allmand	Beauchamp-Niquet	BloomfieldAppolloni	(Mrs.)	Bockstael	Appolloni	(Mrs.)	Bockstael(Mrs.)	Begin (Miss)	Bosley	(Mrs.)	Begin (Miss)	BosleyBachand	Berger	Breau	Bachand	Berger	BreauBaker	Blais	Bujold	Baker	Blais	Bujold(Ncpean-Carleton)	Blaker	Burghardt	(Nepean-Carleton)	Blaker	BurghardtBeatty	Blenkarn	Bussieres	Beatty	Blenkarn	Bussieres
Messrs.
Caccia
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Collenette Cooper Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Crosbie
(St. John's West)
Cyr
Dantzer
Darling
Dawson
De Bane
Deniger
Desmarais
Dingwall
Dinsdale
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Ellis
Ethier
Ferguson
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Francis
Fretz
Friesen
Gauthier
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gray
Greenaway
Guilbault
Gustafson
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) Harquail Hawkes Hees Herbert Hnatyshyn Hopkins Huntington Irwin Isabelle Jarvis Johnston Joyal Kaplan Kelly King Lachance Lalonde Lambert Lamontagne Lang Lapointe (Charlevoix)
La Salle
LeBlanc
Lewis
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
MacKay
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malone
Marceau
Masters
Mazankowski
McCain
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McLean
McRae
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Nicholson
(Miss)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Oberle
Ouellet
Paproski
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Schroder Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Simmons
Smith
Speyer
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Thomson
Towers
Trudeau
Turner
Vankoughnet
Watson
Wenman
Whelan
Wilson
Wright
Yanakis-139.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 21 (Mr. Kristiansen) negatived.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: that Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be concurred in as amended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have had consultations with my colleagues in the opposition parties. It seems there is unanimous consent to deal with third reading this afternoon.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we proceed to third reading?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles L. Caccia: that the bill be read the third time and
do pass.
He said: Madam Speaker, at this point of third reading of Bill C-78, I would like to thank hon. members for their collaboration. The experience we had in committee where views
Labour Adjustment Benefits
were exchanged and constructive criticism given was a very valuable one. The result is a much improved labour adjustment benefits act. I think we can all be proud of our collective effort.
I hope this bill will get through the House today and will go on to speedy passage through the Senate so that older workers whom this bill is designed to help can begin to receive early retirement benefits without further delay. It is of the utmost importance that this bill be enacted as soon as possible because the burden of unemployment on older workers is too often more devastating than for younger workers. That is because alternatives such as relocation and retraining often are not solutions for the older worker.
As members who have been involved in the passage of this bill know, Bill C-78 is Labour Canada's contribution to the broader idea known as the industrial labour adjustment program. Bill C-78 provides a safety net for older workers in designated communities or industries suffering from industrial dislocation because of import competition, technological or structural change. In other words, it supports older workers who have not benefited from other programs promoting retraining, relocation and work sharing.
Bill C-78 also includes amendments to the Canada Labour Code. The general thrust of these amendments is to reduce the adverse effects of redundancies and lay-offs on employees by requiring employers to undertake more orderly manpower adjustments through negotiation and, if necessary, arbitration of lay-off plans, longer notification of terminations and improvements to severance pay benefits. Over all, these modifications to the Canada Labour Code place greater responsibility on employers for the protection of their employees in cases of redundancy and lay-off.
In conclusion, I am convinced that Bill C-78 will help these difficulties facing older workers affected by certain economic conditions and serve to supplement the extensive array of federal industrial assistance and labour market programs already in place.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak on this bill. We on this side of the House will support this bill in the belief that it is a step forward. It is a small recognition of a problem which exists in Canada but is a very progressive piece of legislation. Although this bill will affect only about 850 people at the present time, with the current economic conditions being experienced in Canada today we maintain that this number will expand.
As we reviewed this bill, the official opposition attempted to include technological change in the definition of industrial restructuring within the act. The majority of the witnesses who appeared before us in committee were concerned that technological change might not be included under industrial restructuring. For that reason we supported their representations and


Labour Adjustment Benefits
the government accepted them. We were therefore able to obtain a definition of technological change within the bill. We think that is a very positive step.
Another concern which we raised during the committee stage was the problem of duplication; first, an area is designated by orders in council, by the cabinet-which we support because cabinet must answer to the electorate-but then there must be a board or commission set up to which applications must be made to receive benefits and further applications have to be made to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. We strongly feel that the board could be eliminated and the entire process handled by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
It is our understanding that the budget comes under the Department of Labour, which may be the reason the board is established there. We have not been convinced of the need for a board and have attempted to get an amendment. We have cautioned the minister and the people that this could be a bureaucratic nightmare when applying for these benefits. Since we do not want to see this happen-I know the minister does not want to see this happen-it is my hope that he would give a commitment to come back to the House to suggest some amendments to speed up the process if this were to happen. I believe we would support that commitment.
As I have mentioned, the board or commission causes us some concern. We suggested that either the Canadian Employment Commission or the adjustment board handle applications, but not both. We did not succeed in getting that amendment.
Another matter which I initially raised in committee was that of the board's authority to enter premises. The five-member board was to be made up of one employee representative, one employer representative and three representatives which could be politically appointed. This make-up was proposed by the NDP and supported by us. We feel it is an important step except that those three representatives who can be appointed by the minister could be political appointments, which has been a habit with the Liberal Party. Our concern relates to the fact that these three members of the board would have the power to enter private premises under the provisions of the act. We feel they should not have that power and we raised this concern. The government brought in an amendment and we thank the minister for that. The amendment assures the privacy of individuals and does not give the board that authority.
Briefly, we supported the membership of the labour adjustment review board being more representative, with one representative from employees and one representative from employers. We supported the more strict administration and the enforcement of the act, the broadening of the mandate of the joint planning committees and the clarification of the application procedure to obtain an arbitrator to resolve disputes in the joint planning committees.
We did not support what we were voting on today, which was the measure to lengthen the notice of termination from 16 weeks. I believe the present notice of termination is a standard which is fair and has been set for all employers across the board.
We did not support another NDP proposal to allow the board to designate areas or industries. We felt very strongly that this had to be done by the cabinet and orders in council. The reason for this is that the government must answer to the public while the bureaucrats do not. If cabinet makes poor decisions on designations, it will have to answer to the electorate. This is the proper procedure. For that reason we did not support that amendment.
I would like to illustrate some of the overlaps among many of these boards and commissions which give us concern about the board and UIC being involved. There is the industrial and labour adjustment program, the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, the old DREE boards-wherever they are now-and the Textile and Clothing Board, which I assume will be brought under the umbrella of this act through the amendments. We now have the labour adjustment review board. We want to make sure those programs dovetail and are not in conflict with one another.
The people who appeared before the committee to discuss these programs appeared to be as confused about them as we were. They were not sure about how these programs functioned. These are some of the questions which concerned us and we are cautioning the government about them at this time.
One of the most significant problems which has been overcome in this bill was that it did not cover technological change. This appeared to be the greatest concern of the workers and all those who heard their representations in committee would admit that it was probably the main theme. Workers are concerned about losing their jobs as a result of technological change. This is especially true of those who are older and live in industry towns where they may not have the opportunity to sell their homes because no one is moving there and because of technological change they may not be able to switch employment. For example, in some small towns where new automatic equipment is being installed in paper mills, much employment is being eliminated. It is an understandable concern and with today's rapid advancement in technology we have no idea what will happen in five years or ten years from now.
Although we support this bill, we feel it is a small step in the right direction. It is a step which indicates that the government is willing to accept that there are certain areas of Canada which have unique problems. We are not all the same from coast to coast and must take care of some of those people who do not have the same opportunities as those who live in urban areas. I refer to diversity of industry and opportunity for employment.
Some members from my own party have expressed some concerns to me. For example, my colleague from Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) quite rightly asked, "What about a small industry in Moose Jaw where they have to close down because of economic conditions?". The industry there is not designated, but a few older workers there would fall within the category if the area was designated. That is a very real and genuine concern. It is something about which all members of the House


are concerned, but our attitude is that at least we have taken the first step. The government has now at least admitted that there is a problem and is trying to do something to overcome it, although only some 850 workers will be affected.
My colleague, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-as a matter of fact, our party-supported the New Democratic Party amendment on which members of the New Democratic Party felt we should not vote. That amendment would have changed the terminology in the bill from "may" to "shall". Members of the NDP quite rightly argued-as did my colleague, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), in a very clear manner-that "may" should be "shall" once all the conditions are met. We agreed with that. The NDP did not force a vote on that change, but we would have supported the NDP on that proposal.
In closing, I would like to say a couple of kind words about the minister. Not many kind words are spoken about the government these days, and rightfully so. I do not argue about that at all. This government deserves to catch hell, and it is catching it throughout the country. However, when there is a bright light or a little glimmer like this, I think the minister should be congratulated, and I do so. The minister has been flexible. He has listened to the arguments and amended the legislation in certain areas where we felt it necessary, and I thank the minister for that.
The second thing for which I want to thank the minister is that he has seen this bill through. Often ministers disappear. They introduce bills, and someone at the back carries the bills through. I want to thank the minister for staying here and listening to all the representations. I understand and appreciate that at times it can be very boring, but I thank the minister for staying with us.
I want also to thank him for introducing such a bill as this. I hope he will continue to introduce such positive legislation. This is legislation we can get our teeth into and amend to make better. We on this side of the House will support this legislation.



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 Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-(a) Fisheries-Condition of Atlantic fishing industry. (b) Reported proposal to reduce number of exporters, (c) Pre-budget discussions; the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Labour Adjustment Benefits
Taylor)-Agriculture-Cost of fuel used in production of food; the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Canadian Human Rights Commission-Recommendation concerning sexual harassment of women.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia that Bill C-78, to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code, be read the third time and do pass.
Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak on Bill C-78, which would provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and amend the Canada Labour Code.
I wish to start by saying that the title of the bill is, indeed, a fraud on the Canadian people. It certainly does not indicate the provisions which are in the bill. I think it is wrong that the bill should be entitled "an act to provide for payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code" because there are many, many employees who will not qualify and who will not receive benefits under this bill.
Over and over again in committee we asked how many people would receive benefits, but we received no answer. Over and over again we asked how much money would be made available, but we received no answers. The Canadian Labour Congress came before the committee, as did the United Steelworkers of America, the communications workers of Canada, the Council of Regional Development, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Construction Association, the ministry of labour of the province of New Brunswick and the Railway Association of Canada. Each of them expressed concerns about the bill and about the number of people who would qualify under it.
Where is the labour critic of the Conservative Party? He knew on Thursday that this bill would come before the House today. Where was the Conservative Party with regard to amendments to this bill? Members of the Conservative Party heard representations time after time. The Canadian Labour Congress called it a death bill. This bill is not a prescription for aid but a prescription for death. Where was the Conservative Party when amendments were put forward to try to improve the bill? We in this party sought amendment after amendment.


John Horton McDermid: We accepted them.


Labour Adjustment Benefits


Sidney James Parker: Members of the Conservative Party accepted the proposals of the government but not programs which would provide employment. It is a band-aid solution we have before us today. Hon. members on the government side of the House signed a petition urging the government to put some employment programs before this House, not band-aid programs which would provide benefits only to some people.
We did receive some answers from the trade union movement. We were told in committee that in Schefferville only about 30 of the 900 laid-off workers were eligible for benefits. Mere basic mathematics will show what a phony piece of penny-ante window dressing this bill is. Under the best of circumstances the maximum which would be available under this bill would mean that only about 3,500 workers a year would receive benefits, and there are already 500 workers covered under the old clothing, textile and shoe and tanning legislation. That is the kind of information we tried to bring forward at the committee stage. We were told there could be an additional 350 now receiving benefits on top of that. That means this bill could cover a maximum of only approximately 3,000 workers a year. Three thousand workers a day were laid off in Ontario alone in the month of December.


John Horton McDermid: Some were put into early retirement, but not all.


Sidney James Parker: That is what the bill is trying to suggest: early retirement and work sharing. The bill refers to designated areas. We had a discussion about that in committee and about how the cabinet or the Ministry of Labour would designate areas. It is no wonder that when the CLC appeared before the committee studying Bill C-78 it said only that half a loaf is better than none. The CLC did not ask for this bill. The CLC said this bill would better be compared to a dry crust of bread. The Canadian Labour Congress has been given little or no opportunity to help solve the problem the minister has identified. Time after time in committee hearing after committee hearing we were told this, but no real or constructive effort put forward was accepted by the minister.
The minister even admitted in the committee that the bill would not do very much, but that is not how the bill will be advertised throughout the country. It is a limited bill and will serve only a very limited number of people.


John Horton McDermid: Agreed.


Sidney James Parker: There will be discrimination because some people in some areas will be designated and others will not. When the government begins to run short of funds, certain areas will not be designated. If that is not discrimination, I do not know what is. There is serious potential here for discrimination.
Then there are the Conservatives. Why did they not bring forward any amendments? This bill was before the House for a few days. The Conservative Party is the party which agrees with the Liberals about high interest rates. It is no wonder they do not have much to say about phony programs such as this one. One of the most disgusting things about the bill is that the government tried to fob it off as being the product of
consultation. I ask the minister why the government did not consult with the labour organizations. They know the problems that face the workers and have to deal with them. When the bill was in committee we asked various witnesses if there had been such discussions. The CLC said there had not, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said there had not and the New Brunswick labour department also said there had not. That is a funny kind of consultation, Mr. Speaker.
A presentation made by one employer group, the Railway Association, made the point that any worker who received a pension of $10,000 a year would probably never want to work again. Mr. Speaker, can anyone honestly claim in this age that anyone can live on $10,000 per year? Can anyone honestly say that some of those older workers would consider giving up their regular employment and letting the workers who have been laid off take their place for $10,000 per year? When an employee reaches the age of 54, that is when he starts paying contributions to the pension schemes in the various industries. They rely on their earnings for the last five years to determine the pension that they have worked and strived for and I do not think they are going to take a step backwards. Many will say that they have seniority and will keep on working, so the situation will not change, Mr. Speaker.
The fact is that the government does not have the will to reduce unemployment and it does not have the guts to face employees on the question of lay-offs. Our amendments have asked that not only the employees be investigated but also the employers. It is they who have a responsibility not only to employees in the community but to the community itself which will feel the effects of any lay-offs. While this patchwork legislation may help a few people, what will it do for those communities whose payroll is severely reduced? The ripple effect will be felt throughout the community, Mr. Speaker. It has become clear to many backbenchers of the Liberal Party- and to some on the front benches as well, I think-that a different approach must be taken to this kind of legislation and these programs.
I asked the Railway Association about the hours of work of its employees and I asked the truck drivers' association the same question. It seems that some truckers who drive across Canada do not have to keep a logbook now because the Department of Transport has done away with that requirement. That logbook was an important element of safety on the highway, Mr. Speaker. Drivers were required to enter the hours on the highway each day but that is not required any more. In committee we were told that some people drive as much as 260 hours per month. Surely, when there are over one million people unemployed in the country, that industry has a responsibility to pay its drivers a fair wage so that they can make a decent living by working a normal number of hours per month.
The railways are just as bad as the truckers, Mr. Speaker, because they require their employees to work 11 hours at a


stretch. The government should bring in legislation governing hours of work as this is a very significant factor in any industry when it comes to the health and safety of the workers.
I should like to mention legislation which is planned by the government of Quebec, Mr. Speaker. This will demand full disclosure of the reasons for a lay-off. That is a good idea and I wonder why the bill before us does not contain such a measure.
Some people have expressed surprise that the president of the Canadian Labour Congress was impolite to cabinet ministers. But Mr. Speaker, how could a man representing working Canadians, many of whom have lost their jobs or stand to lose them, behave otherwise? This government treats working Canadians with complete contempt. First of all, it introduces economic policies that destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, then it brings in a penny ante fraud piece of legislation like this one and pretends it is doing something about unemployment. Mr. McDermott has not been excessive, Mr. Speaker; the government has been excessive in the way it has treated Canadians.
I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) for being available to the committee on this his first piece of legislation, and for listening to the concerns of each group. I must also express disappointment, however, at the firmness of his opposition to even the simplest changes. We wanted to amend the legislation to read that the minister "shall" do certain things after an investigation. If an employee had less than 1,000 hours of work in a particular year because he happened to be laid off, or if he was sick and could prove it and had close to the 1,000 hours, as the legislation now reads the minister "may" allow him the average. We asked that the word "may" be amended to "shall". That is a simple change, Mr. Speaker. I as a trade unionist know and the deputy minister also knows that the word "may" is a very important word in union agreements.


Mr. Berger:: You called it simple a few seconds ago.


Sidney James Parker: It is simple for this reason, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with one simple piece of legislation which governs hours of work-1,000 hours of work per year for ten years. We asked for a simple change, and the minister could have made it, which would have ensured that if one worker were sick and another was not, there would be no appearance of discrimination. If the word "may" is retained, then the minister may make a decision which one employee may regard as discriminating against him, so I am disappointed that the minister does not consent to change that word to "shall".


Charles L. Caccia: You know it is not correct.


Sidney James Parker: The minister says that I know it is not correct. I want to say to him that in committee we fought to have that portion of the bill changed to provide for an average of 1,000 hours per year during that ten-year period, but he would not accept the proposed change.
I admit that the minister's amendments did improve the bill but he did not give us the change that we wanted, the word
Labour Adjustment Benefits
"shall" instead of "may". I want to make that point very clear for the benefit of the Conservative Party critic who sat on the committee and heard representations from these various groups. He and the Conservative Party should be ashamed that he is not here to speak on the bill and to represent those people who appeared before the committee to express their concerns as to why they felt the bill was meaningless and limited.
Who is the official opposition in the House? There were four amendments upon which we voted this afternoon. Many more amendments were drafted and put before the committee. Some were ruled out because it was said that they dealt with money matters and could not be accepted. Where were Conservative Party members after hearing from these groups and companies which came forward? They did not have the courage to bring one amendment before the House of Commons. They did not have the courage to rise in the House to tell Canadians how limited and poorly drafted is the bill.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, we will do what we can to ensure that the bill is disposed of prior to the end of the session this afternoon, so that we can move on to the other business. We have no intention or desire to delay unduly this piece of legislation. Although we regard it as inadequate, it will be of minimal benefit to some people at least.
In commencing my remarks this afternoon, let me say that nothing more than this debate exemplifies the feeling among many people in the work force across the country that there are too many academics, idealists and lawyers in the House of Commons. I am referring to those who are out of touch and floating on cloud nine and to the legal minds which think that because some wording is in a piece of legislation it will mean something. It will not mean a darn thing out on the factory floor or to the people who are used to dealing with bureaucracy. They are not accustomed to winning decisions where flexibility is the rule, in terms of awarding benefits to which they are properly entitled. They are uncertain as to whether these words will be interpreted to their benefit. While many people benefit from legislation, there are many others who should benefit from such and such a scheme if they fulfil this or that requirement. As long as the word "may" continues to creep into administrative tribunals with the interpretation often given it, there are people who find themselves left out in the cold, even though they have gone as far as they can in meeting various requirements.
I am not trying to suggest that blue collar or industrial workers are superior to others. The problem is that there is no balance either in this assembly or in any legislative assembly across the country. The suspicions and experiences of the workers on a factory floor indicate that what is in a contract does not mean a damn, unless they have the means to enforce it. They think that what is contained in legislation does not matter if the enforcers or the enforcement mechanisms are not


Labour Adjustment Benefits
in place to ensure that the legislation accomplishes its purposes.
I thank the minister once again, as I did in the earlier debate, for having demonstrated some reason and openness, particularly in committee. Many hon. members over here wish the bill were divided into two parts-one dealing with labour adjustment benefits, and the other dealing strictly with amendments to the Canada Labour Code. While there are some limitations to the Labour Code amendments in place, certainly one relates to the other. While there are some limitations to the progress made in these amendments, in substance they are forward-looking and will be of some benefit to people across the country, as distinct from those few people who may benefit from the labour adjustments clause of the bill.
There is something in the Labour Code amendments, not to mention the rest of the bill, which spells out a double standard that many of us find very upsetting-one law for the employee and one law for the employer. The specified powers of the board make it very clear that the government agency will have the power to snoop into the records of companies to find out the details of the lives of employees as they affect their work record and their eligibility for benefits.
But, when it comes to the question of joint committees, charged with the responsibility of developing adjustment programs to mitigate the effect of terminations, to reduce the number of terminations or perhaps to cancel terminations, they are expressly denied the authority or power to obtain the facts. In other words, they are being told to go out and do a job, but they are not given the tools with which to do it. That is manifestly stupid.
Clause 32 refers to Section 60 of the original act. It reads:
60.13(3) A joint planning committee may not
(a)	review the decision of the employer to terminate the employment of the
redundant employees; or
(b)	delay the termination of employment of the redundant employees.
This was struck out in committee, for which we are all thankful. In order to take advantage of having eliminated the restriction on what joint committees could do, we expanded the object of a joint planning committee to indicate that it was its object:
-to develop an adjustment program to eliminate the necessity for the termination of employment or to minimize the impact of such termination on redundant employees and to assist those employees in obtaining other employment.
In some senses it was a very new and revolutionary concept. All parties within the committee-perhaps there were one or two individuals who objected to the change-agreed with the change and with this new concept in Canadian law.
The vote of a few minutes ago rejected an amendment which would allow joint committees access to information to develop adjustment programs in a realistic manner. We are leaving them to operate in the dark. Much has been said in the House from time to time about freedom of information. Again the double standard; apparently it is all right to have freedom of information with respect to the actions of the public sector and of government, but when it comes to the actions of the private corporate sector, which decisions have gross impact upon thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Canadians, there is no freedom of information. That is interference with free
enterprise; "-the enterprise which really matters-" as I think one poet called it at one time.
If we want to let the sunshine into government decisions, why do we refuse to allow the sunshine into the dark corporate boardrooms where decisions are made, which result in the termination and the wrecking of lives of thousands of people? How do we justify that? Surely we have reached a point in the development of society and a modern economy where it is not too much to expect that representatives of employees, of governments and of communities, whether civic, regional or whatever, should be able to obtain information to allow them to fulfil their responsibilities to their various electorates.
The divine right of kings that still exists in the corporate sector has been allowed to go on for much too long. We seem to pretend that what they do is just part of some grand imperial design, that it really does not matter when it comes to laws, and that we should not have anything to say nor be able to do anything about it. Surely that day is over, Mr. Speaker. Surely the minister and other members of the committee, in fact, all other members of the House if they think about it and give it some consideration, would realize that that day is over. Just as the divine right of kings has been taken away, the divine right of corporate kings should also end, especially when their decisions have such horrific effect on so many people.
Once upon a time private employers in small communities had a sense of social responsibility. Many small private employers in small communities still show that social responsibility. But the multinational conglomerates, whose head offices are God knows where, do not have any of that kind of social responsibility that comes with living and working in a community with real people as neighbours. Surely it is about time that this government-that any government worthy of its name believing in democracy-recognized that, through some kind of institutionalization, through some reform in law, through the opening up of avenues of information, must begin to make up for that important socioeconomic change that has taken place over the last number of decades. We have to bring back some measure of social and community responsibility to the corporate sector.
There are problems in accountability when it comes to government. We all recognize that. As socialists, we perhaps feel the need to develop real accountability within public sector corporations more than others. But that responsibility still has to be instilled in both the private sector and the corporate sector, which is still the dominant force in this society making most of the decisions which affect people, whether for good or for evil.
I was stunned by the result of a vote taken in the House not long ago. The official opposition voted against each and every one of the four amendments which this party put forward, including the first motion that was put. What they did was totally contrary to the position which that party took in


committee. If I may, I will read from the proceedings and evidence of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and at page 19:4 for February 2, 1982, we find the following:


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: ,-That Clause 3 be amended by striking out lines 37 to 40 on page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"trial restructuring; and"
Afer debate thereon, the question being put on the amendment, it was by a show of hands, negatived:
Yeas: 6; Nays: 8.
I am not aware that the NDP had six members on that committee and I do recall very clearly that the official opposition voted in favour of that amendment at that time. I wonder what happened to make them reverse their position so suddenly. But that sort of thing shows the same degree of inconsistency, I would suggest, as that party has shown on the question of interest rates and God knows how many other issues during the course of this session of Parliament to date. What they have done is totally irresponsible, it shows they are confused.


John Horton McDermid: How are you going to vote?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: We will be consistent, Mr. Speaker. We ask every member of the House of Commons to be consistent. If hon. members believe in freedom of information and believe in letting the sun shine in, then let us see some concept of that here. Let hon. members put their votes where their mouths are. If they believe in freedom, let them vote for it. If hon. members believe that important decisions ought to be made in some secret, dark corridor, let them do that too, but let us hear them announce it at the same time.
I commenced my remarks by saying that I wished this piece of legislation were two separate bills. We have achieved some progress since this bill has been in committee and by one or two of the amendments put forward by the government since it has been in the House. There is expanded notice for laid-off employees. The principle and the idea that representatives of employers and employees, and perhaps communities, may have some say is entertained. We think that is a welcome development. In fact, it is a revolutionary development. But having given the power, I would plead with the government to think again and, at some future point, to provide these joint committees and the communities with the tools to do the job that we all know has to be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Housing


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 11, 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.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was tingling with excitement earlier in the day when I was asked by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to speak for a few moments on this bill. I thought first that I would speak to you and remind you, Sir, of the contribution made by the hon. member for St. John's East on housing. I think it important that the House and the country remember that in the period of time prior to 1979 it was the hon. member for St. John's East who headed the task force in our party that led to the ultimate introduction, during the period of the Clark government, of the property tax credit legislation, which unfortunately was not passed. I say unfortunately because there was a housing problem during that period of time in terms of interest rates that we were trying to meet and a problem in terms of supply as well. But that problem is nothing compared to the problem that we face today in this country. It is important that we remember that this bill calls for an infusion into the housing market of about $50 million-


Mr. Cosgrove:: Rental housing.


Walter David Baker: The rental housing market. The contribution, which could have been made by our bill, thus far would have been worth about $3 billion to home ownership. It would have encouraged the construction of single family homes, made housing less expensive, freed up the rental housing vacancy rate and could have gone much further than does the minister's bill in terms of creating what this bill has as its objective, namely, some market for rental housing and some availability of stock for rental housing. I say that just to set the proper tone for the debate.
Now what does this bill do? In terms of rental housing it provides interest-free loans of $7,500 per unit to a maximum of 15,000 units. In terms of the larger centres and some smaller centres, Mr. Speaker, this bill is merely a blemish on the neck of an immense problem. According to CMHC, as many as 40,000 Canadian families may lose their homes this year because of high interest rates. On the average, a $45,000 a year income is needed for a person to be able to afford an average priced home in Canada. Members know this, but I am going to repeat it anyway, that serious shortages are developing in many centres. Housing starts in 1981, particularly in the last half, were barely one half the level needed to keep up with


Housing
our housing requirements. The average vacancy rate across Canada last fall was 1.2 per cent. It was as low as zero in Oshawa, the home of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), and about 0.3 per cent in Toronto, the home of the minister responsible for housing. That is the problem we have. It is more acute in other places. In Ottawa the vacancy rate has fallen from 4.2 per cent in April 1980, to 0.6 per cent in 1981. The major reason for that is the sharp decline in housing starts, that is clear. Why? Because of high interest rates. Surely there should be some substantial and meaningful program to meet the problem.
CMHC has told us, Mr. Speaker, that in the Ottawa-Hull area there is a need for 7,800 new units each year. In 1980, only 2,600 were built, and the data for the first ten months of 1981 would suggest that no more than 3,200 units will be built this year. Now the minister said earlier there were going to be 500 new units in this area. That would bring us up to 3,700, which is exactly half of the necessary requirement. That is the problem we face. What has the government done in the face of that? Well, the MURB program was cancelled in the budget, a program which increased our housing stock by approximately 25,000 units.


Paul James Cosgrove: We were following your example.


Walter David Baker: The minister says he was following our example. He speaks very well from his seat. The fact of the matter is, when we created that example the situation was not nearly as bad as it is today, and this is an indication of the lack of influence that he and other ministers had with the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in that the MURB provision was removed. The fact of the matter is there will be 5,000 fewer social housing units created this year over last year. That is the housing program of a country in trouble.
Now, Mr. Speaker, interest rates have raised the cost of rental housing. I have figures here which indicate that, at current interest rates, a landlord in the Ottawa-Carleton area would have to charge in excess of $800 per month for a new one-bedroom apartment just to break even. Until vacancy rates are either non-existent or rents go up, private-sector builders will not build, given the fact most people are unwilling to pay that much. At the same time, high interest rates affect the ability and desire of younger couples now renting to buy housing. The prospect of paying $1,000 a month on the mortgage is not an attractive one to a couple now paying $300 rent. Yet if that couple had purchased a home, their apartment would have been available to someone else. The reason the property tax credit was a good thing was that it encouraged home ownership. In the third quarter of 1981 the average cost of a home in Ottawa was $69,000, which means a family income of about $40,000 is needed for a person to be able to afford an average priced home here in Ottawa, given the 30 per cent income requirement.
What the $7,500 per unit in this bill would mean is that an $800 a month unit would be reduced to $700. That is no
inducement to build and no answer to the housing requirements in this area. The 15,000 unit figure across the country does not attack the problem at all. That would not take care of metropolitan Toronto, and would not make a dent in the difficulties in metropolitan Vancouver. It would not even touch the problems in Montreal. So, Mr. Speaker, in terms of need, this is a baby step, a small move in the direction of addressing the problems affecting this country.
Finally, the mortgage deferral scheme means that what you do not pay today, you will pay tomorrow, with interest. Interest upon interest. When I was practising law we used to have professional bondsmen around the country who put up bail bonds for people at exorbitant interest rates. Before the people of this country look to this scheme as their salvation they should know what is going to happen. Interest upon interest.
The minister responsible for housing may be right when he says to himself, as I am sure he does when he shaves in the morning. "Well, I will not be here to see that." He is right, likely he will not be here to see what happens. But, that is what is going to happen, and many people who will get over this today by the deferral scheme, are going to see it added. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this program is so totally inadequate for the problems facing Canadians that no minister and no member of Parliament could feel proud of having advanced it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Paul James Cosgrove: Complete nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at six o'clock for the dinner hour, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had completed his remarks, I believe. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Thank you very much. That is very kind. It is always nice to have a cheering section. I have a little problem with my voice tonight as I have a bit of a cold, so I do not want to strain it too much. I would appreciate it if hon. members would not interject.
I do not intend to speak at any great length on the bill, but I did think it would be important to put on the record some thoughts that I have with regard to this legislation as it affects housing for people all across the country, simply because of the fact that over the course of the last week and a half, I have been given the responsibility to keep an eye on the ministry of


housing, if not on the minister responsible for housing, to see whether they are fulfilling their mandate to the public of Canada.
1 want to begin by saying that I have a very definite position with regard to accommodation. I have never been quite able to understand how it happened that the provision of accomodation became a matter which was viewed in almost the same way as luxuries are viewed. It was left to the whim of the marketplace, to the decisions of the individual private investor and, to a large extent, to the decisions of the financial community to decide whether people could or could not have housing at a price they could afford. I have never in my life been able to understand the rationale for putting housing in other than a priority position in terms of guaranteeing people from all walks of life the opportunity to have decent accommodation within their capacity to pay.
I remember the time when I was a younger man, not so many years ago, fairly recently married, and we were looking for a home. In those days we calculated that if we were to spend between 25 and 28 per cent of our income on accommodation costs, that was principal, interest and taxes included, that was considered by most to be the maximum we could afford. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, and also the minister of housing went through a similar situation where you were likely the only breadwinner in the family, the only one working. I was the only one who was working. In my case, I had a wife and three small children at home. I was working in a fairly average kind of job earning what was an average wage. In fact,
I will tell you, because it may interest you, why I feel so badly about what has occurred.
In 1963 we were not long married, maybe four years, and we had three small children. I recognize that that was no one's fault but our own, but nevertheless, that is one of the facts. We had those three small children and we were looking for a home.
After having looked at a fairly large number of homes, we struck upon a three-bedroom bungalow. It had 1,160 or 1,180 square feet. I am sure you know the kind I mean. A lot of them were built during that period. It was a white brick house, full basement, one-floor plan, single bathroom, small rooms, the usual kind.
When we bought it, it cost $14,880. We had managed to scrounge together, with the aid of my father, something in the order of $2,000. That left us with a mortgage of about $13,000. We took it on. In 1963, it cost us $88.60 per month for the principal and interest. In cost an additional $25 per month for taxes.
I was working in the fire department, earning $5,200 a year. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, the story has relevance. I had to go to the chief of the fire department to get a letter to prove that within a few short weeks I would actually get to the lofty heights of making $5,200 a year. I took on that responsibility, and I was the only person in that house who was working. Remember the figures, because they are quite important to my story. The house was worth $14,880, the principal and interest
Housing
$88.60 a month, and I was earning $5,200 a year. I could afford it. Not only could I afford it, but every second week I could buy a 90 cent pizza and half a dozen beer.
I tell this story because if my older son, who would now be of age to work for the Hamilton fire department, were to go there and get a job today, he would earn about $28,000 a year. That would be five and a half times as much as I was earning.
We have lived in this house since he was a baby. We still own it. My family are still there. If he were to buy that house today, it would cost him between $50,000 and $60,000 to purchase it. What worries me is that today on that income he would not qualify for the mortgage on that same house.
I tell this story because it is with that as a backdrop that I want to speak about housing. What has happened in this country is that we have allowed housing to become a luxury. I could make comparisons in any situation, not only 1963 to 1982. We would find, almost without exception, that, taking average-income people in both periods of time and house prices in both periods of time, that they could afford to buy a house in 1963 on the income they were earning and cannot afford to buy a house in 1982 on the income they can earn doing the same job some 20 years later.
That is the major problem with the housing situation. We have allowed, for any number of reasons, none of them good in my opinion, housing to reach a point as far as cost is concerned where the average individual no longer has a fair shot at buying a home of his own within his ability to pay for it in his lifetime.
The house that I talk about which we bought will be paid off in a maximum 25 years. Sometime in 1988 that home will be fully paid. From 1988 on I will not have to pay anything. Even if my son were to assume responsibility for the mortgage, if he were able to raise the down payment to allow him to make the payments today, he would never pay it off. He would retire long before he ever reached the final payment.
I tell the story because I believe it is indicative of the problem which confronts many Canadians as they try to find a place to live. Rent controls may have been a problem for some people. However, it is only because of rent controls, at least in the province of Ontario, that rental accommodation has not skyrocketed in the same way as housing prices have. It is only because those controls were put in place.
It worries me every time I hear or read about the minister speaking about removing rent controls. You cannot remove rent controls until there is a sufficient number of units available to hold the price down by virtue of the ability of people to move from one place to another and leave where they are if the rent is too high. You cannot take off rent controls unless you are prepared to take those necessary steps.
I will get on to the situation as I see it. Inflation is a worldwide problem. The other day I questioned the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) about the possibility of some measures to deal specifically with mortgage interest rates. He responded by saying that he too was worried about it. I must
15260


Housing
confess I appreciated that. He went on to say we are facing a worldwide problem in terms of inflation. We could not really come to grips with the housing crisis because of world inflation. I put to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other interested members of the House that worldwide inflation has virtually no impact on housing or mortage rates. It need not have an impact and it does not have an impact.
There may be a few dollars but there is very little money that flows into Canada from outside which goes into mortgages. I admit that there is money that goes into the acquisition of property, but that is not what we are discussing. There is very little money which comes into Canada to be used for lending purposes for mortgages alone.
Bearing this in mind, it is quite clear to me that we could and, if we had the will, should direct those people who invest the public's money to invest it, or a reasonable portion of their portfolio capital, in mortgages at a predetermined interest rate which is within the ability of Canadians to pay. By "those people" I am talking about a number of different institutions ranging from life insurance companies to banks and credit unions, with all other forms of financial institutions in between, including the government. As a matter of course, those institutions should be required to invest in mortgages at a predetermined interest rate.
This does not begin to consider risk capital or investment for other purposes and the interest rates which may or may not be charged in that area. What it allows for is a blended return, or a blended interest rate in the end, if I may use the term. The interest rate which would come back from savings and investments would be, on balance, somewhat less than it is today. Nevertheless, it would be a blend of moneys loaned out for all other purposes and moneys which are required by law to be lent as mortgages for home ownership.
I suggest that there is nothing particularly wrong with that, but what worries me about today's market is that if I were to invest money, I could get a better return from a mortgage certificate which is absolutely guaranteed than I could if I were to invest in something with an element of risk attached to it. To me, there is something backwards about that system under which a person can obtain a better rate of return from a guaranteed investment situation than an investment in a risk-related situation.
I put forward that the first premise on which we start a housing policy is, first, that housing for people at an affordable price is a right and, second, that we must be able to raise the necessary capital from all those institutions, governments included, which are in the business of handling the public's funds. A significant proportion of that money must be made available to provide affordable mortgages for people all across the country.
We would be able to see the tremendous benefits which would result if we commenced on a premise such as that. If the government showed that kind of will, we could begin to build the required number of houses for people in every community
where housing is needed. This does not involve just the construction of houses. I am probably not telling the minister anything he does not know. I am sure he is as familiar with housing, if not more, as I am and I am sure he knows that, according to almost all calculations, we need something in excess of 200,000 housing units per year for at least five years in order to meet the backlog in the present demand for housing if we were to start building in the price range which people can afford.
I am sure that the minister also knows that HUDAC recently reduced its estimate of housing needs from 220,000 a year to 200,000. The reason for this is not that there are fewer people who need accommodation but that there are fewer people who can afford it. The rationale of HUDAC is that it might as well build houses because people cannot afford them. I suggest, for that very bad reason, that we ignore the estimate of 220,000 and proceed with the estimate of 200,000 and start building those homes.
When we begin building those homes, every time we dig the foundation we begin a process which creates 2.2 man-years of work in Canada. If we build 220,000 housing units, we would create 2.2 X 220,000 housing units, which would equal approximately something over 400,000 man-years of work, without going into the calculation. Those 400,000 man-years of work do not only take into account the construction of a home. It includes the making of the copper pipes, ceramic tile, bathroom fixtures, the shingles for the roof, the windows and doors. These items would be manufactured in Canada from coast to coast, whether it be in the lumber industry in British Columbia, the manufacturing sector in Ontario or another portion of the manufacturing sector on the east coast. Every part of Canada would benefit from those approximately 460,000 man years of work, which would be created as a result of building the homes which people need.
I believe that if the provision of accommodation was the only reason for the construction of houses, that would be reason enough because it would be providing people with accommodation which is needed. However, at a time when we have unemployment, which is close to 1,500,000, and we consider the fact that we could create twice as many, or more, jobs than are now being created by meeting the housing need, I cannot understand why the government has steadfastly refused to go ahead with the development and construction of housing.
This does not only involve accommodation for home owners. Although it is part of the Canadian way that a person wishes to save in order ultimately to own his own home, which should be encouraged, we also have a responsibility to build rental accommodation at present. There is a serious accommodation problem in most metropolitan areas, of which I am sure the minister is well aware. I know he is well aware of this because from statistics in his own ministry it is quite plain to see. Whether we are speaking of Ottawa, which has a virtual zero percentage vacancy rate, or Hamilton, with a virtually zero percentage vacancy rate, or Vancouver, which again has a virtually zero percentage rate, there is an obvious need in


almost every major metropolitan centre to build rental accommodation.
Some might argue that we cannot afford this, but we must realize that what we are talking about is an investment. It is not the purchase of something which will disappear over two or three years. It is not the acquisition or building of a product which will become obsolete. It is not like building a bomb that will blow up and be gone. It is building a home which will last for 50 or more years, and during the lifetime of that house every single year there will be a financial return in terms either of rental or of the repayment of the mortgage. What we are talking about is an investment now with a guaranteed return on that investment over a period of time. Every single dollar put into it comes back with interest. Every single dollar put into it creates jobs now and jobs in the future. Every single dollar put into it, as opposed to many other places where dollars might be put, creates not only the jobs we must have now in order to make the economy work again, but also an accommodation which will last not just for the family which moves into it when it is new but for a succession of other families which will ultimately live in that accommodation over many, many years.
I think we are being very shortsighted. I think it was last year we gave-and I am not suggesting the figures are particularly significant-to one company which wanted to locate in an area in eastern Canada something in the order of $60 million to locate there. It was going to locate there anyway, and we got nothing in return for the $60 million, but somehow or other, because that would create a couple hundred jobs- not even permanent jobs-we could find $60 million to give. In the case of the auto industry, together with the Ontario government we gave to Ford of Canada many millions of dollars, but did not get any jobs in return.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have not given them anything yet.


Ian Deans: We gave a guarantee. We might as well have spent the money.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You said we gave it to them.


Ian Deans: The minister quite rightly points out that no money has changed hands, but we are committed to making a payment. We are committed already.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was just toning down the emphasis.


Ian Deans: That is fine. I never mind an interjection as sensible as that. I think it was worthy of the minister to interject that because it allows me to point out the fallacy in the government's position. The government seems to feel that unless it is actually handing over a cheque, there is no commitment from the public treasury. Has the minister ever co-signed for a loan? No money changes hands, but if the other fellow does not pay, you have to come up with the bucks. The cosigner must have the capacity to produce that amount of capital at a given moment in time, and that is the same
Housing
situation into which the federal and provincial governments have put themselves with regard to loan guarantees.
What I am really pointing out is that we seem to be able, for reasons I have never quite understood, to find ways to give money away without any guaranteed return, but here we have an opportunity to invest both for today's needs and for future needs, and we cannot find the money to do it.


Paul James Cosgrove: We have $350 million for 70,000 jobs, but you will not let us spend it.


Ian Deans: I would be happy to let the minister spend $350 million. In fact, I made an offer to the minister the other day, and I know he can hardly wait to act on it. If he will guarantee that we will build the 70,000 housing units that make up the difference between the 140,000 to 150,000 which most experts agree will be built in this current year and the 220,000 that most people agree constitutes the need in Canada, and if the government will guarantee to undertake to begin the process of building those 70,000 additional housing units, at 8.36 the bill will pass and the minister will be able to spend the money.


Paul James Cosgrove: Would you half pass it for 30,000 units?


Ian Deans: No, I will not half pass the bill for 30,000 units.


Paul James Cosgrove: So it is nothing or 70,000?


Ian Deans: No, it is not nothing or 70,000. The minister must surely know that there can be no more compelling argument made than an argument for meeting an immediate and long-term need with regard to accommodation and meeting an immediate and long-term need with regard to job creation. There can be no more compelling argument than an argument for putting to work the raw materials which are in Canada for Canadian use and for mobilizing the financial resources of a very privileged financial sector in Canada for the use of Canadians over a long period of time. There can be no more compelling argument than an argument for living up to one of the few commitments the government surely must make if it is to be a government worth the name, and that commitment is to guarantee that, in addition to providing people with the opportunity to eat reasonably well, they be provided the opportunity to be sheltered in the same way.


Paul James Cosgrove: Perhaps the carpenters' union would appreciate 30,000 jobs.


Ian Deans: Perhaps the carpenters' union would appreciate 30,000, although I am sure the minister knows-and then again perhaps he does not, and it is strange, but I suspect he probably does not because he lives in a somewhat cloistered world-that very few of the people who build houses are unionized. Most of the people who build houses are not unionized, so I am not arguing on behalf of a particular interest; I am arguing on behalf of people. Carpenters' unions, generally speaking, are not involved in the building of private accommodation.


Paul James Cosgrove: We are talking about rental accommodation.

Housing


Ian Deans: That is fine. I am talking about rental accommodation too, and they are not even in that. It is a sad situation when the minister does not know that, but I will accept it as simply an oversight on his part.
Of all the things we have the ability to do in this country and of all the undertakings we have the ability to undertake, without any outside help at all, I suspect, we could, if we had to, feed ourselves, house ourselves and, if we wanted to, meet our energy requirements. Those are the things we have the ability to do in this country, and we have the ability to do them because this country is inherently rich in all of the necessities to provide for those three things.
There are many other things we can do, and I admit that. There are many other services we can provide. We can provide a better level of health care. We can provide a better level of education. We can do all those things, but in terms of the fundamental needs of people, we can heat them in the winter, we can house them year round and we can feed them year round, because in this country there is everything needed to do those things. A government which cannot mobilize those resources in such a way as to guarantee that the public of the country can have access to all three within their ability to pay does not deserve the name of a government. That is what I find so distressing about the attitude this government takes. That is what I find so upsetting about the attitude this government takes.
When I started out I told the story of how things have deteriorated from 1963 to 1982. I explained-I think in the most lucid terms-what has occurred in the country during that period. It is not that wages have not risen by a reasonable amount, because I think by any standard wages have risen-at least in the occupation I was speaking about-by far more than any single individual living and working in 1963 would have anticipated. Elowever, the price of accommodation and the financial burden of carrying it have risen far beyond what anyone, no matter who, could ever have anticipated. They have risen far beyond what anyone in the country can afford, far beyond what anyone in the country should be asked to tolerate and far beyond what anyone in the House of Commons could ever explain to the electorate which sent him or her here.
My attitude in this matter is simple, and I will put it to the minister quite frankly. The bill he has put before us is another step along the way to a further deterioration of the housing situation in the country. It is another stopgap measure, another attempt to fill a hole with a small peg. It may stem the tide a little, it may keep the water back for a moment or two, but the problem is the government's fundamental attitude toward accommodation-its unwillingness to commit itself to accommodation for people at a price they can afford. There can only be one answer to that, Mr. Speaker, and it cannot possibly be that the banks reduce their interest rates from 19.5 per cent to 17.5 per cent over five years if they feel they will make enough money at that level. Dammit, man, no one should be asked to pay the price people are being asked to pay today by the financial institutions of this country!

At some point in the near future-and you can see it happening now; you do not have to be a mathematical genius either-the only people able to buy homes will be the very, very wealthy. As far as the rest of the population is concerned, it will mean doubling up, tripling up, quadrupling up-it will mean living in basements and attics. Those conditions existed years ago but were eliminated as a result of the systematic efforts of a large cross-section of the population. We built a better and more suitable society of communities where people could live with a sense that they were going to grow together, provide for their families, and have the amenities of social services, educational facilities and health care facilities. We built a society where people would be able to work and live together and acquire for themselves-for their old age, if you like-the security that they would not be required to earn at the level of their working years forever.
I say to any hon. member who cares to listen that it is very frightening to think that today a young person can buy a home, enter into an agreement and then, at the time of resigning the mortgage, find-as was the case with the Royal Bank-that the lender has brought in a scheme to reduce his payments to the point where, at the end of the year he owes more than he did at the beginning of the year. Yet the Minister of Finance had the gall to rise in his place and commend the bank for finding a way to put people even further into debt.
What possible hope is there for that young family, with the parents at age 26, 27 or 28, which decides to buy a home? When they reach about 70 years of age and no longer can find jobs, they will still owe half as much as they did when they first bought the home 40 years ago. How will they ever be able to set money aside for the time when they can no longer work? How will they ever be able to set aside the capital that will allow them to make the payments on the mortgage which are rising at the whim of the people in the financial institutions in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and other parts of the country? The more you think about it the more depressing it becomes, Mr. Speaker-the more agonizing it is and the more difficult it is to understand.
I say to the minister, and through you to the government, Mr. Speaker, that if there is one area in which they have a prime responsibility to act, this must surely be it. Can the minister not find it in his heart to understand that accommodation for people is not something to be played around with or left to the whim of a few investors and their advisers-that it is not something that can be left to chance? In a modern, sensitive, sophisticated society it is not only possible but necessary that government set the guidelines to guarantee that people will be able to find accommodation and pay for it in their working lifetime.


Mr. Benjamin:: And not just to make a buck.


Ian Deans: And not, as my colleague says, just to make a buck.


Investment in a home is the biggest investment a person ever makes. It takes more of an individual's income than any other single item. It becomes the cornerstone of his life. He buys it because he believes it gives him stability. The government has systematically eroded that belief, however. Over the past three or four years the government has allowed what was once a legitimate aspiration, attainable after a reasonable amount of hard work, to become nothing more than a dream, and in some cases a nightmare!
I want to suggest to the minister that of all the responsibilities he could have been given, this is the single most important responsibility in government today. The minister has an opportunity to rise above the stupidity of petty politics and show that he is capable of giving leadership. He can provide the people of Canada with some hope for the future; he can assume responsibility that neither he nor any predecessor has shown any willingness or ability to assume. He can state clearly that it is a principle of the government-which I think is supported by everyone in the House-that during the next 12 months we will find a way to return to the people of Canada the opportunity to acquire a home that they can afford and pay for during their lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather pleased to follow the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) whose oratory and humane views deserve great attention.
A dilemma faces the Canadian people, particularly new family units and people coming out of school, who are looking for work and dreaming of raising a family in the comfortable environs of a private home. All this is at stake in this debate.
I was fascinated by the hon. member's remarks. This past year I have spent many hours wondering why the way I want to see the problem solved is so different from the way members of the New Democratic Party want to solve it.
The more we go to a structure in our state; the more we remove the incentives and initiatives that are magic for making people work and dream and take risks, the more we become stuck in the swamps of inactivity and bureaucratic disinitia-tive. I think these are the things we are concerned with when we debate Bill C-89.
In his early remarks the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain spoke of his and his wife's early struggles to create a home for their three young children. I think most of us have a similar story to tell. Mine is rather different and it predates his by some years. I came out of the war married, with a child, and pretty soon there was another one. In those days things were hard. One had to finish an education to enable one to earn some level of income beyond that allowed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In those days the government had some very desirable programs of which we seem to have lost sight. There was the Veterans' Land Act for returning veterans who were trying to resettle in private homes. In addition, the central mortgage and housing corporation was a Crown corporation of which every person could be proud.
Housing
Today, after a decade of total, arrogant mismanagement of the corporation and of the resources of Canadians, we are dealing with an absolute national disaster. The incentive has been removed from the system. Any desire or initiative to save or create for oneself has been removed from the system. Any fiscal policy which would allow a person to be self-reliant and proud of his own creation or of the fact that he acquired and built, in one way or another, a home on a piece of property, was able to afford it and to provide his spouse, family and himself with security and self-respect, is gone because of the fiscal policies the Liberal government has delivered to Canadians. Professor Flores of England made a statement which I think applies to the debate on this housing bill. After years of socialist and labour governments in Britain, he said that the private sector could be defined as the part of the economy which the government controls, and that the public sector is the part which nobody controls. This is the dilemma which Canada is in today. They mushroom our Crown corporations, take away tax points from the private sector and force everyone to come cap in hand to rows and rows of desks with bureaucrats sitting at them, to ask for permission to do this and to ask for a grant to do it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And bank managers.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: If bank managers and the system were left alone, with the correct fiscal policies they can serve and deliver a degree of self-reliance which no government bureaucrat or government minister can deliver to anybody in any country anywhere at any time. The incentive system is the magic which makes people work. Hon. members shake their heads and shout "dinosaur". They just have to look at the history of Britain during the post-war years to see its dilemma. Its state-owned industries are collapsing. Most of them cannot even cover through revenues their wage costs. They have forgotten that the welfare state which they build and demand to have must come from the creation of wealth. We cannot sustain the very enviable social programs of this country very much longer unless we direct our efforts and our minds back to the creation of wealth so that we do not lose what we have. The pension system is not funded properly. It is at risk. Just about everything we have is at risk. We have a government which spends so much in non-wealth creating activities and in social programs that it has to borrow to pay interest on the loans it borrowed last year. It is like a cancer which grows and grows and destroys the spirit of the nation.
As the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain said, Bill C-89 is a stopgap measure. It does not resolve existing housing problems in Canada. It does not get to the heart of the problem. Canada needs some 220,000 new housing units each year, and we are discussing a bill which will give $7,500, interest free, for 15,000 units across the country. This will not even resolve the existing housing shortage problem in the city of Vancouver from which I come. In 1980, only 159,000 units were built under the government's policies. In 1981, only 178,000 units were built. The latest Conference Board forecast


Housing
of November 1981 predicted that only 180,000 units will be built in 1982, and now it looks as though that goal will not be attained. The shortage is 143,000 units over a three-year period, and we are discussing a bill which talks about $7,500, interest free, per unit for 15,000 units in a nation which, as the previous speaker to me said, has close to zero vacancy rate across the land. Vacancy rates in most markets will approach zero by 1983 under the government's policies. This can only lead to a black market and to human tragedy and suffering on a scale which I never thought I would live to see.
Turning to the area of mortgage rates, I can remember back in the Thirtieth Parliament when the borrower's and depositor's bill was brought in. At that time the government tried to move term lending into medium-term lending. I remember the bill was withdrawn because we warned the government at that time that it was not matching things, that things had to have a match and a balance to sustain the system. We have seen a situation develop where the entire Canadian housing industry, the whole right to private property, was predicated on 25-year term money. This is what built it and gave everyone the right and the ability to afford homes. In the last five years that has been absolutely destroyed by the policies the government has allowed to creep into the system. Now the situation is such that employees, young people and middle-aged people across the land find themselves with a need to renew their mortgages every five years. Many of them are on a one-year basis, and some are on a three-year basis. The tragedy, worry and concern out there indeed are serious. I have had people come to me in our family business who are facing mortgage renewals and something like an additional $280 to $440 per month requirement from their income. Indeed this is serious. It is something that not even the business which provides their basic income can cover and handle. Yet there are innovative ways in which this dilemma could be resolved for the benefit of Canadians.
I should like to make a few remarks on interest rates. We are trapped in an inflationary condition, much of which is our own doing. Much of it also comes from elements offshore or cost-pushed elements offshore from Canada, but no one can tell me that the monetarist policies of the United States, as struck by the U.S. Federal reserve, to handle the interest rate, monetary and demand call problems of the United States, are the policies which we should be following in Canada; no way. The United States, through the Marshall plan following World War II, made a tremendous investment in Eurodollars into the reconstruction of Europe and of Japan. That foresightedness, which was predicted by John Maynard Keynes after World War I and was adopted in the Marshall plan after World War II, probably prevented another world clash as a result of the lack of ability to distribute equitably among the nations the raw materials and resources of the world. The monetarist policies of the United States, with its high interest rates, were designed for a United States need, not a Canadian need, yet the Bank of Canada and the Liberal federal government parrot that need, not understanding what is our problem in Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But Wilson agrees with it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I hear from another economist in the NDP ranks who has all the answers. Perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to allow me to follow through with my thoughts because we might be able to make a breakthrough some day and resolve our Canadian dilemma without having to get into a lot of cheap shots and politics. The issue should be beyond any political barrier, it is that serious.
In Canada we do not have the call of the Eurodollar on our treasury. What we do have is mobility of money through our foreign exchange reserve account. Canadian government policies have been aggravating that mobility, maybe knowingly or unknowingly. Canada has been going through an unbelievable concentration of ownership. Since February, 1980, we have been moving into a high degree of nationalization because of an insane desire to own everything in this country. This nationalization is being done at the expense of creating meaningful jobs within the Canadian system. That is the tragedy and the delivery which the government is giving the people of Canada. That is the tragedy which all young people coming into the work force are facing in this hour. Nowhere do we find the megaprojects started. Nowhere do we find the modernization of the transportation system being started. Nowhere do we find a "starting-to-move" with any degree of realism on that marvellous heritage that was ours by luck, by birth and by geography. Here we are, all snarled up by inflation and an interest rate that is just strangling the country. I am searching and trying to create some awareness of what our dilemma and problem is.
I personally believe that we can have low interest rates in Canada if we were to cool the call or liquidity on our foreign exchange reserves. We have high interest rates because we think we are competing with interest rates in the U.S. European markets. If that follows, why is it that interest rates in Switzerland are so much lower than in any other country in the world? The reason is Switzerland controls the movement of money in and out of its country.
Over the last year, the nationalization programs of Petro-Canada buying Petrofina for $1.2 billion, Canadian Pacific Investments buying International Paper for over $1 billion, and of buying this in Europe and buying Husky Oil in the United States, all of this corporate concentration and desire to have the ownership in the hands of the state has placed a demand of about $20 billion and a call on our foreign exchange reserves account.
In Canada today we could have interest rates at or below the inflation rate with no liquidity in international movement if we addressed the problem of our international reserves. It would take something like $60 billion to do so, but if we had $60 billion added to our foreign reserve account, we could control our own destiny in Canada. From where are we going to get $60 billion? I think hon. members across the way have a right to frown. But all we have to do is to is to take the heat and the


liquidity off the day to day demand call on our international reserve account. As I pointed out, we have created a S20 billion charge and deficit in that account through the nationalization program and the degree of corporate concentration that has taken place in Canada. Perhaps we could do something new, for instance, such as adopting a Canadian-made policy. We could say, "Look, we will take the demand off that call on our international reserve account by returning to a tax deduction." In the last year, somehow or other we have got away from the 15 per cent holdback. Suppose we removed the demand call on our international reserve account by increasing the tax holdback to, say, 30 per cent on anything under a 60-month call. We would immediately have all that demand paper move to a 60-month call or term.
I hear people say I am dreaming, but the idea comes from debates and arguments with people in the banking industry who have had experience in international banking and know how the Swiss system works. I have also been made aware of what happened in the United States. In order to take the demand off the U.S. system by all the Eurodollars, which were placing a demand and call on the U.S. treasury, the Americans went to Europe with a Roosa bond. They converted the demand call on a good percentage of the Eurodollars. They converted enough into term and futures so that the reserve board was relieved of this day to day pressure.
I have listened to formal economists. I have read books until I am almost blind and need another pair of glasses. I have been privileged to have been in Oxford, England, attending a conference dealing with the implications of low growth for the western world. I have listened to the debates and I have read debates between formal economists. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, they do not have the answers. They are a debating society. They are trying to score points one against the other. We, the politicians, are relying on them to come up with something. We in the political process seem to be waiting for a 1980 or a 1990 John Maynard Keynes who is just not there. Therefore, we will have to open up our minds and take ourselves out of the doctrinaire debate in which the western world is engaging, and start to act on our own to control the Canadian destiny.
I would suggest to the government that it is time it started to look at cooling the immediacy of the call on our foreign exchange reserves. It is time those who borrow heavily abroad were told to convert their call on the Canadian people to 60-month term in order to give us a breathing spell so as to lower interest rates, make the housing in Canada affordable again to the majority of its people, and get our industry working. Coupled with that, it is absolutely essential that somehow or other the people of Canada put enough pressure on the Liberal gc vernment to move away from its desire and ability to deliver everything from insulation in your home, to $7,500 interest free on a rental housing unit, to a grant to industry, the corporate bums who feed from this public trough, from this structure, and have control over the lives of people in our society. Let them cease to suffocate the magic that innovates, creates and allows people to win occasionally with a risk, this risk that creates the jobs and wealth and the ability to compete with other nations.
Housing
Until the government moves back to a fiscal policy that delivers rewards and incentives, until it stops spending all its research and development dollars inhouse with universities and the National Research Council, and until the government starts to loosen up and deliver some of that money into the private sector with enough of a tax incentive on incremental increases in research spending, this country will slowly retire, just like the ocean going out at a very low tide. My goodness, the things we were blessed with as we came back from World War II and built this country, the right to a home, to rear and to educate a family, a job if you wanted to work. However, slowly but surely self-reliance was removed from the individual, and government became more and more important in the minds of people who were no longer prepared to work that extra hour, walk that extra mile in order to acquire and protect their right to property. What a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. That is the heart of the housing dilemma in Canada today. The selfreliance of the Canadian people has been taken away by more and more cradle-to-grave care, and people do not discipline themselves to deliver that extra hour or shift of work in order to acquire things.
Another thing which has happened to Canada in this last decade and a half of Liberal rule is that it has lost its desire for excellence. At one time we had a high standard; our engineering was the best in the world. It might still be today. However, we could start from scratch and build ships, build an army and a navy. We could play our part in the world with our heads high and be proud of Canada. The feeling in our hearts, our minds, our spirit and our outlook was just go, go. Canada, over the last 12 years, has slowly but surely and methodically lost its standard of and desire for excellence. We have moved from a standard of living which was the envy of the world, Mr. Speaker. We used to be number three; we are now 13 and sliding fast. You can feel it every day. We changed a simple and basic taxation system, Mr. Speaker, into a complicated monster which threatens us with arbitrary interference in our lives by civil servants and bureaucrats. We have government interference, we have confusion. We have had the decisionmaking base removed from us in a budget, which was an absolute disaster for the country and the creative elements within it. It has all but removed any chance we had of swinging back and creating jobs. That was it; November 12 did it.
I guess the biggest mistake was when we let them start talking about tax points as being in the possession of the bureaucrat, Mr. Speaker, because now those tax points are theirs. They do not think they should be delivered out so that you and I and others working in widely diverse activities under the rule of law should have the right to take a chance and use that tax point to build wealth, create jobs and do something useful. They think that they, with their desks and their books, have a more divine right to that than I have, and as long as that attitude prevails, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this country is at risk because it will deliver us into social unrest.


Housing
Along with the regional tensions they have allowed to develop over the last decade and a half, the country is increasingly at risk because of our inability to manage one of the most blessed nations and peoples God ever gave this earth. We have thrown away one magnificient opportunity after another to become energy self-sufficient by 1990. All of this, Mr. Speaker, relates to the attitude and type of legislation we are debating in Bill C-89, which again gives more and more power to some faceless bureaucrat to say, "Yes, you may have $7,500 to build a rental unit here". Let them build one there, instead of just putting out something in law and policy which says to the entrepreneurs and the business sector of the country: "Go, make a buck". Let them provide housing for people within their means.
One day it is MURBs, and in the next budget, no MURBs. We have removed all the elements of fiscal policy which at one time encouraged a wide decision-making base in Canada, and now this November 12 budget attacks property and privacy. Was it any accident, Mr. Speaker, that the constitutional debate saw the right to property removed from the new Constitution we are about to receive. Why? Just look at what has happened since February, 1980. The National Energy Program has backed in with confiscation of rights and property. Not only that, we had the constitutional package, and now we have the November 12 budget along with the legislation in Bill C-89. All of this shows a pattern of interference with and suffocation of a free marketplace. When people lose that freedom of the marketplace, Mr. Speaker, freedom itself is at risk.
As I come to the end of my time, Mr. Speaker, let me return to this statement, "The private sector can be defined as the part of the economy that the government controls: the public sector is the part that nobody controls." At one time some years ago when CMHC was a corporation of which we were all proud and which was providing a wonderful mortgage service in the marketplace in a highly professional and skilled manner, it also went into the business of insuring mortgage risks. Over the years, Mr. Speaker, I think that program built up something like a $600 million reserve fund. Then along came this Liberal government with the AHOP program which, we all remember, was just a total disaster. It was the bureaucrat at his worst. That program, along with others, just totally wiped out the insurance fund which CMHC had built up over many years. At a recent committee meeting on May 19, 1981, I asked the deputy minister responsible for CMHC about the condition of that fund. He reported that it had projected future losses of $400 million due to the AHOP program. Well, in addition to wiping out that fund, CMHC had to go to the government to borrow another $231 million to cover their cash obligations under that insurance fund. That is the kind of thing which is happening to all of the assets under the control of our Crown corporations and this Liberal government. To me that is inexcusable and a scandal of some magnitude.
Let us look, Mr. Speaker, at one other recent program which this department is responsible for, the UFFI program. It is utterly amazing how that came about because scientists in
the employ of this government at the NRC warned against the use of urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Here is what happens as a result of this incestuous ability to lobby the policy-making centres through our Crown corporations. I repeat: Incestuous, disgustingly incestuous. A company called Rapco Foam Incorporated was purchased. It was not successful at the urethane formaldehyde foam business. Therefore, it was purchased in 1976 by Innocan Investments, which was 37 per cent owned by Canada Development Corporation. As soon as it had control over this foam process, it claimed that the shrinkage problem had been solved and that the problem was over. In September of 1977, UFFI was approved by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for use in its CHIP program. This was over the objections of the National Research Council, and of Dr. Richard Viau, acting head of the chemical and fire safety program of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who, in an interview, warned:
People should think quite carefully before installing this product in their homes . . . Formaldehyde is a very irritating chemical and exposure can lead to headaches, allergies and a whole gamut of other problems.
Canada Mortgage and Housing, before it launched its CHIP program, was fully aware of the objections of the scientific community, inhouse, in government, and were fully aware of the recommendations of Dr. Viau in Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yet the power of lobby through Crown corporations to the policy sector of CMHC overruled any common sense, and away went urea formaldehyde foam insulation to the benefit of Innocan and its shareholders, because its sales went up about 12 times a month.
That is the type of thing that is going on, and that is the type of thing that is in this warning. No one controls the public sector and, in Canada, it is totally out of control. That is why I stand here tonight with a rather poorly prepared presentation which, nevertheless, contains some original thought-


An hon. Member:: Occasionally.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: -and put up with some smart remarks from a minister who obviously does not know what he is doing.


Paul James Cosgrove: What did you do with UFFI when you were in government?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I have no apologies to make, Mr. Minister, for what I did in the short period I was in government, because I served the constituency I was appointed to serve very well. I have no apologies for what I did. Had some of the programs and plans which were in place been given just a chance to live, you guys would be over here for the next 30 years.
We are dealing with the heart of the young people and the emerging family units in Canada when we deal with legislation like this. They do not have a chance. This kind of legislation, with the policies that we have had for the last two years of this government, will deliver us into an egalitarian state, and will remove the most precious commodity we inherited, that is our freedom, as it removes freedom from the marketplace and


delivers more and more control and arbitrary decisions to friendly people of the Liberal government and bureaucrats who interfere with our lives.
I would urge the government to pay attention to some of the suggestions that I have made tonight concerning interest rates, for somewhere there must be a solution crossing political boundaries that will deliver this country out of the nightmare it is facing. Productivity will resolve inflation, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has told us so many times. Flowever, there has been no legislation in the last two budgets of this government which would give us the magic factor of creating the wealth and turning loose the energy which is lying dormant out there in Canada.
I say to hon. members opposite: Please, for goodness sake, back off from the approach you are taking before you remove completely any chance for this country to regain pride in itself, and give people the right to own their own homes and to rear their families there. Maybe that is at the heart of this kind of legislation. Maybe the government just does not want families to have roots.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is rare, indeed, that the House of Commons has the privilege of hearing two speeches, the likes of which we have just heard, one from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the other from the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). These men were putting forward, in different ways, a common denominator that is true, I hope, for much of the world. I will be coming back to that common denominator almost immediately, but first I wanted to make a comment concerning this bill which would amend a longstanding piece of legislation, namely, the National Housing Act. I think it is the judgment of the House on all sides that this bill is inadequate to meet the needs to which we are all referring.


Paul James Cosgrove: Not on this side!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I deplore the interjection of the minister, because I was hoping he would accept the remarks I will make from an all-party, all-Canadian point of view. We have heard the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain speaking from a humanitarian point of view. He stated the case of almost 100 per cent of the Canadian people who instinctively, as well as from reason and logic, want to own their own homes. Then we heard the remarks of the hon. member for Capilano. Until the last few sentences, he was searching through all the cloud of doubt we have had in this country over the last ten or 15 years as to why we were going the way we were, and he was trying to come up with a carefully thought out type of direction. I will try to keep my remarks in the same mood.
It is my honest conviction that all parties in the House, regardless of any partisanship that may exist, accepted long ago that the right to own a home and raise a family in that home, along with all of the rights of that family, is now a mandatory right. 1 do not think there is a Liberal in this
Housing
country who does not agree with that statement. I am sure that every Canadian agrees. If we can work from that premise, I would think that we should carefully consider the two speeches delivered tonight, and even my remarks, because this right to own property, to own one's own home, is a right which has been slowly accepted in the western world, a right which I am sure has been accepted in Canada and all of northern America for many years.
What we should be doing with this National Housing Act, is perfecting that right and making it work. We may quarrel over the way we approach it, but we should not quarrel on the fundamental purpose. At this stage of our development in the world, not only should a human being have the right to have food, but he should also have the right to have shelter of some reasonable variety, as the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain stated. If we can accept that principle, I think that the slightly partisan remarks which I will make can be taken in reasonably good grace.
It is my judgment, even though the minister has refused my judgment, that this minister really came into the House with a desire to help concerning the housing field. I have said this in the House before. However, when that terrible budget of November 12 came in, to use an expression which is now popular on national TV, at least in the United States, the minister was "hosed". There are other words I could use to describe what happened. The hon. member for Capilano stated it very clearly. A few people are going to get a little relief of a temporary nature from this bill. That relief takes the form of extending the period of their debt. Instead of being in debt for 20 years, they are now going to be in debt indefinitely. That is all it is. Without going into the details, that can be accepted.
The minister told us before the budget came out, "Just wait for the budget". The minister took some pains to see that the news about the housing policy in the budget was in the hands of the people the next day after the budgt was announced. He got into serious trouble with the customs of the House when his staff finally confessed to him they had done something that really was a little irregular.
Basically, this bill is inadequate in meeting this problem of providing shelter as a right. The fact is, and everyone admits it, that the government just does not have the money to provide all the things the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and the hon. member for Capilano suggest we should do. This bill is based on the precedent that much of the starting place of backing up these loans, which is the insurance principle, and even direct loans, is that the government is the source of the revenue to get these programs started.
I simply say that with the government, having gone out last fall and borrowed nearly $13 billion at 19'/2 per cent, cannot be blamed for not wanting to turn billions of that over to the housing industry, a billion to the farm industry, a bunch more to export industries and another couple of billion to the small businessmen of this country to go out and produce the wealth


Housing
the hon. member for Capilano talked about. With the philosophy of this bill, the government cannot provide the money which starts the machine going.
Just to make certain that everyone in the country understands what I mean when I say that the minister got hosed, I am going to read to him, not from the bill before the House, Bill C-89, the National Housing Act, but rather I will read two sections in the previous bill, Bill C-88. I am going to read the first section rapidly because it is pretty well known and not relevant to the point I am making. Under Amendment 12 at page four of the bill, the Farm Credit Act, it reads:
At the request of the corporation the Minister of Finance may, with the approval of the governor in council, pay to the corporation, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, amounts not exceeding in the aggregate two hundred and twenty-five million dollars-
I will stop there. That is the capital structure of the Farm Credit Corporation. What is not mentioned is that once you give the extra $75 million, from $150 million up to $225 million, as capital into the Farm Credit Corporation, that corporation can turn around and lend to farmers 25 times the amount of capital it has. Therefore, the extra $75 million that is allowed under Bill C-88 in theory allows the Farm Credit Corporation to lend about $3.5 billion more to agriculture.
As I say, that is in theory. The fact is that the Farm Credit Corporation under the old terms of the act would have to get the money from the government. Since the government does not have it or cannot afford too much of that 19'/2 per cent money it borrowed, not much is going to go to the Farm Credit Corporation and, therefore, not very much to the farmers. That is the bad news.
1 want the minister to listen to the next clause. It is almost revolutionary in Parliament. I quote Clause 13(1):
The corporation may, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, borrow money by any means, including issuing and selling bonds, debentures, notes and other evidences of indebtedness of the corporation.
Imagine the minister bringing into the House, not just the old bill which goes back to 1958, but bringing amendments that take him out of the dependence of government money or getting money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Parliament passed second reading of that bill and it is now before a committee. This minister can go out and, if the government cannot or will not give him money, he can raise unlimited amounts by any means.
I am suggesting that something we should do when the House goes into committee on this bill is to insist that the minister, if he is defending the housing industry, the people who want houses, homes and shelter, either ownership or rental, should ask for equal treatment from Parliament and give to the millions of people who live in the villages, towns and cities in every part of Canada equal rights to the farmer in getting access to all this money that is available in Canada.
When a clause reads "by any means" you can become almost independent from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. True, you have to get the consent of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), but no minister of finance, even one from Cape Breton, would turn down a minister who could get $100 million from sources other than the Consolidated Revenue Fund at no cost to the treasury. He could not get that type of
stand accepted by any normal cabinet. You need to have a monster policing the cabinet to discriminate between one section of Canadians and another.
Since the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has this, with the support of every member on both sides of the House, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) owes it to himself, his party, and the people of Canada to get an equal right in this legislation. It will not work as simply under the National Housing Act because it does not have, as far as I know, a clause that allows it to lend more than it has.
Let me follow this up. Suppose the minister got into the housing bill, Bill C-89, in the committee reading stage, the same clause as exists in Bill C-88, and suppose he or the corporation could use the principle of the small business development bond. It was introduced originally in the Crosbie budget and has been restored year by year under the present Minister of Finance. There are many precedents for it, but if this principle was used, people who have money to invest could be encouraged perhaps to lend money to this corporation at 8 per cent. They could turn around and lend it at 9 per cent, which would give them 1 per cent to pay their costs.
I doubt if there is a member on the government side who does not support this amendment which we put through for farmers. Why should this same justice and equity not be given to people who should not only have the right to own their farm but to own or rent their own home? It is my suggestion that the minister, by simply amending each of those sections so people can get their money, could get out of the great dilemma, which the Minister of Finance is in, of only having money that he borrowed at 19'/2 per cent to spread out. He cannot distribute too much because he does not have it.
The minister can get him off the hook by telling people that if they lend money at 8 per cent to one of these agencies listed in the bill or the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation itself, he is prepared to put that money out at 9 per cent.
The gimmick of the small business development bond dates back to the First World War. Its principle was that when you do something for your country and your fellow citizens, the government occasionally gives you the incentive of not having to pay tax, just as in 1917 when people lent money to the Canadian government to fight the war. They did not have to pay income tax on these bonds.
Similarly, as it is applied to small business and farmers under the Small Business Development Bond, institutions which lend money under the Small Business Development Bond, that is mostly banks, credit unions and trust companies, do not have to pay tax on the amount of money they receive, that 8 per cent from the Farm Credit Corporation or the small business which borrows this money. To balance the scale, the man who borrows money at 8 per cent or 9 per cent loses the right to claim that interest as a deduction. What the government will lose on one hand, it will get back on the other. The


government cannot claim that there is any change in the balance of ways and means.
This would make it reasonably and humanely possible for thousands of people to expand their farm and small business operations and, hopefully, through this bill, the right to own a home and purchase it at a reasonable rate of interest. This would dispel the allegation made again and again in the House that $45,000 a year is needed to be able to buy an average home. I believe that this proposal, with the precedent which has been set by the Minister of Agriculture when both opposition parties made a proposal almost a year ago, which the minister finally got in the bill, should be accepted by the minister of housing.
We offered the same proposal that we made to the minister of housing and to the export agency, to farmers. We see that the Minister of Agriculture introduced it, had it passed through cabinet and the House in second reading and, hopefully, it will survive the committee stage and, finally, third reading.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have made a reasonable, objective and fair case for equity for people who live in homes to be treated as are those who have access to the Small Business Development Bond.
I know that the banks and credit unions are somewhat disturbed about the instability of this government and welsh on their responsibility under the Small Business Development Bond. However, they will certainly move into high speed action and real competition when the housing people lend money at 8 and 9 per cent, the Farm Credit Corporation lends money at 8 or 9 per cent and the export companies which lend at 8 or 9 per cent and are doing it for less in some cases, as we know.
The small businessman, exporter, farmer and those who want to live in their own homes, when given this incentive, will pay for their homes and put people to work. Taxes will be collected on it and the government will be better off. It will be able to achieve the objective of the Minister of Finance, not by reducing incentives or following an antique mythology such as the tax expenditure theory where a percentage of nothing is still nothing, but by an old-fashioned, simple way that achieves all our objectives.
I should also add that some of my colleagues hope to add amendments to the bill on the Farm Credit Corporation, not only using the principle of the Small Business Development Bond, but also to work out a plan under this "any means" wording to let people use capital gains for some relief as they used to have by putting it to worth-while social purposes. This relieves them of being taxed all in one year.
Those who want to retire and give a reasonable price to their sons to buy their businesses or farms can use this principle by putting their money into a useful social purpose and accepting half the interest rate because they will also be able to avoid the tremendous smashing which they were given by the November 12 budget when it took away the income averaging annuity, and so on.
Housing
In the time I have remaining I would like to try in a small way to match what the member for Capilano has been doing by discussing principles and philosophies. This bill, that is the national housing statute, has been in existence for approximately 50 years. Tremendously good work has been done with it but there have also been great mistakes. Not utilizing the land bank idea 50 years ago is one example. Other mistakes have been made, but it has been mostly a question of reorganization in such a complex way that nothing is accomplished. That has been the basic difficulty, as I see it.
The last speaker was much more brutal in his remarks. He put his finger directly on the difficulty of there being no clear line of responsibility. He called it the dictatorship of a few bureaucrats who have so often been organized and reorganized that there is no way an idea can evolve quickly. They have to spend 95 per cent of their time fighting for their territory within this complex organization. I will not give a political science talk. I am simply saying that I agree with the hon. member for Capilano. However, I believe we should go one step further, as he did, and that is to see what is happening behind the scenes. For the last 30 years it has become clear to those of us who had responsibility in government, as well as to people outside government, that something is dreadfully wrong in all our western governments.
I have said this before and I repeat it again, we have not had in Canada the opportunity to debate in the press, radio, television or in debates in the House, in any kind of forum, two fundamental subjects. One is the international monetary policy. We have shied away from that in the 30 years I have been aware of what happens here. We have very few debates on domestic monetary policy. We tried hard two years ago in the period of the Clark government when the rank and file of the party simply insisted that we accept the idea-which came from the Liberal side of the House, actually-for this matter to be put before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. All we asked of the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the then minister of finance was that they listen to us as laymen. We wanted to put forward questions to get at the facts. Second, as laymen we wanted the right to put forward practical and common sense ideas about how they could get around the difficulties facing them. Both those gentlemen, the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the then minister of finance, agreed to do that.
Our questions as laymen Members of Parliament brought from the Governor of the Bank of Canada the admission that the three reasons he had for a high interest rate policy were not achieving the results he had hoped for. He advanced three reasons, and I questioned him about them. I asked what evidence he had that his policies, which had been in effect since 1975, were working. In every case he said he did not have evidence that they were working. I think he knew I was sitting there with charts on my desk which showed they were not, but he said he could hope, and he prayed, his policies would be right.


Housing
That policy was the last gasp of the Keynesian consensus. We were asking questions and putting forward ideas, the like of which we have heard tonight from the hon. member for Capilano and me. We talked frankly about how we could get around the danger of the tremendous amount of floating money available in the world. It used to be $300 billion or $400 billion in Eurodollars; now it is $600 billion or $900 billion. We do not know how many Eurodollars and petrodollars. This money was described in the committee as the biggest crap game in the world, and little Canada, with a few billion dollars in the reserve account, just cannot cope with that type of crap game. These people are constantly searching to make a quick buck, and they hope to find some country out of line with the realities of its country's economics.
The floating dollar we fought so hard to get in 1960-we finally got it in 1961-was being endangered because the bank was coming in and playing with borrowed money to try to hold its account. There is no way enough money can be borrowed by one country to hold that amount of money in check. The hon. member for Capilano mentioned that we would have to have $60 billion to free us from this type of attack. I will not quarrel with that. I do not know how much we would need, but if we go back to that committee we would find that one of the suggestions was that we should make an alliance with all the countries in our commercial area of operation with which we share a certain amount of trust, such as Japan, the United States and Europe, and build up a big fund of $60 billion or $100 billion; we would all move to aid any country under attack by gambling and speculating groups, and then would be very reluctant to take on a $60 billion or $100 billion reserve which would move under one control.
Other ideas were put forward too. I think it would be a waste of time to repeat all those ideas which came out of that committee. I will just leave it this way: when that committee was in session for four months, interest rates did not move one iota. Terror must have existed among those people who dealt in financial theories going back 50 years to Keynes as they realized that there was an awakening and an intelligent type of criticism coming from common sense laymen-and that is how we can describe ourselves in the House. They did not want to face up to the public opinion we could command. We had the support of a man from Windsor who is now a minister in the government. We had the support of the New Democratic Party. One of our colleagues in the New Democratic Party has now gone on to higher things, to Ontario politics. And we certainly had the support of the Conservatives. Here was an all-party group freeing itself from partisanship and trying to get at the difficult question of domestic monetary policy.
I will not say anything more about that at this stage except to mention that when the government changed in 1980, we were refused the right in Parliament to carry out the idea- which had originally been proposed by a Liberal-that we have this committee offer its common sense to the Minister of
Finance and to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We Canadians have paid an awful price for not having that group of people asking simple and common sense questions, because interest rates have gone crazy this last year, and there has been tremendous suffering among every class of people.
My final point is that there has been a debate on international monetary matters in the world, and there has been a debate on domestic monetary and fiscal matters, but not in Canada. The place that is closest is the United States, and they now call this type of economics Reaganomics. It is not Reaganomics. The economics of that really belongs to a Canadian by the name of Robert Mundell, who tried for years to apply the common sense test of quantitative analysis to ail the great truths Keynes put forward. Mundell was joined by a mathematician by the name of Arthur Laffer, and later on one of the editors of the Wall Street Journal, Jude Wanniski, picked it up and put it into language we could understand. More recently a man named Harold Gilder attempted it, and others have been trying. Why is there not this debate in Canada? Is it because the newspaper editors are frightened to touch something about which they know nothing? I do not know. They certainly touch upon many subjects about which they know nothing. Is it because the politicians are frightened to discuss it because it would show their ignorance? Once again I do not know, because there was quite a number of politicians in that committee putting forward ideas, and they did not seem to be too terrified.
Let us look at the act we are now amending as an opportunity to apply the common sense I talk about based upon some understanding, small though it may be, of the quantitative analysis of our international monetary situation and our domestic situation and see if we cannot, in isolated segments of the economy-farmers, home owners, small businessmen and the man who is trying to export-bring interest rates down to a more humane level without any cost to the government. If we did that, the situation would not be perfect, but at least it would show the people of Canada that there are some of us here-I hope all of us-who are a little tired of the low opinion people have of us. The people's opinion of the press, radio, television and politicians is just thumbs down, and the result is that we just turn ourselves over to demagogues who have nothing but destruction in their minds.
I hope the minister will take seriously the proposals I have made here tonight and amend this bill. I hope he will be equal to the Minister of Agriculture in cabinet. If he has any trouble, he can bring this matter back to the House, and we will certainly straighten it out for him. Every member of the Liberal party will back him. Every member on this side of the House will back him because it is not right that people should have to endure what they have to endure to get homes today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleagues will remember, on January 26, as reported at page 14319 of Hansard, I asked questions, first of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) and then of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) with respect to what was going to happen in the town of St. Anthony in Newfoundland in view of the closing of the plant which Fishery Products Limited said was unavoidable. It is common knowledge, Mr. Speaker, especially to members on the other side of the House from Newfoundland and Labrador, that the fishery industry is in very great difficulty, not just in Newfoundland but on the whole Atlantic coast.
When the news came that Fishery Products Limited would have to close the plant at St. Anthony, it was very bad news, indeed; not just to members of this House and people concerned about the situation in the Atlantic fishery, but, of course, to the people in St. Anthony.
In that small town the company employs 950 people at peak season and over the season buys from approximately 3,000 fishermen. The 950 people employed in the plant at peak season represent about one fifth of the population of the town. It goes without saying that all members of the House are and must be concerned about the situation.
When I put these questions in the House, first of all to the Minister of National Revenue in whose riding St. Anthony lies, he demurred that it was not a proper question to put to him. When I asked what he was going to do about it he said, and I quote:
Madam Speaker, if you intend to allow that question I will simply say that I have represented St. Anthony for ten years and I do not intend to stand by and see the people of St. Anthony suffer in any way.
That is the retort of the minister to my question on January 26, 1982, about the future of the people of St. Anthony.
When I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans if he was going to solve the problem with money and, if so, how much he was going to spend and what his plans were, he said:
Madam Speaker, the hon. member's rhetoric should remind the House that he has discovered Newfoundland in the last month.
That is a comment that the hon. minister could only make once; it would not be accepted twice. I have to ask if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has discovered St. Anthony.
We are faced with a very serious situation. On January 30 the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador was reported in the press as saying that the matter would be referred to Mr. Michael Kirby who is heading a task force to inquire into the difficulties on the Atlantic coast. Before that
Adjournment Debate
the Minister of National Revenue had said that some high level meetings would have to be held to see what could be done. How long can the people in St. Anthony-or any other place-wait for the government, which knew full well that the problems which now face the Atlantic fishery were on their way, to take action. As others have asked, well-intentioned though the terms of reference of Mr. Kirby's task force are, can he act in time?
Statements have been issued by officials of Fishery Products Limited to the effect that not only can the plant not continue for the winter months but it may not be able to open for the summer fishery. When I asked the question on January 26, I was not just indulging in political rhetoric, as the two ministers apparently believed. I asked a serious question; what will be done? I remind the House that the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans went on to say, after he had gone through the motions of rebuking me for having the nerve to ask what would happen to the people of St. Anthony, and after he spelled out a few things which had been done by way of vague promises with respect to other problems in Newfoundland:
The matter of St. Anthony is more recent. We are looking at this subject, and 1 might tell the hon. member that he really should go to Newfoundland again. He might learn something else.
I see a distinguished member of the House from the province of Newfoundland here tonight. I want to say that I am still asking my question, and that I would like someone on the government side to tell us just exactly what is going on. Does the Kirby task force have this problem? Is it seized with the obligation to bring about an answer? Has the hon. Minister of National Revenue come up with an answer? Has the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans come up with an answer? If hon. members opposite tell us tonight that they have an answer, that these people will not be unemployed and that these fishermen will have a place to sell their fish, I will be the first to commend them. I think we are entitled to an answer, and we are entitled to an answer tonight.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, and in reply to the questions of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), it is important that it be noted that the problems of St. Anthony did not evolve or develop in the last few months. I had an opportunity to speak to the president of the company. He informed me that we should take into account the cost of capital expenditure, which is the cost of improving or moving new technology into the plant over the past four or five years and add to it the net loss since 1977, giving us a total loss of nearly $10 million. This problem has not dropped out of nowhere, at the last second, as a result of any changes or lack of administration in the last few months, on the part of the Department of Fisheries. It involves a very fundamental investment decision and marketing approach by a company and the subsequent results. I say on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) and on behalf of a local


Adjournment Debate
member, Mr. Roberts, that these two gentlemen have been in consultation with the company, the union, the provincial government and the Department of Fisheries.
The hon. member opposite would no doubt agree, and I say this sincerely, that when a very large company with that kind of investment, with a web and network of processing plants around Newfoundland, announces out of the blue, without prior consultation with governments, or with anyone else, for that matter, that it plans to close down a fish plant, certainly we cannot be blamed. On the other hand, given the free enterprise system within which we live, the one that this party supports, we cannot expect, without consulting with all involved parties, to simply dictate a solution to the kind of drastic measure which was announced. All parties are very much involve in the process of consultation, with a view to doing everything possible, within reason. The key words are "responsibility" and "accountability" for taxpayers' dollars. We will ensure, within reason, that this plant and others in Newfoundland and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada are able to operate to full capacity in the year ahead.
Dr. Michael Kirby has been appointed to undertake a full review of the measures critical to ensuring the long-term viability of the fisheries. To this end he is consulting with all sectors of the industry; with the company, the union, fishermen, processors, traders and provincial governments. He will be presenting his recommendations some time in the early summer.
The hon. member across the way noted that the minister of fisheries for the province of Newfoundland asked that the question of St. Anthony be referred to the agenda of the task force. Notwithstanding the work of the task force, I assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada, through its Department of Fisheries and its minister, continues to be actively and intensively involved in the problems of the Atlantic fishery and that we seek solutions. We do not pretend for a second that these problems have not resulted in a poor market approach, or poor marketing generally. We have not been competitive. We have seen the example of companies undercutting each other in the market. The kinds of problems that have evolved from that kind of situation and others cannot be solved overnight. We recognize that this is very serious and we have a sober responsibility toward it. We intend to approach it from that point of view. We appreciate whatever advice and recommendations that come from members opposite. We only ask that the advice be given in good faith. If it is given in that way, I can assure the hon. member it will be received and considered in good faith.


AGRICULTURE-COST OF FUEL USED IN PRODUCTION OF FOOD
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, why is the fedreal Liberal government considered anti-farmer and antiagriculture? The glib answer of the minister the other day illustrates some of the reasons why this is so. Interest costs to farmers since 1956 have increased about fivefold, but farmers' income have increased by only 10 per cent. High interest rates,
the cost of machinery, the cost of help, increased costs of transportation and the cost of fuel are among the factors that worry farmers.
The federal government must certainly take the responsibility for high interest rates. The interest rate for Farm Credit Corporation loans was raised to 16.75 per cent by the federal government-these are loans, not grants. The Alberta government has been much more agricultural-minded. The agriculture development corporation of Alberta lends money at 12 per cent to farmers, 15 per cent to agricultural processors and I believe 6 per cent to young beginning farmers.
Machinery costs are another factor. These machinery costs were partially offset by the capital cost allowance, but the recent budget of November 12 even sliced this to one half for the year of purchase. A combine is used in the fall of the year and cutting the capital cost allowance is simply putting another financial burden, another unexpected expense on farmers. It is not reasonable or sensible to cut the allowance by one half or only for the three or four months during harvest. This is another increased cost on the production of food which farmers will have to pay. Farmers cannot pass this on, they have to absorb it.
Farm help is almost impossible to get. The employment branch of the federal government insists that there is help available among Canada's unemployed, but try to find it. Some applicants last one day, some a week. Many do not know a combine from a binder, let alone know how to drive either one. Some people want to be paid to do one thing all day and quit when they are required to do the multiple chores that have to be done. But will the government let farmers bring young farmers from Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Germany, those men and women who proved their worth through the international exchange program? No, it will not. The employment branch people say there are Canadians who can do the job. But when you ask people at the employment branch where these people are, they shrug their shoulders. This is the situation in spite of the fact that labour costs on farms have increased by probably 100 per cent during the last five years.
What about the federal government's claim that it is improving transportation for the farmers? There are boxcars lined up at the coast waiting to be unloaded and there are no boats available. The barley producers are unable to get producer cars on the prairies. The prairie farmers are paying demurrage because ships are waiting in lineups. I believe some $18 million last year was taken out of the pockets of the prairie producers via demurrage charges.
What about the abandonment program of the Department of Transport? On the average there are rail lines being abandoned which carry a half a million bushels of grain a year. The CPR, with concurrence from the Canadian Transport Commission, is refusing to give enough time to properly clean out the elevators. Every line abandoned means increased costs of hauling grain by truck to elevators farther away. But the Government of Canada and the CTC pay no attention to the


increased costs to the farmers. However, both are very concerned about railway expenses and let the CPR off the hook with regard to gifts of land and resources given it when original contracts and agreements were made. The farmer pays.
The time allotted permits me to mention only one other area where the farmer, the producer of our food, gets the dirty end of the stick from this government. During the last federal election the Liberal Party promised farmers low prices for fuel used to produce food. During its two years in office, since the 1980 election, fuel prices have increased at least 67 per cent.
The Clark budget in 1979 provided a tax shelter in the form of a rebate to farmers on at least a portion of the gasoline taxes. The MacEachen budget makes no such provision and all the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) can say is, "Canadians farmers do not pay as much for their fuel as do United States farmers". With this general statement he sweeps the matter under the rug and makes no mention of other factors that U.S. farmers are not subjected to, such as imposed metric, demurrage charges, lack of boxcars, capital gains taxes, cancellation of IAACs, and the increased cost of machinery. This government would not even give consideration to helping the rural gas co-ops of Alberta to keep their administrative overhead down by increasing the number of days. Nor would it consider withholding or reducing taxes on natural gas used in the production of food.
The Progressive Conservative Party has urged that capital gains taxes be eliminated on land producing food; the Liberal government said no. The Progressive Conservative Party has urged that the capital cost allowance and income averaging annuity contracts be left as they were before November 12; so far the Liberals say no. This party asks for a rebate to food producers for high fuel costs and the Liberal minister's answer is something about being at the wrong end of a bull.
The farmers of Canada are becoming increasingly angry. They ask only for fair prices and fair treatment, and they are getting neither from this federal government.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) I should like to point out that the massive program of upgrading the railway system in Canada is well known to most Canadians, and consequently we are looking forward to the best possible utilization of hopper cars and rail lines. However, I also want to point out that we have an excellent network of highways and roads across this country which can be used all year round by trucks and other vehicles in a better way than we can use some of our rail lines. In other words, the highways can be utilized in a much more diversified way.
The hon. member mentions the metric system. I suppose we should remind him that metric legislation was originally brought in back in 1871 by, I think, Sir John A. Macdonald. Now we have a Conservative complaining about it.
Adjournment Debate


Gordon Edward Taylor: It was voluntary then, not imposed.


Ralph Ferguson: I would also like to point out that in the 1980 campaign we said we would set a made-in-Canada energy pricing policy to secure adequate supplies at reasonable prices. We achieved this last September.


Gordon Edward Taylor: And it went up 67 per cent.


Ralph Ferguson: The hon. member went on to point out that natural gas prices constitute a big component of the cost of producing food. I would like to point out to him that, under their budget, natural gas in 1984 would be $11 per thousand cubic feet. Under our agreement it will be $7.90, a saving to the farmer of $3.10.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Nonsense.


Ralph Ferguson: Certainly that is substantial evidence of itself, when you consider that natural gas is a big component of nitrogen-based fertilizer. I think the Liberal government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) have done extremely well in fulfilling the commitments made during those exciting days two years ago, and it was of extreme interest to me when my opponent in that election divorced himself from the budget put forward by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He realized what it would have done to us. We had to set about to correct the situation, and I want to commend our government for doing so. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION-RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to take a few moments to bring before all hon. members of this House a matter of very great concern to all Canadians, and particularly to millions of Canadian women. Recent studies have shown that, depending upon the job sector and the age grouping, some 70 per cent to 90 per cent of working women experience some form of sexual harassment on the job.
What is sexual harassment? It is difficult to define. It can range from sexual innuendo, perhaps in the guise of humour, to coerced sexual relations. It can include a variety of behaviour, such as verbal harassment or abuse, sexist jokes, subtle pressure for sexual activity, sexist remarks about a woman's clothing, body or sexual activities, unnecessary touching, patting or pinching, such as a casual pat on the backside, leering at a woman's body, constant brushing against a woman's body, demanding sexual favours accompanied by implied or overt threats concerning one's job, or physical assault. Ultimately, although it is very difficult to define, sexual harassment is a coercive relationship.
On April 8, last, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) what action the Liberal government was prepared to take on the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its 1980 annual report, which stated:


Adjournment Debate
it has now become urgent for Parliament to make it clear that sexual harassment constitutes discrimination on the grounds of sex and will not be tolerated.-
The commission pointed out that public perception of sexual harassment, as a major barrier to equality of employment for women, has greatly increased. That was the second year in a row the Canadian Human Rights Commission made that important recommendation; but, to this date, the Liberal government has ignored any suggestions for change in this area.
The commission specifically recommended that a definition of sexual harassment be added to Section 20 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, specifying that the problem of sexual harassment and discrimination because of pregnancy should be included in the prohibition of discrimination based on sex. Since that recommendation there have been a number of developments outside the realm of the federal government which demonstrate the truth of this statement. I will give a few examples.
Last fall, the Ontario human rights code was passed with a variety of amendments, including provisions to protect students from advances by their professors, just as female workers are protected under the legislation from advances by their employers. Last summer, York University established a grievance procedure to handle student complaints of sexual harassment. In March, 1981, the Alberta human rights commission adopted new guidelines, including a definition of sexual harassment as unwanted sexual solicitation by an employer, landlord, a person in a position of authority, a co-worker or someone providing a service. If a complaint is confirmed, this commission has the power to order compensation for insult, pain and suffering, in addition to lost wages. In May of 1981, the Canadian Association of University Teachers agreed upon guidelines to deal with student charges of sexual harassment. The association defined sexual harassment as an incident when "conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, academic status or academic accreditation". The guidelines include a variety of behaviour by professors toward their students.
What has the federal government done? Last spring, the government stated it was considering new labour laws which would bar sexual harassment in the work place. The Women's Bureau of Labour of Canada produced some specific amendments which were approved by the federal Department of Labour as long ago as last April-almost a year. The bureau proposed a definition of sexual harassment which was very sweeping: "Any persistent conduct, comment, gesture or contact of a sexual nature which might reasonably be perceived by the employee as being a condition of a sexual nature on employment, or any persistent conduct, comment, gesture, display of literature or contact of a sexual natural which is likely to cause offence, embarrassment or humiliation to any employee".
At present, as the government knows, complaints of sexual harassment are referred to Labour Canada, trade unions or civil court. Under these proposed amendments, employers would be obliged to form an anti-harassment policy. There are
a number of other provisions I will not elaborate upon concerning these particular proposed amendments to labour legislation at the federal level. However, suffice it to say that the federal government has taken no action, whatsoever.
These amendments would cover workers in federally regulated industries such as Bell Canada, Air Canada, CP, CN and the chartered banks. Unfortunately, there is still no protection for employees on Parliament Hill. I strongly urge that we extend collective bargaining rights to all employees on Parliament Hill, or, at the very least, that a grievance procedure be established. It is not good enough to tell employees of senators, Members of Parliament and cabinet ministers that they can appeal to the senator, to the Member of Parliament or to the cabinet minister in question if they believe they have been harassed. That is not good enough in this day and age. As I say, those provisions languish on the back burner. The proposals were well received by employers, unions and women's rights organizations after a long series of consultations. In particular, I wish to commend the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, representing 210,000 provincial government employees, particularly Susan Attenborough, for outstanding work in this area.
When is this government going to act? There has been no action taken on the recommendation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It sat on this issue for almost a year. All of the interested groups, organizations, and the Department of Labour itself, have approved of this reform. Naturally, individuals and unions must act as well. The country awaits the minister's decision. It is time the Minister of Justice and the Liberal government took seriously the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission on this important question of sexual harassment. Canadian women have waited far too long for this basic protection. Now is surely the time to act.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who is a lawyer, he is quite aware that under the Canadian Human Rights Act discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited. There are four different bodies of law and jurisprudence which have been brought to bear to define what discrimination based on sex means. Those four bodies of jurisprudence have indicated that discrimination based on sex also includes a prohibition against sexual harassment. I would like to quote those four provisions. The first is under provincial human rights codes.
The hon. member for Burnaby referred to the Ontario law, the Ontario human rights code. Under a law similar to what we have, in the case of Bell v. Ladas, in 1980, the Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that sexual harassment was an offence under the provisions prohibiting discrimination based on sex.


Second, under U.S. jurisprudence, the equal employment opportunities commission in its final amendment to guidelines on discrimination because of sex has included a number of guidelines dealing with sexual harassment. Therefore, sexual harassment is included within the discrimination based on sex.
Third, the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its newsletter of autumn, 1981, has underlined that under Part VII it does have the ability to deal with sexual harassment. The commission used a page and a half to define what is sexual harassment, and it feels it has the power to deal with it.
Last, the opinion of the Department of Justice is and has been that sexual harassment is already prohibited under the Canadian Human Rights Code. Nevertheless, sexual harassment is abhorrent conduct. It is, unfortunately, too widespread. Women are the principal victims of this offence. We agree that they must be protected against it.
In addition, it must be realized there are other groups in our society who are protected by the human rights code against
Adjournment Debate
discrimination based on race, colour, religion, ethnic or national origin. The members of this government, like all right-thinking Canadians, are opposed to sexual and, indeed, to any form of harassment. That is why the Department of Justice is presently examining the impact of all forms of harassment. I expect that very soon its recommendations will go to cabinet making sexual harassment an explicit offence, as opposed to just an implicit offence, as it now is, even though it is still prohibited under the Canadian Human Rights Code. Making it explicit will create an even greater awareness on the part of all Canadians of this degrading, discriminatory offence against women.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to be adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, February 23, 1982