1982-02-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, ! move under the provisions of Standing Order 43 a motion which I hope will have the unanimous consent of the House. Having regard to the function which is to take place on Parliament Hill this evening I move, seconded by the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt), and also seconded, if the rules permit it, by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky):
That this House, in recognition of the contribution to Canada of Canadians of Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian descent, welcome their honorary consul and representatives of the respective communities to the tenth annual Baltic Evening on Parliament Hill.


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 terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, yesterday in this House the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) endorsed the firing of civil servant Neil Fraser for objecting to government policy procedures such as metrication. In light of the double standard which this implies for Canadians in that it is a denial of basic civil liberties for some, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House call upon the Prime Minister to fire his two cabinet ministers and eight Quebec Liberal MPs who, in writing, publicly denounced the government's economic and high interest rate policies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 is pursuant to serious unemployment in Nova Scotia. Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd. desperately requires orders, domestic or export, for its work force which forms the main industry for the town of Trenton, Nova Scotia. It is a key employer for the region. As I have had no substantive response from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) in nearly three weeks to a request for assistance for this industry and for increased rail orders for Sydney Steel, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That in addition to financing projects like Algerian monuments through the Export Development Corporation, and preparing to undertake a $200 million Cl DA program for Trinidad and Tobago, to construct two airports and a prison, some comparable effort be made to assist industries like the ones I have mentioned which are terribly important to Canadians, on the basis that there is some substance to the saying that charity begins at home.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In its latest quarterly report the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation predicts that housing starts in Canada will drop

February 24, 1982
by 9 per cent this year as a direct result of the government's high interest rate policy. The CMHC also predicts that British Columbia will suffer a greater decline in housing starts than any other province, further adding to the unacceptably high shelter costs of British Columbia presently being aggravated by a 35 per cent cut in federal mortgage assistance for social housing projects in my province. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this government direct a substantial part of the more than $1 billion of unallocated funds in the new estimates to give a shot in the arm to the housing industry to help out Canadian forestry and construction workers, supporting industries, home owners and renters alike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, particularly where Quebec and Ontario are concerned, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the footwear industry policy announced recently by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) excluded leather footwear from the over-all quota; whereas according to industry experts, there is no doubt that survival of the footwear industry depends on the inclusion of leather footwear in the quota system; I move, seconded by the member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That the House unanimously urge the minister responsible to have leather footwear included forthwith in the over-all quota, that being the only way to prevent the loss of thousands of jobs for thousands of Canadians, especially in Quebec and Ontario.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, as a Canadian who has always wondered what the basic tenets of the Liberal Party really are, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson):
That the House heartily congratulate the member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) for neatly stating what a Liberal really stands for as clearly articulated in his speech in this House on January 29 when he said, "If in order to promote our development the Liberal Party thinks we have to be communistic, we shall be communistic. This is what it is all about to be a Liberal. To be a Liberal is to be open to all ideas", and when he further said, "To be a Liberal does not mean to fight for a province called Quebec, or a country called Canada, to fight for NATO or the Warsaw Pact. To be a Liberal is first and foremost to be an elected representative. In such a situation, anything can be justified".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FINANCING-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. Equalization payments to poorer provinces so that Canadians, no matter where they live, all have reasonably comparable levels of public service, were thought to be so intrinsic to the nature of Canada that they are provided for in the new Constitution. The federal government must not compound its already tragic abandonment of cooperative federalism by adding to its attack on the funding for health care and post-secondary education the unilateral imposition of an equalization formula after only a short period of negotiations with the provinces. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the federal government withdraw its ultimatum to the provinces, restore funding for established programs financing to its full level, and look for an equalization formula that would more fully protect Canadians in have-not provinces from deterioration of public services.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 24, 1982


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, the Farm Credit Corporation has stated that its budget for loans to qualified farmers has been depleted and that it can no longer accept new applications or process those already on hand, which means that many more farmers who have depended on receiving loans from the corporation to keep solvent will now go bankrupt. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government take immediate steps to provide emergency funding to the Farm Credit Corporation in order to prevent any further bankruptcies in the farming industry, which could reach as high as 3,000 by spring.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE POLICIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That this House ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to reconsider her headlong rush toward proposing health care policies that will promote the spending of taxpayer dollars on expensive programs to the detriment of equally effective but less costly health care programs. Home care is less costly than hospital care and a sensible health care policy would recognize the reality of that and similar facts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, three years have passed since the small business financing review was initiated, and there is still no report. The Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) has started two more studies, "Small business and the federal macroeconomic policy" and, would you believe, a study analysing the characteristics of a successful small business. It is now obvious that this minister does not have the slightest comprehension of his portfolio and, given that the November 12 budget has wiped out the five years of work and accomplishment of the secretariat for small business I move, under Standing Order
43, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the minister's competence be now recognized and his salary reduced to one dollar a year.


Some hon. Members:: Too much.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency and importance to CN workers and residents in northern Manitoba. The material from a chemical spill at Austin, Manitoba, is being transported in open, uncovered cars by rail to Lynn Lake, Manitoba. These cars are stopped in transit on sidings within the town limits of the The Pas, Manitoba, raising concerns from the community about the danger of the chemicals to CN workers and people living in the vicinity.
Given the fact that workers were given no warning about the hazardous material they were handling-I wish the Conservatives cared about this-given the fact that the workers were given no warning about the hazardous material they were handling and were not wearing protective clothing, despite a previous telex from CN which promised that the chemicals would be covered and that protective gear would be provided to workers, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky):
That there be an immediate investigation into this incident and into CN's overall procedures in the handling of dangerous chemicals, and further that the Minister of Labour stop stalling and immediately introduce amendments to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code which pertains to occupational health and safety.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, in last year's blue book estimates the transfers for hospital insurance, medicare and extended health care were $4.6 billion. This year the government is paying $4 billion for these

February 24, 1982
Oral Questions
programs. Last year the estimates called for spending on postsecondary education of $1.8 billion. This year the government plans to spend $1.5 billion. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Secretary of State on motions today explain to this House how they could promise this House an increase in expenditures for these established programs and at the same time cut expenditures from last year by over $900 million, notwithstanding inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is aware that in May of 1981 cabinet passed a prerogative order with respect to peacetime and wartime emergency planning. This particular order involves a severe limitation of civil liberties. In fact, the cabinet order contains an extremely wide definition of "emergency" as determined by this cabinet.
Since this has never been debated by Parliament, I want to tell the Prime Minister that even the McDonald commission has strongly recommended that such emergency regulations be presented and tabled in Parliament and approved by Parliament prior to implementation.
I want to ask the Prime Minister under these circumstances, why was this particular order passed, particularly when there is no emergency legislation in place aside from implementation and invocation of the War Measures Act?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to an order of May, 1981. I will have to refresh my memory on those parts of that order which the hon. member may find offensive. I do recollect that it was part of an exercise to update all emergency action which is provided for in case of floods, in case of any natural disasters, in case of insurrection or invasion. It covers the gamut.
The intention of the legislation is that there be a possibility in times of emergency, however defined, for Canadian authorities, including federal, provincial and municipal, to respond in a co-ordinated way. I am willing to take further questions indicating what particular aspect of the order the hon. member would find offensive and not consistent with the need for the
government to foresee co-ordinated action in terms of emergencies.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, what is disconcerting is that the Prime Minister does not fully appreciate the fact that Parliament has not been seized with this particular matter. We have not had an opportunity to determine what the limitation of civil liberties will mean under this particular order, as well as its implications.
The Prime Minister has had a letter from the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments for over two months now and has not responded to some very pointed questions from the committee, representing all parties, forwarded in a letter signed by Senator Godfrey, the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe.
The President of the Privy Council, when speaking to the joint federal-provincial conference on emergency planning, said last summer, as reported in the Emergency Planning Digest of July-September, 1981, that under certain circumstances if an emergency now took place the government would have no option but to act extra-legally, that is, outside the law. Is it now the policy of this government that the rule of law does not apply and should be ignored under certain circumstances of emergency in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, under no circumstances should that be the case.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would then suggest that the Prime Minister instruct the President of the Privy Council to have this matter rescinded and brought before Parliament before it is implemented.


QUERY RESPECTING NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister asked for an example in this particular order. The Prime Minister himself is mandated to manage and co-ordinate the national information services. Could the Prime Minister explain to the House what plans he has made, through his office, to manage and co-ordinate the so-called national information services? Could he also explain what is meant by the term "national information services"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I know of no such plans. I would imagine that in order to answer the question one would have to refer to the type of action which was taken by the Canadian government- I believe with the support of all parties in the House-during the Second World War-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is peacetime.
February 24, 1982


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to exercise certain measures of censorship and so forth. That was during the war. 1 imagine this kind of monitoring of information would be necessary again in the event of a third world war.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In peacetime?


CIVILIAN INTERNMENT CAMPS
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Under this cabinet order respecting emergencies in both peacetime and wartime, is the Solicitor General in charge of the establishment and operation of civilian internment camps and, if so, where are they, how many are there, and who will be subject to internment?


Mr. Crosbie:: Apart from us.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, it has often been alleged that during World War II Canada was very unjust to minority groups, and particularly to Japanese Canadians, in the way these groups were treated. One of the reasons was that no planning had been done in advance to prepare our country and to prepare the government to deal with an invasion or the possibility of an invasion, war, or other major catastrophies in the event of which Canadians could rightly look to their government to be prepared to deal with emergencies.


John Carnell Crosbie: Who is next?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I can confirm to the hon. member that I have been asked-and the order has been made public-to begin planning for the eventuality he described, but I have not yet begun to look at any plans, and I am not yet in a position to give any concrete details because none have yet been developed, beyond regulations which were created many years ago and which are sitting on the shelf and available for any member of the public to see.


QUERY RESPECTING INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Because there are no safeguards of any type relating to civil or political rights in this cabinet order, which is broad enough to cover both peacetime problems as well as wartime problems-and certainly there are no safeguards inserted in the antiquated and sole piece of legislation we have, and there have been none inserted in the War Measures Act since the FLQ crisis 11 years ago-why has new emergency legislation not been brought forward to this House as promised by the Prime Minister many times before now, and when will we see that new legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is, of course, nonsense to suggest that there are no safeguards. The bill of rights which has been adopted by this House-
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members opposite seem to make light of it. If they are not satisfied and if they want to ridicule the bill of rights, I cannot imagine any form of safeguards which would satisfy them.


Mr. Epp:: You would suspend it.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons the President of the Treasury Board tabled the 1982-83 estimates and said that the planned total spending level would be S76.3 billion as set forth in the material of the Minister of Finance in the budget. My question would have been to the Minister of Finance had he been here-and the parliamentary secretary is not here either-so my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works who is the minister in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
My question concerns the $1.37 billion uncommited reserve within the $3.9 billion contingency. Two critical areas have not been addressed either in the estimates or in the budget, and those are housing and employment. In fact the budget for CMHC has been cut by some 14 per cent, and we know there has not been-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I reviewed the question period yesterday and found that all the questions were longer than all the answers. The situation is upside down. Hon. members really must cut down their questions. And, as hon. members know, a supplementary question should not even have the slightest preamble. I ask the hon. member to ask a question.


Mr. Clark:: What do you mean it is upside down?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Public Works concerns the housing forecast which is 70,000 units fewer than the number needed. I want to know if the minister will pursue actively, along with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, using the $1.37 billion in the reserve to create new jobs and to produce housing, since 2.2 jobs are created with every housing start.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question dealing with the very important areas of job creation, building, and also the proper administration of public funds by the Government of Canada. I know hon. members are aware that for the last three weeks the government has been prevented by the

February 24, 1982
Oral Questions
opposition from the expenditure of $350 million, in addition to those amounts reflected in the estimates that would create 70,000 new jobs, 30,000 housing units, and savings to the taxpayer. The hon. member's question is therefore cynical, hypocritical, and small-minded.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FINANCING
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I will put my supplementary question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Since the government has said that there would not be a cutback in funding to the provinces for health care and education, will the Prime Minister now come clean with us since it is reflected that there will be a cut in the established programs financing, and tell us how much the funds to the provinces will be cut back under established programs financing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the ministers have repeated again and again there will be no cutback, but that there will be a continued increase in established programs financing. What is being cut off completely is the revenue guarantee which was instituted in 1972- '


Douglas Keith Anguish: But you always included that in your figures, and you know it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to permit a temporary transition period. That was renewed in 1977, and it is being discontinued now. We figure that ten years is enough time for the provinces to have been able to adapt their taxation systems to the new system introduced in the early 1970s.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister concerning the original $4 billion Western Development Fund. Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board said that he could not answer my question and that it would be more appropriate to put it to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how much is in the Western Development Fund, where it is reflected in the estimates, if anywhere, and who is in charge of it, so that we may ask the appropriate questions in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as moneys are disbursed for certain purposes, as is
the case with western transportation, they will be drawn from that fund. We will make this clear in each particular case.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday the Prime Minister arrogantly dismissed the objections raised to the dismissal of public servant, Mr. Neil Fraser. Would the President of the Treasury Board, who in fact represents the employer in this matter and who is responsible for the public service, intervene forthwith to suspend the dismissal, given the fact that there is nothing in the Public Service Employment Act which prohibits Mr. Fraser from speaking as he did or in the circumstances that he did and that, indeed, there are precedents to the contrary?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the conduct of public servants is determined by the rules of conduct that prevail in particular departments, and this is the responsibility of deputy ministers. Contrary to what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has said, there are indeed precedents. Mr. Fraser has every right to launch a grievance and go before the Public Service Staff Relations Board and let the board make a determination of whether or not he has received treatment which was not appropriate.


SPEECH MADE BY MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised at this answer and the inconsistency of the government. I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. Is he aware that his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, speaking for the government in Halifax said, and I quote:
"I've been urging civil servants to go out and advocate, to market their programs, and as to those who may say this is partisan politics, I say baloney"
How can the Government of Canada have two standards, one with respect to comments it likes and the other with respect to comments it does not like? That is the kind of inconsistency I am concerned about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is attempting to place an interpretation on the events surrounding the dismissal of Mr. Fraser which is a complete distortion of the relationship which exists between employer and employee. Yesterday the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke in terms of freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 24, 1982


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Muzzle him.


Donald James Johnston: If a senior officer of a corporation in the private sector steps out in his off-duty time and leads a rally saying that the product of the company is inappropriate or whatever, or denigrates it in any way, basically he is in breach of the relationship between employer and employee. That is what we are talking about. The Department of National Revenue determined that the conduct of Mr. Fraser was inappropriate. As I mentioned a moment ago, Mr. Fraser has a perfect right to file his grievance and to appear before the Public Service Staff Relations Board, which I understand he will do. It seems to me that that is completely at odds with the statement-not at odds but compatible with, I should say-


Walter David Baker: You were right the first time.


Donald James Johnston: -made by the Minister of Supply and Services, who pointed out that employees are also expected to support their employers. This is as true in the private sector as it is in the public sector. This is as true of paid members of the Progressive Conservative Party as of any other employee in the country.


CUTBACK IN PRODUCTION OF HEAVY CRUDE OIL
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and concerns the plight of Canadian heavy oil producers. As the minister knows, at least partly due to the import compensation program, refiners in Montreal are using subsidized imported heavy crude oil, while Canadian producers of heavy crude are severely cut back. The result is an unneeded extra cost to consumers, an unneeded extra current account drain, and an unneeded loss of income and thus of jobs to Canadian producers. What is the minister doing about this situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, there are indeed circumstances where, because of a drop in the price of oil on the international market and especially on-the-spot market, refiners are able to obtain certain products, on a short-term basis, at prices that are lower than they would be paying if they were buying Canadian crude oil. Such cases are, however, very limited in number. We are following developments very closely.
I may also point out to the hon. member that in several cases, as a result of the cuts imposed by Alberta last year, companies have had to conclude medium and long-term contracts. They are very hesitant to break these contracts now, considering the present situation. More specifically, they are
Oral Questions
afraid they will be needing foreign oil in a few months, and they want to avoid jeopardizing trade relations with the parties with whom they signed contracts in good faith. It is a matter of concern, we are looking into it, and if any action should be taken, I shall be informing the House accordingly.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER UNDERTAKE ACTION
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the present situation is absolutely ridiculous. We are importing and subsidizing imports while Canadian producers are severely cut back. Surely the minister will do something about the situation. If refiners were using Canadian heavy crude oil rather than subsidized imports, some of the jobs lost as a result of the National Energy Program would be restored, our trade balance would be improved, and consumers would pay less for the gasoline and heating oil they use. Surely those are three good reasons for doing something about it right now.

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, one of our problems is the result of a drop in demand in the United States for a certain kind of oil which we export to that country, which we have exported in the past and are still exporting at the present time. I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that I order these private companies to break contracts signed with other parties in good faith and in circumstances that were different from those we know today. I have pointed out to the hon. member that it is a matter of concern and we are following developments closely, and if anything can be done to improve the situation, we shall do so.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, because he has long been an advocate of producers paying more for the movement of grain in western Canada. In several cabinet memoranda from November 13, 1981, to January 12, 1982, it is stated that, "the leadership of the three prairie wheat pools and other agricultural groups stated privately that they are prepared, if acceptable, to sell the government proposal for western grain transportation to their members." In a further memorandum the cabinet's ideal solution to the transportation of western grain would be to have producers pay all inflationary costs after 1982. Was the leadership of the prairie pools and other agricultural groups made aware that the cabinet's ideal solution was to have producers pay all the inflationary costs after 1982?

February 24, 1982
Oral Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is speaking about a document which I am not sure I remember that well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I know the discussions I had with different farm representatives and leaders in western Canada. They are ready to discuss and ready to negotiate what they feel is a fair deal for transporting their grain. The impression 1 received from them was that if we can devise a transportation system and obtain the kind of guarantees we need from the railways to move the grain, they were willing to pay more for it. The figures of the hon. member are purely figures that are up for negotiation, etc., and this type of thing. It will be up to the negotiator, when he has those kinds of discussions with them, to work out a proper program to improve the transportation system.
Yes, I have been an advocate for a long time that farmers should pay a bigger share of the cost of transporting their grain. I make no secret of that whatsoever. As the hon. member knows, when he was on this side of the House for a short while, his minister of transport was about ready to propose the very same thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ROLE OF SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the movement of western grain under statutory rates. In view of the statements of Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan that he is willing to negotiate a statutory framework for the movement of grain in western Canada, and in view of his interview in Business Life magazine in January, 1982, could the Prime Minister tell the House what role he sees the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan playing in the negotiations which will come forward?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 cannot forecast the conduct of Premier Blakeney in this particular matter.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the charismatic Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. It concerns the fact that the agreement with the Japanese on the importation of Japanese cars will expire on March 31. No doubt the minister is aware of the problems of unemployment in our country and knows that now about 20 per cent of our market is comprised of Japanese cars. Can he guarantee that there will be a new
agreement in place by the end of March of this year, which is so important to the consumers and producers of the country? Also can he guarantee that the agreement will cover not only cars but also trucks and other vehicles produced by the Japanese?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when I go to Japan in two weeks my counterpart, the Minister of International Trade for Japan and I will be undertaking negotiations. We are very confident that we will arrive at a satisfactory agreement. I have already indicated to them that we expect and will accept nothing less than the Japanese have negotiated with the United States.


MANUFACTURE OF PARTS IN CANADA
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, could the minister assure us that the new agreement will cover not only cars but the importation of Japanese trucks, which has risen by 300 per cent in the last two years? Will he also guarantee that he will be negotiating Canadian content into the new agreement, so that there will be an agreement to produce in Canada in dollar value what the Japanese sell in this country? In other words, if the Japanese sell $1 million worth of cars in Canada, will we have plants which will produce $1 million worth of cars or parts in this country?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, with respect to trucks, I think the hon. member knows that trucks are not covered under the agreement between Japan and the United States of America. The Americans increased the tariff on trucks last year because of a different set of arrangements. We will be discussing with the Japanese more sourcing of auto parts in Canada, hopefully in some kind of proportion to the sourcing from Japan. With respect to content, we will be initiating discussions on a content proposal.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. I hope he will be able to answer on behalf of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister knows that because of very low grain prices producers this fall, for all intents and purposes, will be in a desperate situation for cash at harvest time. At the present time, a cash advance given to a producer, which is the producer's own money, is in the neighbourhood of $15,000. Is the government, in conjunction with the Canadian Wheat Board, giving very serious consideration to increasing that cash
February 24, 1982

advance to $50,000 because, with the low grain prices, producers will be very hard pressed for funds this fall?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that there are two programs, one for grain farmers and another smaller program which affects other farmers that are not under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Those two programs have loaned out interest free in total, I believe, close to $500 million in the current crop year. We are aware of the need for extra money. Farmers have made representations, and yes, the matter is being considered.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Agriculture give an indication to the House as to the time frame the consideration will take? The minister knows, for example, that right now grain is selling, and it is projected to sell, at about $1 to $1.50 below last year's prices. By this fall, August, September or October, there will not be any cash flow on the prairies whatever. This is my main concern. Will the minister give top priority to that matter and give us some indication of when an announcement will be made?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has used some other facts concerning grain and why farmers need extra money. But when one checks, world stocks of grain are the lowest they have been in 22 years, so there is really no need for the prices to be $1 a bushel less than they were last year. If the marketing system functions the way it should, the prices should increase more than $1. We are very concerned that the farmers who cannot deliver their produce have money to pay their bills. We think the programs that we have are very good.
I cannot say at this time when the increase will be announced. We do know from talking to farm suppliers that in some instances farmers have not bought their normal supply of chemicals, fertilizers and those types of things. Suppliers are worried about that and we are worried because production can drop if farmers do not go ahead and buy the products with which to be most productive.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister given consideration to my suggestion, as he assured me he would do two weeks ago, that in order to pull the economy out of the present slump, interest rates should be lowered to slightly above the rate of inflation, and the resultant drop in the value of the dollar be used, first, to stimulate exports, particularly manufactured products, because they are the ones that produce the jobs; second, to encourage Canadians to
Oral Questions
spend their holidays in this country, and Americans to vacation here, to bolster sagging consumer product sales which have fallen so drastically in the last few months and, third, to make possible the production in Canada of many new products to replace imports which will become less and less competitive as the dollar falls, and which can be produced in Canada just as easily as in foreign countries if the right leadership is given? What has the result been of the Prime Minister's consideration of such a program, which was very beneficial to the economy in the past, as in 1962, when it was instrumental in pulling the country out of a slump at that time, and starting ten years of great prosperity and high employment?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Yes or no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, when I answered a question along those lines put by the hon. member two weeks ago, 1 indicated that I believed several of his suggestions were worthy of study and perhaps even implementation. I have asked the minister responsible for trade to consider the valuable suggestions put forward by the hon. member.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, Mr. Manpower. I am sure the minister is aware of the very serious situation that exists, particularly in his province where many people, especially those of native ancestry, are having difficulty obtaining social insurance numbers. It is estimated that roughly 100,000 Canadians do not have social insurance numbers some of whom are having difficulty obtaining a SIN because they do not know what is their date of birth. By not having this number, people are experiencing difficulty getting pensions, applying for jobs and, indeed, getting welfare when there is that need. This matter has been brought to the minister's attention on several occasions. Can he report what he is doing in his department to overcome this serious situation?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member states, there are many individuals who do encounter difficulty obtaining a social insurance number because of lack of supporting evidence and documentation. I have asked the department to review the recommendations to see if they can find some other way of verifying statements, of developing authenticated documents or support that would allow people to make an application for a social insurance number without the kinds of difficulties encountered in the past. I will be very happy to report to the hon. member when those reviews are completed and we will be instituting whatever steps are necessary.

February 24, 1982
Oral Questions


KENT ROYAL COMMISSION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism. What is the government's policy on Tom Kent's proposal for controlling the press in Canada?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I hope that within a matter of weeks cabinet will have considered the matter and reached conclusions. We will announce them at that time.


LENGTH OF STUDY
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that this is probably the most dangerous attack on freedom of the press in Canada in most of our lifetimes, in view of the fact that the report was released last September and since that time the minister has commissioned two public service studies of Tom Kent's study, and he is now studying those two studies, how much longer does the minister need to make up his mind?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, every day we hear from the opposition about other important issues with which the government is dealing, but this is the first question 1 have had on the Kent commission in months, I believe, so the opposition has not been very preoccupied with the matter. I should make it clear that the hon. member suggested that it was an effort to control the press. That is certainly not the case at all. Mr. Kent headed a royal commission. A set of recommendations have been delivered. We will determine what policy should be followed by the government and that I hope will come, as I said, shortly. I think it is very dangerous for the opposition to suggest that this government has any intention of controlling the press.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 1 think it is exactly the opposite.


An hon. Member:: Pierre is smiling.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The danger is that the Canadian public hear so much rhetoric from the opposition that they do not consider the real question, which is concentration of control by any power, private or public, over the press.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. During the minister's investigation of the Consolidated Computer caper,
did he notice that the one share issued with respect to the company known as Financeco Limited was issued in the name of the National Trust Company which, in turn, held it beneficially for St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, Mount Sinai Hospital, and the Hospital for Sick Children? If the President of the Treasury Board did notice that, would he inform the House why it was seen fit to give those three hospitals the benefit of that share?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to comment on leaked documents.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: But in the history of Consolidated Computer, or CCI, there is one thing I did notice, and that is that the hon. member for York-Peel did not do anything about Consolidated Computer Inc. to resolve those problems when he did not have to depend upon brown envelopes but had the files right in front of him. I am surprised that he has-
[ Translation]
-the nerve to get up and ask a question like that.


TRANSFER OF SHARE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, if the President of the Treasury Board had informed the House fully, he would have pointed out that we had Consolidated Computer high on the privatization list for our government. Would the minister at least explain to the House why it was subsequently seen fit to cause the share to be transferred from the beneficial ownership of those three hospitals, and in particular would he indicate if full notice was given to the three hospitals of the benefit being transferred away from them by redirecting the share to the Nabu Manufacturing Company, as contemplated in the November 26, 1981, agreement?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am not sure the hon. member understood my answer to the first part of his question. I gather he is relying upon leaked documents. It is not our policy to comment upon what may or may not be in the brown envelope which was delivered to him.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We got the agreement.


Donald James Johnston: I must say it is somewhat amusing to listen to him talking about it being high on his privatization list. Perhaps he would tell the House how many companies he succeeded in privatizing while he was President of the Treasury Board.
February 24, 1982


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister concerning the serious and tragic situation in El Salvador. By refusing the invitation Canada has recently, and appropriately, joined more than 50 of 60 nations which were invited to witness the so-called democratic elections in that country. Will the government now follow this up by joining with President Lopez Portillo of Mexico in urging the necessity of a negotiated settlement taking place before any democratic election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, by indicating that we did not want to be officially accredited as observers to that election if we were not free to observe it in a way which would permit our judgment to be entirely valid, this did not mean that we do not think the election should not take place. It means we are viewing it with more caution than if we had been put in the position to be observers in the sense that we were observers of the election process in Zimbabwe and Uganda.
At this stage, Madam Speaker, there is no change in the government's policy in that the election to be held is, in our view, a priori, better than not having an election. We will have to make what judgment we can after the election has taken place to see whether indeed it has increased the legitimacy of the government or the constitutional process which is envisaged in the election.


POSSIBILITY OF UNITED STATES MILITARY INVOLVEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows or should know that the bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States, almost every civil liberty group around the world, most of the countries in western Europe, and committees of this Parliament have all said that the so-called democratic elections in El Salvador are anything but democratic. Most groups who believe in civil liberties are in fact not even taking part in the election.
My question to the Prime Minister is, knowing this, and knowing that the civil war will certainly continue after the election takes place-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tell us about the free elections in Cuba.


John Edward Broadbent: -does he not agree that the United States can use these elections somehow to warrant additional military involvement? If he agrees with that possibility, does he not think it makes sense to join with people like President Lopez Portillo in proposing a serious negotiated settlement which could bring an end to the bloodshed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quoting the authority of the
Oral Questions
bishops of the United States, but my recollection is that the bishops of El Salvador themselves were taking a contrary view.


John Edward Broadbent: Just some.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, some, yes. Some bishops, like some bishops in the United States-


John Edward Broadbent: The vast majority.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -are of one view and some are of another. Or like some bishops in Canada are of one view, and some are of another. In so far as President Portillo's initiative is concerned, Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall it was an initiative which was supported by only two other countries in the whole of Latin America, whereas the overwhelming majority of the countries did not support that initiative.


John Edward Broadbent: Non-democratic as well.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I do not know if the hon. member is arguing that the countries which did support it were very democratic, like-


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I would like the hon. member to tell me how recently has Grenada had elections?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the Minister of National Revenue. Would he tell us under what specific legal authority Mr. Neil Fraser was Fired? Then, in light of the statement in the letter to Mr. Fraser that "you caused media coverage of your criticism of government policies, programs and political leaders", because that was one of the reasons given, will the minister tell us whether Mr. Fraser's offence was that he spoke, or was it that he was reported by a free press?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, 1 think that matter was adequately dealt with yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: I stated exactly why Mr. Fraser was dismissed. The Prime Minister has covered that, and the President of the Treasury Board covered other aspects of it in his answer today. I think the matter has been adequately dealt with. Madam Speaker. It is under grievance now. Mr. Fraser has recourse to that action and is taking it.

Oral Questions


PERMISSIBLE TOPICS FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS
[Stage Direction]
February 24, 1982
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister is unable to cite a legal authority on which he dismissed a public servant for speaking his views.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is a great deal of nervousness on the Liberal side, and I can understand that on this day of internment camps, and action against a free press and public servants in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister in Parliament yesterday approved the statement by the Minister of National Revenue when he said:
It seems to be ironic that a man would collect taxes on the one hand, and criticize the programs on which those taxes are spent, on the other.
That was the minister's statement, approved by the Prime Minister. Now, in an age in which government has grown to the extent that government programs touch everything from daycare to internment camps, will the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons on just what topics can public servants speak in their private capacity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, what I indicated yesterday without, as I said, having had the benefit of looking at the file very closely was that 1 agreed with the position of the minister who, after several warnings, took certain disciplinary action. The person who claims to be aggrieved has a right to contest that action, to debate and to appeal to his deputy minister, as 1 understand he has, as to whether the disciplinary action was justified or not. There are some clear cases in which a civil servant cannot engage in criticism of a government. These cases are easy to define. There are others which are more difficult, which is why we are anxious to see this process of appeal take place and perhaps have certain criteria defined by the PSSRB which we could discuss and find helpful.
Certainly the principles put forward by the minister and the President of the Treasury Board seem to be unimpeachable in theory. It is certain that in practice it is probably difficult in some cases to decide how far freedom of speech should permit any citizen of this country to criticize his employer. I think the President of the Treasury Board was perfectly justified in giving an example, perhaps, of a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus research group. If one member of that group were to criticize consistently the policies put forward by the Leader of the Opposition I suppose some disciplinary action would be taken. Now, would this be destroying freedom of speech in this country? I doubt it. It is a very difficult subject, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Especially if they are your policies.


APPLICATION OF GOVERNMENT STANDARD
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, public servants in Canada are not employees of the Liberal Party of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The principle established yesterday by the Minister of National Revenue and approved by the Prime Minister was that public servants, in their private capacities, cannot speak on any topic touched by a federal government program. If that is the standard, I ask the Prime Minister is there any topic on which a public servant may speak in his or her private capacity? If so, would the Prime Minister name it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is deliberately twisting my words.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who said the public servants were employees of the Liberal Party of Canada?


An hon. Member:: You do!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When did 1 say that, Madam Speaker? I wish the Leader of the Opposition would answer my question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am doing that. No, Madam Speaker, these are-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -allegations, these are prefaces to a question made, I dare say, with a minimum of good faith. They have nothing to do with the subject.
The employees of the Public Service of Canada are employees of the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada-


John Carnell Crosbie: Is Liberal!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -has, as its first duty, the duty to govern. The first duty of the Public Service of Canada is to assist in the governing of the country of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: These are principles which I believe are just as unimpeachable as saying that the duties of the employees of the Conservative caucus are to assist in the research of the Conservative Party. These are clear parallels, and it seems to me that it is not easy-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No.
February 24, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. members opposite do not agree with these premises, then all 1 can say is let us see the example of that in the way they governed when they were in power. They obviously failed to govern because they did not believe that the first duty of the government is to govern.


Madam Speaker:: 1 will allow a brief supplementary question.


An hon. Member:: Three o'clock!


NAMING OF PERMISSIBLE TOPIC
Charles Joseph Clark: On what topic is a public servant in Canada free to speak in his or her private capacity, given the standard enunciated by the Minister of National Revenue and approved by the Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I could not enumerate all the topics.


Mr. Crombie:: How about one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I am asked for one. Philosophy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: Good.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Two-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Steer away from history, though, eh?


Madam Speaker:: Order, I believe it is time to put an end to
the question period.
The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) on a
question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a particularly timely point of privilege which relates to the Metric Commission-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -and my ability as an elected member of this Parliament to fulfil and properly discharge my duties. I will show Your Honour how, in fact, this ability as a Member of Parliament has been seriously impaired by my having been referred to contemptuously and in an insulting manner by one in the employ of the Public Service of Canada. What is more, these remarks were not made by that person privately, not made by him as a citizen, but made in a professional capacity
Privilege-Mr. Domm
on behalf of his employer, the Metric Commission of Canada, and directly to a representative of the press.
No one more than 1 values and cherishes the right of every citizen freely to criticize the government in any one of its varied and broad aspects and programs. Indeed, 1 could not agree more with the judgment of a former speaker of the House of Commons who, when speaking to a similar question of privilege on June 23, 1977, as reported at page 7044 of Hansard, noted, in citing a study by a committee of the U.K. parliament, that:
-Ihc House should be slow and reluctant to use its penal powers to stifle criticism or even abuse, whether of the machinery of the House, of a member or of an identifiable group of members, however strongly the criticism may be expressed and however unjustifiable it may appear.
Your committee regard such criticism as the lifeblood of democracy. In their view, the sensible politician expects and even welcomes criticism of this nature.
I entirely endorse this view and gladly subscribe to it. My purpose is not to complain about some private or even corporate remark made by an individual on behalf of himself, his firm, or his organization which impugns my reputation and which happens by accident or design to be picked up and reported in the press. On the contrary, this I would consider to be fair game and part of political life, which must be taken along with the more favourable reports of one's efforts here in the House of Commons, in one's riding, and in the country generally.
My purpose is to bring to the attention of the Chair and of the House of Commons a situation which is quite outside the normal purview of democratic licence and of the constitutional exercise of freedom of speech soon to be adopted. It concerns the on the record, gratuitous and deliberate abuse of an incumbent Member of Parliament by one who is in the employ of, and speaks for, an agency or department of government.
We know what happens when a public servant presumes to recognize his ancient mandate within our democratic tradition by criticizing the government non-abusively, without rancour, and on matters totally beyond his area and field of employment. He is fired with little fanfare and less ceremony, ruthlessly, deliberately, and without hesitation or the least application of enlightened principle. Mr. Neil Fraser of Revenue Canada in Kingston, Ontario, a senior official with 11 years experience and a salary range in excess of $40,000 a year, recently suffered this gross indignity. But we do not know what happens when an individual employed by the federal government to further an official program of that government and speaking in this professional capacity presumes not just to criticize the point of view, but also the attitudes and actions of a sitting Member of Parliament, actions which the member considers to be dutiful and in keeping with his place in the Government of Canada, for indeed the House is where the Government of Canada ultimately resides.
Now while 1 can fully support the opinion of the U.K. committee as cited by the previous speaker in 1977, I would

February 24, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Domm
now draw Your Honour's attention to a further remark from the same source and likewise cited:
Nevertheless, a point may be reached at which conduct ceases to be merely intemperate criticism and abuse and becomes or is liable to become an improper obstruction of the functions of Parliament. For such cases, however rare, the penal powers must be preserved and the House must be prepared to exercise them.
On November 25, 1981, an individual employed by the Metric Commission, a Mr. Bob Mellor, was interviewed by Ms. Judy Creighton, a reporter for the Canadian Press. Subsequently, Ms. Creighton's report went out nationally, and in it Mr. Mellor is directly quoted as having referred to me as "the anti-metric red-neck from Peterborough".


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, 1 will first put this remark in a general context according to the standard references, and then in a more specific context which reflects a more contemporary point of view. Both, I believe, are germane.
First, the House will know of the guidance offered by Erskine May at Chapter X, pages 152 and 153 where it is noted that:
'Written imputations, as affecting a Member of Parliament, may amount to breach of privilege, without perhaps, being libels at common law' (b), but to constitute a breach of privilege a libel upon a member must concern the character or conduct of the member in that capacity (c).
Continuing on to page 153, it is stated that:
Both Houses will punish not only contempts arising out of facts of which the ordinary courts will take cognizance, but those of which they cannot, such as contemptuous insults, gross calumny or foul epithets by word of mouth not within the category of actionable slander or threat of bodily injury.
Going on, I submit that in the first instance my question of privilege fulfils these terms. If you see fit, I would suggest the following motion, which I have submitted to you, under Standing Order 17, which was found to be acceptable as reported at page 7044 of Hansard for June 23, 1977, at which time the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) presented a number of motions and they were accepted to be in order:
That this House do recognize that contemptuous insults have been directed toward me by officials of the government and as reported in the national press, that these contemptuous insults reflect upon my conduct as a Member of Parliament, and that the full penal jurisdiction of this House of Commons be applied to the extent that this high violation of the rights and privileges of the House are repaired.
I use as my authority for that language in the motion Erskine May, page 152 and part of page 153. Some members may not consider that term "red-neck" particularly contemptuous or insulting. For their information, I refer to the Oxford American dictionary which at the entry for "red-neck" has in parenthesis the word "contemptuous". That is the key to my question of privilege. The definition follows as "a member of the white, rural working class of the southern United States". That is hardly an accurate description of me and, needless to say, one which I strongly resent.
The more specific context within which these remarks fall deals with the citizen's prima facie right to make a fair comment "upon such activity of a member as a matter of public interest." As the committee said, and as was repeated by the then Speaker in 1977, "His right is even stronger to speak and publish the truth of a member's conduct".
We know, as I have said, what will happen to a citizen who speaks against the conduct of members for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau) and Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). The former heads the present government; the latter is responsible for the Metric Commission. When Mr. Neil Fraser of Kingston questioned their conduct with regard to the metrication of Canada, he was fired. The famous and justly faceless official of Revenue Canada answered for his political leaders in the press by saying "It is a standard condition of federal government employment that an employee may not make any public criticism of government policy or its political leaders."
Does this not seem to contradict the judgment of the parliamentary committee and of the Speaker of the House who said in 1977 that "these rights of free speech should not in the normal way be defeated'? Does it not contradict the Speaker's judgment that criticism is the "lifeblood of democracy"? Does it not contradict the Speaker's judgment that "as elected people", for we are all elected people, even the members for Mount Royal and Papineau, "we can and do expect to be the targets of attack'? At any rate, Mr. Fraser's lamentable case applies to my question of privilege by illuminating through comparison.
The person who criticized me, or rather was responsible for directing a contemptuous insult toward me, to use May's phrase, was not speaking as a private citizen. He spoke as an employee of the government. We have seen what has happened to another employee of the government who levelled what in comparison must be seen to be the gentlest criticism at the government.
How will my grievance be redressed as a member of this government in opposition-for surely Parliament, all of Parliament, is an integral part of the Government of Canada- as a consequence of my being not only criticized, but abused by this gross and contemptuous insult? I ask then that my question be taken under advisement with a view toward applying the statutory penal jurisdiction of the House of Commons.
Before placing the motion, I would like to add some brief comments. I am now going to show the House that the acting executive director of the Metric Commission needs to be immediately fired from his job, the same as Mr. Neil Fraser was fired.
Mr. Ganapathy, the acting executive director of the Metric Commission, referred to me in a contemptuous and insulting manner on the CBC program "Platform". Everyone knows that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, with the blessing of the Metric Commission, forced retail grocers out of business when they refused to use metric weigh scales in Peterborough.
February 24, 1982

I regret to inform the House that Mr. Ganapathy went on the CBC program "Platform" and refuted this statement, and he did not just refute this statement made by me as a Member of Parliament in opposition, but said, "That is a lot of nonsense what the member for Peterborough is saying, and that is not true."
How can a responsible civil servant get away with calling a Member of Parliament, a member of the opposition, a liar and hold his job when at the same time Mr. Neil Fraser, who said, "The white paper of 1970 on metric conversion was to bring metric in voluntarily and the government has now decided to break its promise and bring it in by force," loses his job, and yet Mr. Ganapathy who calls me a liar, a gentleman who has never been to Peterborough, as he admitted over national television, does not know the merchants 1 am talking about, knows better than 1 do as the Member of Parliament for Peterborough that my businesses were forced out of business because they would not buy a metric weigh scale? As acting executive director of the Metric Commission, he must be fired.
Second, I think I have already shown that we have allowed two categories of MPs to be created in the House. Knowingly or not, our present government, the members sitting opposite, have created a situation where a civil servant is allowed to make contemptuous, insulting statements against a Member of Parliament, provided that member is a member of the opposition and not on the government side of the House.
I am going to name that civil servant, which 1 have already done, and I will name him again, because that civil servant should no longer be on the payroll of the Government of Canada and going around this country telling people that Members of Parliament in opposition are red-necks. If he does not know what the word means, somebody should tell him. If he does know what it means, he has no business being in the job he is, criticizing a Member of Parliament in a contemptuous way, according to the Oxford dictionary, which is the best authority I can find on the term "red-neck".
Having named that civil servant, Mr. Ganapathy, the acting executive director of the Metric Commission for Canada, is not better. How can the House of Commons condone a situation whereby it allows willingly that any civil servant who criticizes the government in power is out of a job and any civil servant who criticizes the opposition maintains a secure job because he is doing the job for the government, not for the people? I maintain that is not right. Therefore I move, under Standing Order 17:
That this House do recognize that contemptuous insults have been directed toward me by officials of the government and as reported in the national press and on the CBC program "Platform", that these contemptuous insults reflect upon my conduct as a Member of Parliament and that the full penal jurisdiction of this House of Commons be applied to the extent that this high violation of the rights and privileges of the House are immediately repaired.
With all due respect, Madam Speaker, this matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for a full parliamentary investigation into who civil servants represent. Do they work for the government or do they work for the Parliament of Canada and the people? I maintain that it is time civil servants were allowed to speak out
Privilege-Mr. Domm
of their jurisdiction in the private sector, before municipal councils as ratepayers in those communities on behalf of their rights when they have invested in property in their communities. Since they have the right to vote municipally, they certainly must have the right to say what they think about matters that they are not even directly connected with in the government's business of the day. Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the alleged question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) in trying to figure out what it was. I have not yet figured it out.
It seems to me that his proposition was based somehow on a statement which he made, and I found it difficult to believe. I believe he made the statement, and it can be verified on the record, of course. He said that Parliament was a part of the Government of Canada. Of course, Parliament is not a part of the Government of Canada.


An hon. Member:: You are right.


David P. Smith: An employee of Parliament is very different from an employee of the Government of Canada. If my hon. friend from Peterborough does not yet understand that, I suggest that he go to the library and obtain a first-year text on political science in Canada.
I believe that we are basically talking about a statement made by an employee of the Government of Canada. If you refer to Beauchesne, fifth edition, at page 12, section 19(1), it says:
A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
It seems to me even clearer that a dispute arising between a Member of Parliament and a citizen as to an allegation of fact is even less a question of privilege. Surely that is the situation which exists here.
I do not believe that the hon. member for Peterborough suggested that this particular civil servant called him a liar or any such name. There seems to be a dispute as to facts. There seems to be a dispute as to the question of fact, and that does not, Madam Speaker, in any way raise a question of privilege, to my understanding.
The hon. member also quoted from Erskine May. I have read those quotations. It says at page 152, " .. . but to constitute a breach of privilege, a libel upon a member must concern the character or conduct of the member in that capacity." I do not recall hearing anything which constituted anything other than a dispute as to facts, not something which was an imputation concerning the character or conduct of the member. Therefore, I would suggest that what we are dealing with here is a dispute as to facts between a member of the House and a

February 24, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Domm
private citizen, and that certainly does not raise a question of privilege in the House.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) raises a very interesting and rare question of privilege which is deserving of very careful consideration by you.
I was surprised to hear the interjection by the parliamentary secretary. I had occasion to study this matter very carefully a few months ago when remarks which I felt at the time to be extremely contemptuous, were made in the French press in Quebec where a list of names of all the Liberal Members of Parliament appeared and, if I remember correctly, I believe they were described as despicable traitors. I fully expected that one or more of those members would have raised a question of privilege at that time based precisely on the argument made by the hon. member for Peterborough today. I do not think there is a member of the House who would not have been sympathetic to such a question had it been raised. However, that was the purpose of my studying the matter a few months ago.
This relates very directly to the question raised by the hon. member for Peterborough under several references to Erskine May as to what amounts to contempt. I submit that the hon. member for Peterborough does have a good case. The words which were used were contemptuous of the conduct of the hon. member in his capacity as a Member of Parliament and member of the House of Commons.
1 am sure that the Chair is aware of the rarity of questions of this nature being raised in this place. I fear that perhaps the Chair might come to the conclusion that it should not be called upon to make a decision as to whether or not the offender should continue his employment because of one of the remarks made by the hon. member for Peterborough. 1 suggest that the Chair would be perfectly correct in coming to the conclusion that it has no business interfering in that area. However, the remedy which seemed to emerge from my studies of the question when I was considering whether or not the remarks of the French press against the Liberal members concerned would be contemptuous, was that the proper recourse-and certainly the power exists in the Chair acting on behalf of all members of the House-was to have the offender appear before the bar of the House.
1 believe the last time that happened was so long ago that the official record of the House of Commons, Hansard, was not even an established institution of this place but was still being published in local newspapers. I had to go back to those newspapers to dig out the precedents. However, the precedents are there, and I think that the offender in that case was from the city of Winnipeg.
The House, then, has the power indeed to go as far as to impose a jail term on an offender unless other solutions are
found.
1 would suggest that there is a serious substance to the question which has been placed before you. It is sufficiently serious, I submit, to cause you to defer your decision on the
matter until a study of this very rare procedure might be made by the Chair and its assistants in some depth.
Once again, I can only relate back to those rather shoddy newspaper advertisements which I noticed when I was studying the matter and say that had the question been raised by one or more of the Liberal members at that time, they would have found support from this side of the House for their position alleging contempt for their rights as members. I ask for that same support from that side now when the same contemptuous remarks have been made with respect to the conduct of a member on this side of the House while carrying out his duties as a Member of Parliament.
A person employed by the government has no right to make public criticisms of a contemptuous nature. That distinction must be drawn. What the hon. member for Peterborough said about the right of free speech is absolutely correct, but there are limits on anyone's free speech. That is the reason for the law of libel and slander in this and any other civilized country. Those limits were exceeded in the remarks made by this government employee when he referred to the hon. member for Peterborough as a red-neck, particularly knowing that the hon. member has specialized in being the chief critic for our party of forced metrication.
I do urge that you defer your decision, Madam Speaker, and study the matter. It will be my submission that you find in favour of the member for Peterborough, and either exercise the always undisturbed jurisdiction of the House and have the offender appear before the bar of the House or perhaps, as the hon. member for Peterborough suggested, refer the subject matter of his question to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I do not know how you will ever rule on a matter such as this. The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) makes an interesting case about being offended by the remarks of a public servant. I hope, however-and I say this in all fairness-that we in the House would never attempt to invoke privilege to prevent any citizen from commenting on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of anything we as Members of Parliament might say.
1 think it unfortunate that the hon. member tied his comments to the most recent firing which has taken place over comments made by an employee of the Department of National Revenue inasmuch as I hoped, as I listened to his argument, he would agree with me that the firing of the gentleman from the Department of National Revenue was inappropriate and that that particular gentleman form the Department of National Revenue, who is now in the process of appealing his dismissal, will have his appeal upheld. The right of every single citizen in Canada to express his or her opinion about the actions not only of the government but also of Parliament as a whole and individual Members of Parliament should in no way be impeded by an action taken by the House.
February 24, 1982

1 can appreciate that the hon. member for Peterborough believes in good faith that he was perhaps maligned in one way or another and that the person making the comments about the truthfulness or otherwise of the statements of the hon. member for Peterborough may have spoken out of turn. It may well be that in the normal relationship between citizens and their elected members this particular citizen stated his point of view a little more forcefully than might have been required in the circumstance. However, I put it to the Chair that there are many things said in the House of Commons which are much worse than calling a member of the Conservative Party a redneck. In fact, for some that might even be a compliment.
I therefore hope that in viewing this matter Your Honour will find that we ought not to interfere with the rights of citizens to express their opinions, no matter for whom they work and no matter in what ministry they are employed.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I want briefly to supplement the remarks of my House leader and say that it was with considerable astonishment that I heard the remarks-and I listened with great care-of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). His party was championing the right of freedom of speech only an hour earlier on behalf of public servants and was bitterly decrying-in my view quite properly-the firing of Neil Fraser in Kingston because Mr. Fraser was speaking on a matter of public policy.


Erik Nielsen: Not contemptuously.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Following this attack, an attack with which this party agrees, what did a member of the Conservative Party do? He stood up and suggested that because he has been attacked as being a red-neck-


Erik Nielsen: Libeled.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -what we should do is to haul this public servant before the bar of Parliament and perhaps throw him in jail. What unbridled hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative Party in this Parliament! What unbridled hypocrisy!
Members of the Conservative Party proclaim the right to freedom of speech on behalf of all Canadians, but if they themselves are attacked in their role as Members of Parliament, do they allow that freedom of speech? No. What they suggest under those circumstances is that we bring that person before Parliament and perhaps throw him in jail because we cannot legally take his job away. Members of the Conservative party speak on the one hand of freedom of speech for public servants, if those public servants happen to espouse the policies they believe in, but if those public servants happen to criticize the policies they support, then it is a very different story, and they take great offence.
Well, Madam Speaker, we do not accept that. We support the right of Neil Fraser to speak out on matters of public policy, and we insist upon his rehiring, if freedom of speech in
Privilege-Mr. Domm
this country is to mean anything and if the right accorded under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to freedom of speech is to mean anything.
However, we go further and say that we as Members of Parliament should not be immune to that kind of criticism. To suggest that because we are criticized, whether rightly or wrongly-and I make no comment on the colour of the hon. member's neck-for the job we do or the policies we espouse, somehow that individual should be brought before Parliament and thrown in some sort of medieval parliamentary jail is utter hypocrisy, and I call upon the Chair to reject it, and to reject it now.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, 1 hope in your ruling you will stick to the point at issue, which is whether a federal civil servant has the right to make derogatory and libellous remarks about a Member of Parliament. If the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) felt so strongly about freedom of speech, where were he and his party during question period? We heard not a peep from them during question period about freedom of speech for federal civil servants. We heard not a thing.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to ignore the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby, to look at this issue and not to pay any attention to the cheap political rhetoric of the hon. member for Burnaby.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) for submitting this question of privilege. He gave me proper notice, and he has quoted the relevant citation from Erskine May, which I would like to consider at length against the arguments and facts he has brought forward.
I am just a little wary about the fact that this incident took place, I believe, on November 25, 1981. When questions of privilege are raised in the House, every other proceeding must be stopped, the implication being that if they are not dealt with immediately the proceedings of the House may not continue. However, I will take this question of privilege under advisement.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, if I may draw something out which perhaps was not brought out in the argument, the question of privilege which-


Madam Speaker:: No. I have said I will take the matter under advisement. The hon. member has spoken once on this question of privilege. He knows I am in the habit of allowing only one intervention from an hon. member on a question of privilege. I have heard the hon. member. I will take his arguments into consideration. I have said that I have heard sufficient argument. I said that precisely because no other hon. member rose, and I decided to take this matter under advisement, so the matter should be left at that.

February 24, 1982
Business of the House POINT OF ORDER


MR. YURKO-REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN ORDER PAPER
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, in the last couple of weeks I have been called some juicy names by civil servants at all three levels of government.
I rise on a point of order to request a change in the Order Paper. The Order Paper lists under "notices of motions" two motions standing in my name. They are Motion No. 13 and Motion No. 66. Without affecting the privileges of any other members of the House, 1 ask the consent of this assembly to substitute Motion No. 66 for Motion No. 13, and vice-versa.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 have not had the time to read those motions. I do not know what they say. No doubt our consent would be forthcoming, but it would be forthcoming tomorrow after I have had an opportunity to read the text of both motions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, 1 ask leave to present a petition on behalf of 224 residents of Tofield and its surrounding area in the province of Alberta. The petition respectfully requests that urgent consideration be given to the construction of a new postal facility in the community of Tofield to meet the increased service requirements caused by the extensive growth in the rural and urban areas of this community. Present facilities are grossly inadequate both for general delivery and box delivery, resulting in postal services being well below an acceptable level.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the parties but it has not been possible to reach an agreement under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or 75B with respect to the proceedings at second reading stage on Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.
I wish to give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 75C to allocate one additional sitting day to the said stage of the said bill.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,516, 3,527, 3,559, 3,682 and 3,724.


Mr. Neil: 1.	By province, how many livestock producers qualified for payments under the herd maintenance assistance program and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?
2.	By province (a) how many producers' applications were rejected (b) how many producers appealed from an original rejection and how many such appeals were allowed?
3.	What were the criteria used by the appeal board?


David P. Smith: I am informed by Agriculture Canada and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
1.	By province, the total number of applicants who qualified for herd maintenance assistance payment and the total payment to producers in each province were as follows:
Province
Number of Applicants Qualified
Total Payment (by province)
Alberta	1,349
Saskatchewan	15,035
Manitoba	8,961
Northern Ontario	362


[Stage Direction]
2.	(a) By province the following number of applications were ultimately rejected for assistance under the program:
Province
Number of Producers Ultimately Rejected
Alberta	1,445
Saskatchewan	3,649
Manitoba	464
Northern Ontario	16
(b) By province the following number of producers appealed their original rejection and had their appeals allowed:
February 24, 1982
[Stage Direction]
Province	Number of Producers Who Appealed	Number of Appeals AllowedAlberta	301	179Saskatchewan	2,775	1,722Manitoba	1,537	1.184Northern Ontario	16	133.	The herd maintenance assistance program review board was charged with two principal tasks. The first task was the review of decisions by the program administrators on eligibility of individual producers. For these reviews, the original program criteria utilized by the board was:
Basic breeding herd on farm as of December 31, 1979.
Less than 60 per cent normal precipitation.
Less than 80 per cent normal crop yield.
Any special circumstances which could result in an inequity to the
appellant.
The second task was the preparation of recommendations to ministers for changes in the program criteria or the consideration of special circumstances. The recommendations put forward by the board were general and applied to all applicants for each recommendation, but did not indicate that any specific criteria were utilized.
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
4.	No contract was signed and therefore no date of signing could be provided.
5.	Numarco has not had any contract with the Royal Canadian Mint and no payment of any kind or commission has ever been advanced by the latter or the former.
6.	No, the government has never been involved in the occupancy by Mr. Gariepy of a cottage at Ste-Adele.
7.	No, the government does not condone the heads of Crown corporations receiving cottages rent free or at reduced rents from firms doing business with such corporations and has no knowledge of any such occurrence.
Mr. Cossitt: During the past 12 months, how many tourist or visitor visas were issued to Soviet citizens by the Department of External Affairs and, in each case, what was his/her name, address, profession and reason for coming to Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: From December, 1980, to the end of November, 1981, a total of 469 visitors' visas were issued to Soviet citizens. The additional information requested in the question is not readily available and would require a great deal of manual research for which the commission/department does not have the necessary resources.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does a firm known as Numarco, which is based in Brussels, Belgium, have any type of government contract for distribution rights in Europe of Canadian numismatic materials and, if so, what was the date the contract came into effect and has it been in effect for approximately six years?
2.	Is a Mr. Andre Morin the president of Numarco?
3.	Were the distribution rights given to Numarco during the tenure in office of Mr. Yvon Gariepy, former Master of the Royal Canadian Mint?
4.	What was the date the contract was signed or renewed?
5.	In each year that Numarco had the contract, what was the total commission received by the firm from the Mint and what was the total for the entire period?
6.	Was or is the government involved in the occupancy by Mr. Gariepy of a cottage at Ste-Adele, Quebec owned by Mr. Morin and, if so, what are all the
details?
7.	Does the government condone heads of Crown corporations receiving cottages rent free or at reduced rents from firms doing business with such
corporations?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. No,
Numarco has no type of government contract for distribution rights in Europe or elsewhere for Canadian numismatic materials. However the Royal Canadian Mint did have an agreement with Comarex AG to administer the sales of numismatic coins in Europe. Comarex in turn had a contract with Numarco. The agreement between Comarex and the Royal Canadian Mint was effective January 1, 1977, and was terminated as of December 31, 1981.
2.	We are informed that Mr. Morin is "Administrateur delegue" of Numarco.
3.	No, distribution rights were never given to Numarco before, during or after tenure in office of Mr. Yvon Gariepy.


Mr. Herbert: What amount is paid per week by the Department of Employment and Immigration for babysitting services for those persons who are accepted for training courses and who have young children?


Lloyd Axworthy: The department does not pay for babysitting services as such. It provides a dependant care allowance for pre-school age children to trainees referred under the Canada Manpower training program. The allowance is intended to assist trainees with the costs of caring for dependants who require it, not to cover the full cost of services. The current rates are:
One dependant Two dependants Three dependants Four or more dependants
$20 per week $35 per week $50 per week $65 per week


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of public servants working in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Quebec indicate English as their First official language?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: of all the department's public servants working in Quebec, 7.5 per cent indicate English as their first official language.

February 24, 1982
Motions for Papers


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,214 standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. I might point out for the edification of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that it weighs about ten pounds.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	During the period January I, 1980 to January 31, 1981, what amount was allocated by the government to each ethnic group in Canada and, in each case (a) what was the group's origin and mailing address (b) on what date (c) for what purpose (d) under which program (e) what was the amount originally requested?
2.	For the same period, what amount was allocated by the government to each ethnic publication and/or newspaper in Canada and, in each case (a) what was the publication's and/or newspaper's ethnic origin and mailing address (b) on what date (c) for what purpose (d) under which program (e) what was the amount originally requested (0 was it a grant or an advertising fee and, if an advertising fee, what was the text of the advertisement?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. 36, 37 and 49.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Stewart:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House, copies of ail communications, transcripts or notes of interviews, memos, notes of telephone conversations, applications for grants, bursaries and fellowships between the government through the International Research Development Centre and any other person or group requesting or
being considered for financial grants from the International Research Development Centre, particularly fellowships or financial sponsorship to individuals who hold or held elected or appointed office in governments of other countries or who were or are members of recognized political parties in other foreign nations.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The International Development Research Centre has been considering applications for grants, bursaries, and fellowships for over ten years.
Successful applications alone number in excess of 3,000. There is an even greater number of unsuccessful and pending applications.
Extensive files exist on the vast majority of these applications. Therefore, it would be impractical to lay before the House copies of all communications, transcripts or notes of interviews, memos, notes of telephone conversations, applications for grants, bursaries and fellowships between IDRC and any other person or group requesting or being considered for financial grants.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, IDRC records will not indicate whether applicants are members of political parties. Neither are records indexed according to whether applicants hold or held elected or appointed office in governments of other countries.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would ask that this motion be withdrawn.


Mr. Stewart:: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Motions Nos. 37 and 49 are stood.
[ Text]


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 94-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters and other communications during the last year between the Minister of Communications and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that deal with the balance or bias of reporting.
Mr. Herbert:: I ask that the motion be transferred for debate, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers No. 72 and No. 85 are acceptable to the government.
February 24, 1982



REPORT ON IMMIGRATION PREPARED BY MR. DAVID MATAS Motion No. 72-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of a report on immigration and/or refugee problems prepared for the Minister of Employment and Immigration by Mr. David Matas.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all estimates and plans for daycare centres prepared in the fiscal year 1981-82 by the Department of Public Works.
Motion agreed to.
David P. Smith: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the other motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WAYS AND MEANS


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@for Mr. Lalonde: that a Ways and Means Motion about a bill to amend, among other things, the Petroleum Administration Act, laid upon the Table of the House on Tuesday, February 23, 1982, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 23, 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.
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to speak on second reading of this legislation. Today notice has been given of a motion to impose closure on debate. I do not know why hon. members opposite want to impose closure
Housing
on a piece of legislation which is such a feeble effort to overcome the housing crisis in the country.
First of all 1 should like to speak about the need for housing in Canada today-


Mr. Garant:: Speak about your trip.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 will deal with my last trip when I come to it but 1 am not going to the great roundup for a while yet!
I want to deal first with the need that exists, and then with how these needs were viewed by the Liberal party several years ago. 1 will go on to deal with the solutions that the governmet proposes and their inadequacy. After that I will outline what we proposed and point out how the people of Canada would have been helped had we not been stopped by the NDP-Liberal conspiracy to restrain justice in Canada in December, 1979. 1 will then go on to make some suggestions about what should be done to help the people of Canada.
First of all, we must ask ourselves what some of the needs for action are in the housing field today. We only have to consult the latest CMHC report to see what the need is. A report published yesterday by the Canadian Press reads in part as follows:
High interest rates will cause housing starts to fall by 9 per cent and will make 1982 another bad year for the housing industry-
Referring of CMHC, the second paragraph reads as follows:
The federal Crown corporation predicts little change in mortgage rates during the first half of this year and perhaps slightly higher rates in the second half.
Mortgage rates are now running at about 19 per cent, Mr. Speaker, and the government's own agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, expects the rates to be higher in the second half of the year. The article states that housing starts are expected to drop to about 162,000 units this year compared to 177,973 units last year.
1 might point out that in 1976, the best year the country has had for housing starts, 273,203 units were built. This year it is expected that 100,000 fewer will be constructed. Has the population of Canada somehow declined or vanished if we need 100,000 fewer housing starts this year than in 1976? Of course it has not.
The article goes on to say that corporation predicts that this year starts on single-detached houses will drop to 83,000. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, in this whole gigantic country from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vancouver Island, there will be
83,000	starts on single detached homes in 1982. This is the marvellous record of the hon. gentlemen opposite who have been in office for two years and whose record is so shameful that one would expect them to leave quietly without even calling an election. They should vanish from the country in shame at such a record.
CMHC forecast that for my own province of Newfoundland there will be 3,500 housing starts this year, Madam Speaker.

February 24, 1982
Housing
That is a pitiful number. In the highest and best year for housing starts, over 5,000 were built in that province. I do not have the figures in front of me but as I recollect, the figure is 3,500 as compared to 2,000 more in 1978, which was the year with the highest number of starts in Newfoundland.
For evidence of just how bad the situation is I refer to a report which appeared in The Globe and Mail on May 27, 1981. It quotes Mr. Richard Shiff, Chairman of Bramalea Ltd. of Brampton as follows:
What we are witnessing is a financial crisis that has squeezed low and middle-income families out of the market.
He says it will squeeze them out of the market. Well, Mr. Speaker, he should know; that is his company's business. The article goes on to say:
He estimated that an Ontario family would have to have a combined income of $46,000 this year to afford a $70,000 mortgage, representing a 40 per cent cost increase in the past year.
He said:
Less than 10 per cent of Canadian families, who are currently renting, earn this level of income.
In other words, less than 10 per cent of Canadian families can expect today ever to own their own homes or ever to have the opportunity of owning their own homes. Of course he ascribed a great deal of blame to government housing policies and to the high interest rate situation of today, which he said has reached the outrageous height of 19.5 per cent. One of his recommendations was to permit home owners to deduct from income for tax purposes mortgage interest expenses above a realistic mortgage rate of about 13 per cent. He estimated that it would cost the government about $500 million in 1981 alone.
This reminds me of the solution we put forward in the House in December 1979 which was defeated-and I will come to that in more detail in a few minutes-by a combination of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, which cared not a whit about helping home owners of Canada or those who might want to become home owners when they have that opportunity.
What other evidence about the need for action in housing do we require? I am looking now at a column by Dian Cohen which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on November 3. Her calculation was that from 85,000 to 100,000 people could lose their homes in Canada in the next year. She quoted Mr. Claude Renaud, vice-president of the Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada, who estimated that 70,000 home owners will have nothing to fall back on when they renegotiate their loans as they come due during the present year. There we have
70,000	to 100,000 home owners with mortgages who, as Dian Cohen, the economist, and Mr. Renaud, vice-president of the Mortgage Insurance Company of Canada, say, will not be able to renegotiate their mortgage renewals this year and will lose their homes. Somebody on the opposite side might start croaking, "What evidence do you have that anybody is losing his or her home?"
Just in my district of St. John's West, Newfoundland, I have more than sufficient evidence. I should like to refer to a letter that was sent to me just this week. It is a letter from Judith Murphy of 228 Mundy Pond Road in St. John's West. Mrs. Murphy herself is in dire straits, as the government likes to call it. She wrote a letter to the newspaper on September 12, 1981. She sent a copy of the letter she had written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in which she pointed out how, after being married 11 years, her husband and she now have to do battle with double mortgage payments. Three years ago they managed to purchase a new home of their own. Now they are faced with the prospect of losing it because of high interest rates. She asked the Pime Minister to do something about it, to help her keep her home so that her two children will have the benefit of growing up in their own home and not in tenement housing. In the letter she said:
There are no words to describe to you how it feels to be on the threshold of losing the security which one dreams of having in being a home owner.
I must confess to you that there is possibly one way to hold on to my home, that is if we really cut back, and what I mean by cutting back, more so than I already have, is to stop buying food.
She has nothing left to cut back on. She continued:
I have two children, they don't get to travel to faraway places on vacation, they enjoy the back garden.
They do not go to Morocco, they do not go to Kenya, and they do not go on summer vacations to North Africa with papa because papa does not have the Government of Canada and its huge exchequer behind him to send him and his children to these exotic countries of the world. No, this woman has only her own backyard for those two children to travel to during the summer, so she realizes that the Prime Minister will not understand how it feels to her. She said:
We can't afford a vacation-
This is not a crank letter-I am sure I have voiced the thoughts of thousands more like me.
She wanted a reply from the Prime Minister by return mail as to what he could do. Of course she did not receive any reply from the Prime Minister as to what she could do, but she received a reply from me as to what she could do. I told her that there was very little she could do as long as the government was in power-this government which does not care, this government which will deceive and use deceit to get into power and then will just forget every promise or obligation it made during the few months it was out of power.
Also, Mrs. Judith Murphy sent me the advertisements in the St. John's newspaper of foreclosures and forced sales of houses under mortgages in just one week. In my district of St. John's West, there were 17 sales under mortgages in that particular week which she clipped from the paper. These are the notices of sales under the power of sale, all in my district. With the exception of one sale in Chamberlain and one sale in Gander, the other 15 are from St. John's West. All of those homes were held under mortgages. Here is one on 81 Munden Drive, Mount Pearl, it was sold on Monday, February 22. This is a person in dire straits who had his home sold just on Monday. If anyone is looking for bargains, I can give them other addresses in Mount Pearl and throughout St. John's West-Ferryland,
February 24, 1982

St. Vincent's and Colinet in my district. These houses all went up for sale under powers of sale this month. This shows the need. The government should not tell us that there is no need.
Also, I have a petition from Mrs. Murphy with 38 names of people who are in dire straits or in this perilous situation themselves. Now, if a person has a $30,000 mortgage and has to pay 19 per cent interest on it this year, it will cost $5,700 in interest alone. A $30,000 mortgage is not a large mortgage. The average small three-bedroom home in Newfoundland today costs at least $60,000. A piece of land in St. John's, now serviced to build on, costs $30,000. One cannot get it for under $30,000, but a $30,000 mortgage at 19 per cent costs $5,700 per year.
What about Mrs. Murphy? On February 9 she wrote that her husband's gross salary in 1981 was $15,600 and that her gross salary was $9,000. These are not lazy people, they have two children and they are both working. She wrote:
How would Mr. Trudeau like to feed and clothe and house his children on that?
He has been cuddled into the bosom of government for years, since 1968, paying for nothing. He has been over at 24 Sussex Drive and at Harrington Lake. He does not have to worry about salaries of $15,600 or $9,000. He has a staff to look after his children, nannies, nursemaids, and everything under the sun, but Mrs. Murphy has to. She said that they got into their home three years ago under the assisted home ownership program at a lower interest rate. Now she faces a renewal, and God knows what she will have to renew her mortgage at. If it is at a 19 per cent interest rate or anything over 12 per cent or 13 per cent, they are finished; they will lose their home.
What else is evident in these? 1 have another clipping from the Montreal Gazette on January 26, 1982 which reads:
There were almost three million Canadians living in poverty in 1980, about 200,000 more than in 1979-
After all the promises and protestations of the "marvellous" Prime Minister which the country has had since 1968 about the just society, we see three million Canadians were living in poverty in 1980, which was 200,000 more than the year before. The article continued:
-639,000 families and 826,000 single people were poor in 1980-
That is 10.4 per cent of all families and 31.4 per cent of all singles in Canada in 1980-
This was a study carried out by the National Council of Welfare. There can be no doubt of the need for relief of home owners from high interest rates. 1 will come to what they are offered in this legislation in a few minutes.
By the way, the starts in Newfoundland in 1976 were 5,709. In 1978 they went down to 2,865. In 1981 they were 3,210, down 2,492 from the peak year of 1976. This year they estimate that it will be 3,500. What are the interest rates today compared with a year or so ago? Wait until 1 find my note; if I am unable to do so, I will give the interest rates from memory.
Housing


An hon. Member:: That will never do.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have a fantastic memory, so I will do it from memory. The interest rates in December 1979 and in March 1980 when the government took over were 14 per cent at the Bank of Canada; that was the bank rate. Mortgage rates were down around 12 per cent or 13 per cent. The interest rates at the bank, at the highest, had gone to 15 per cent when we were in power for a few short months. We were bearing the consequences of the ten or 12 years of neglect which we had behind us when the Liberals had been in power. As usual, a Tory government was following a Liberal government, and they were getting ready to say, "Tory times are hard times." Then the darned fools forgot themselves and they defeated us; the Liberal Party followed the Liberal Party and now we hear, "Liberal times are bad times." The people of Canada really know what causes bad times. It is the Liberal Party and Liberal policies that cause bad times. The Liberals are facing responsibility now for their own 12 years of neglect. So Liberal times are hard times, and the old slogan about Tory times being hard times are a result of the Tory party having to follow the Liberal Party in power every so often. But now the Liberals are in power and they are squirming and squealing. They are doing nothing. They are like a group of stuck pigs under a fence wondering how to get out from under it.
Let us hone in. What did the Liberal Party members say they were going to do when they were out of power? Here is what was said by the present Minister of DREE (Mr. Gray) before the commons committee on finance on October 30, 1979. He attacked the 14 per cent interest rate by saying:
-it will mean the loss of thousands of jobs; it will mean increases in the cost of living. It will probably bring the housing and construction industry to a halt-
It will put housing beyond the reach of most middle and lower-income Canadians. It will hurt small business-
-It will hurt farmers-and will add, therefore, to the cost of food.
That is what the minister said in October, 1979, when interest rates were 14 per cent. Today he is a member of the Government of Canada. Interest rates are far higher, but he does not think any longer about putting housing beyond the reach of most middle and low-income Canadians. He does not think any longer about bringing the housing industry to a halt. He does not care. He does not give a darn. He cares not a twit because he is in the warm embrace of the governmental bosom and could not care less for the next two or three years. He has cared less for the two years that have just passed. But that is what the minister said when he was in opposition.
What did the government's housing critic say when he was in opposition? He is now the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). He is now the man responsible for the over one million unemployed that we have. He is just as sincere and dedicated now as he had been then. He was then the housing critic. On October 29, 1979, he said that if there is

February 24, 1982
Housing
a requirement to raise interest rates, there is an equal requirement to help those people who are hurt by those interest rate increases. That was the great Liberal principle when they were out of power. If interest rates have to rise, there is a requirement to help the people who are hurt by those interest rate increases. That was the great humanitarian Liberal principle of October, 1979. That minister, who has since become the hero of Canadian womanhood, announced what was the Liberal principle when the Liberals were in opposition.
What else did the Liberals say in those days? When it came to the election campaign, here is what the Prime Minister said about interest rates, as reported in the Toronto Star on February 10, 1980:
I would want to manage the economy in such a way that interest rales would in fact come down-because the economy would be administered in a sounder way.
That is something to laugh about, Mr. Speaker, that interest rates would come down because of the way this Prime Minister would manage the economy. The hypocrite has not attempted to manage the economy. When he did attempt to do so in the last month or two, it has been a disaster. Again, during the election campaign, as reported in The Toronto Sun for February 4, 1980, we read:
It is my belief we can manage the economy in a way that would allow us to have lower interest rates than we have now and I think we can have greater independence in interest rate policy.
If the Prime Minister thought that the economy could be administered in a sounder way than by bringing down interest rates, what has happened to him since? We know that he has visited practically every country in the world. But he has forgotten all about interest rates and how he was going to manage the economy and bring them down.
Here is what the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) said on October 25, 1979, in this chamber:
I deplore high interest rates. The minister has made the decision to impose high interest rates. I am not prepared to say at this point that it was the right decision.
That was the President of the Treasury Board. But now what is he prepared to say? He was not prepared at that point to say it was the right decision when interest rates were 14 per cent, but he has been there since when interest rates were 19 per cent and went up to 21.5 per cent. Now he is prepared to say that it was the right decision, now that he is in power himself. The President of the Treasury Board finds that it was the right decision. He does not mind 21 per cent and 22 per cent interest rates. He only deplores 14 per cent interest rates when there is someone else in the government. He does not deplore them when he himself is in the government and could do something about them. This chamber stinks. It is rife with the hypocrisy of the people who spoke like that when they were out of power. They have done nothing to follow up on what they said when they were out of power since they have been in power.
What was the Liberals' housing program in the last election? They are too shamefaced over there to even bawl, cackle or howl. They are quietly shamefaced as they listen to this recital of their treachery. The Liberals' housing policy for 1979-1980 was:
Our policy is guided by the basic principles of assisting low-income people to secure proper housing, and of increasing the affordability of ownership so more Canadians can choose between renting and owning.
That was the great principle the minister responsible for housing had when he was out of power. Now that he is in power, he does not give a darn about helping low-income people secure proper housing or increasing the affordability of ownership. All he has done is to bring this weak-kneed, spineless bill before the House on which he is now imposing closure to force it through. It is a pitiful rump of a bill that he has brought forward.
What else was said by this gentleman? I will not go too much further into this because it is too painful. In Toronto on January 12, 1980, the Prime Minister was giving his economic program to the people of Canada. He said:
This party will not simply stand by and let the recession come. We will fight it and overcome it.
That was the great Liberal principle on January 12, 1980. The Liberals would not stand by and let the recession come. They were going to fight it and overcome it. Has anybody seen a recession that has been fought and overcome lately? Has anyone seen a recession fought and overcome since the government got back in power in March, 1980? All I have seen is a bunch of pantywaist people falling on their faces in front of a recession, afraid to do anything. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) brought in a budget that was the worst ever brought into this chamber that did exactly nothing to fight a recession but instead made it ten times worse.
What did the Liberals say after they got back into power? I will do this very quickly because I do not like inflicting this kind of punishment on the poor, dumb brutes opposite. Here is what they have said since they got back into power. The Minister of Finance said, as reported in the Montreal Gazette for March 19, 1980:
Mortgage interest relief for Canada's home owners depends in part on the oil deal Ottawa gets with Alberta, says federal Finance Minister Allan MacEachen.
He said mortgage interest relief depends on the deal Ottawa gets with Alberta. That was when he was just beginning his career as this sliven, a sliven to top all slivens in the portfolio of the Minister of Finance. In the fall of 1981 Canada got an oil deal with Alberta which is giving the minister billions and billions of additional revenue. Indirect taxation is up 54 per cent this year. Indirect taxes are up $8 billion. The Minister of Finance has got the money. Why does he not carry out that program of mortgage interest relief that he said depended upon the negotiations? He tried to blame Alberta about mortgage interest relief. Then the minister went to Halifax and on September 9, 1980, he said "it was to create jobs, improve living standards and promote greater equity that I took on the position of Minister of Finance." Never have more boastful words been uttered by a man who did less to carry them out. He took on the position to create jobs, improve living standards and promote greater equity. What a laugh. What a disappointment that the man does not resign his portfolio today. If he had any backbone, gumption or any streak of honesty at all in him, he would swallow those words, he would eat them right in front of us in this chamber the way he has failed after making those boastful remarks in Halifax, Nova
February 24, 1982

Scotia, on September 9, 1980. Then a few months later, on November 21, 1980, Canadian Press reported:
Canadians will have to accept a lower standard of living to adjust to higher energy prices. Finance Minister Allan MacEachen says.
Who said that? It was the Minister of Finance, the man who a few months before said that he would create jobs, improve living standards and promote greater equity. He said that in September, but in November he said that Canadians will have to accept a lower standard of living to adjust to higher energy prices. He said also:
We just can't as a country escape some adjustments in our standards of living for a time. That's a hard message but I think it just has to be put across.
If that is not hyprocrisy, if that is not the lowest of the low, if that is not twisting and turning because he could not see any way out, what is it? We have to get used to lower standards. We are not going to get used to more equity. We are not going to get used to more jobs. We are not going to get used to improved living standards for which he said he became Minister of Finance. But no, now his message is to get used to a lower living standard. That was never mentioned when the Liberals were seeking power.
Let us go on to the next month, Mr. Speaker, December 6, 1980. What did the Prime Minister say? The Prime Minister who told us what a wonderful job he was going to do on interest rates said that Canadians should change their spending priorities to maintain the same level of food on their tables while reducing spending in other areas. He said:
They don't have to accept less on their tables, but they might want to switch priorities and spend more on food than they are on other things.
That is the Prime Minister's theme in December 1980, after telling us how they were going to do such wonderful things for the Canadian people. Are they going to go to the electorate in the next election with the great slogan: Come, shorten your belt, tighten your belt, change your priorities, accept less on your tables, spend more on food than on other things? Is that the slogan for the next election? Are they going to promise Canadians dire straits in the next election? "Vote Liberal and we will make sure you are in dire straits." That should be their slogan in the next election.
On May 9, 1981, interest rates have gone berserk. The Ottawa Citizen says "Mortgages soar-we're on our own". This is what the Minister of Finance said:
It would be wrong for me to give advice to particular individuals as to how they are to manage their affairs.
He did not mind advising them what to do in the election. He said, "Vote Liberal and prices will come down". He gave them advice then, but now he is the powerful Minister of Finance of Canada, this sensitive man from Cape Breton, and
he says:
It would be wrong for me to give advice to particular individuals as to how they are to manage their affairs.
This Uriah Heep of all Uriah Heeps would not advise individual Canadians. He said the government would not bail
Housing
out individuals facing a mortgage renewal or first-time home buyers trapped by circumstances. The article says:
The minister noted that an analysis last year found most home owners could handle the payments resulting from higher rates.
This minister had the audacity to say that his analysis showed most home owners could handle the payments resulting from higher rates. Home owners of Canada out there looking on, the thousands of you, do you realize that you can handle these higher rates? Eighteen per cent, 19, 20, 21, 22? Don't be bothered by it; the Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen, says his analysis has found most of you can handle the payments resulting from higher rates. Can you hear that, Mrs. Judith Murphy down in my district of St. John's West? Don't worry, you are going to lose your home. Can you hear that, the 17 people whose homes are up for sale in my district? Just hear this: You are foolish, you should not have your house up for sale, you should not have allowed them to take your house from you. Why, you can handle the payments resulting from higher interest rates, according to that Minister of Finance of Canada, Mr. MacEachen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. On a couple of occasions the hon. member has taken the liberty of referring to hon. members by their surnames. He should refer to them by the riding they represent.


John Carnell Crosbie: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. I can well understand why the Minister of Finance does not want anyone to know his name. If I were him, I would not want them to know my name either. So I agree with you completely.
Now I come to my final selection, of September 11, 1981. What have the great promises come to now? They are down in Ingonish pondering what they can do about interest rates, and the Prime Minister says he has no plans to offer general relief from record high mortgages and mounting energy prices. Any help will only be for those in, and I quote him, "absolute dire straits." That was not his economic program in 1979-80. You are only going to get help if you are in absolute dire straits. What is "absolute dire straits"? Well, one analogy I like to make is this. You are lying out there at the side of the road in winter, Mr. Speaker, without a stitch on. You do not have a home to go to or shed to crawl into. I would say that puts you in absolutely dire straits. What is this government's solution? If we look at the bill before us now, why, the minister responsible for housing and the Prime Minister are driving along in their big chauffeured Cadillac, or whatever it is, and they see this naked body at the side of the road. They stop. They are Liberals, they are very concerned when they see a naked figure at the side of the road in winter. They get out of the car, the Prime Minister takes the hands, the minister responsible for housing takes the feet and they move him off the road behind the trees so no one can see him. Now they have looked after your dire straits. That is the policy of this government, a policy which the people of Canada are not going to forget. They will never forget and never forgive you for leaving them in absolute dire straits, believe me.
15356

February 24, 1982
Housing
What about the minister responsible for housing? A delegation of middle-class people in distress came here to Ottawa to see him. After getting the RCMP riot squad around him to make sure there would be no rough treatment, he met them and told them that something had to be done. These people are going to lose their homes and everything they have. He said, "Something has to be done and we will do something, I can tell you that." A positively Churchillian response to those people in their misery. After being in office for a year and a half, having defeated a government that was attempting to do something, he told them something has to be done and we will do something. The "something" he has done is in this pitiful piece of legislation before the House. What are they going to do? Well, there are 920,000 mortgage holders in the last half of 1981 and the first half of 1982 who had to renew their mortgages, most of them in trouble. The government is providing $38 million to help those 920,000 mortgage holders. Perhaps
12,000	will get some help. How do you get the help? If you are spending over 30 per cent of your income on mortgage payments, they will then give you assistance. If you have any equity in your home, they are going to give you another loan to add to the rest of your loans to meet higher interest payments. That is supposed to be help, and you have to pay it back some day. But if you have no equity left and you are paying over 30 per cent of your income on mortgage payments, then they are going to give you a grant of $3,000 to help meet the additional interest costs. That is the great program the minister referred to when he said something has to be done, and he will do something. He has done nothing, he has done less than nothing. He has shamed his government and his country, if this was all he could come up with.
Then there is the $112 million to help build 15,000 rental units. He has done nothing for tenants. There is no shelter allowance here. Mr. Speaker, when we presented our proposal to the House back in the fall of 1979 the Liberals and the NDP opposed it. They said, "This is no good, we want a shelter allowance to help the low-income home owner and tenant." Where is the shelter allowance? They have been there now for two years. They have increased taxes by many billions of dollars, 54 per cent in indirect taxes alone. A 31 per cent increase in revenues this year compared to last year. Where is the shelter allowance for tenants? There is nothing for tenants and home owners, nothing for anyone in this legislation on which the minister puts closure. He has the effrontery, the gall to come into this House and say we should rush through this pitiful piece of legislation. That is the best he can come up with for the people of Canada like my Mrs. Judith Murphy and the other people who are losing their homes down in Newfoundland this week under powers of sale. This is the best he can do for them. And the hypocritical Minister of Finance says to them that his surveys have shown that they can meet these higher costs, this doubling of interest rates. Disgusting hypocrisy, and the people of Canada are not going to forget it. They are not going to forget the members of the NDP who put them in the position where they could wreak this damage on the Canadian people, the same party which opposed the program we brought in to help the Canadian people. Well, what was that program? It was a program of mortgage interest
and property tax deductibility. It represented a major effort to help the Canadian people. It would have, in the year 1982, put $2,800 million in the pockets of home owners in Canada, whether they had a mortgage or not. Part of the program related to mortgage interest, and part to property taxes. That would have been the result had the legislation passed, had the NDP and Liberals not stopped us in their vicious desire to get back into power. Although they had been there for most of this century, they could not stand being out longer than seven months.
The government might have forgotten that. The government should have acted for the good of the people of this country and should not have stopped this legislation which would have provided $2.8 billion. Home owners paying $5,000 a year for mortgage interest would have received the maximum relief, amounting to $1,250, and would have received another $250 in relief from their property taxes. That was the maximum assistance they would have received under the program, implemented over four years. They would have received a quarter of the benefit in 1979, half of the benefit in 1980, three-quarters of the benefit in 1981, and the benefit of the full program this year, 1982. I believe $2,850 million was the total amount.
That was what we offered and what we wanted to put before the people of Canada. How would that help home owners with their mortgages? The average amount of assistance under our program to Canadian home-owning families this year would have amounted to $590 per family. I say to the ladies and gentlemen of Canada who are out there looking on that that would have helped them with their increased interest rates. That would have helped them to a considerable extent, and they would not have this kind of ruinous interest rate because the interest rates would have been considerably lower had we been left here unobstructed and had our policies gone into effect over the last two years, and had the tar sands gone ahead. We would not be hearing this anti-U.S. and antiprivate sector rhetoric. There would not be these vicious attacks on the Canadian dollar by the government, which leaves this government with nothing with which to defend the dollar but high, high, crucifying interest rates. No, the home owners of Canada would have had tremendous assistance had we been left there.
I will discuss further details of that program which was introduced in the House in December of 1979. It was to be phased in because we were fiscally responsible. It would have been phased in over four years with the full benefit in the 1982 tax year. It would have provided $2.8 billion. This year home owners would have received also another $1 billion from the energy tax credit, whether they paid income tax or not. You Canadians out there who are now looking on this chamber would have been receiving another $1 billion, amounting to a total of $3.8 billion to help you in your costs of meeting energy increases. Each family of four would have received $220. You would get the maximum if you had a maximum income of $25,000. It was a program to help lower-income people.
February 24, 1982

That was stopped by the Liberal Party. That was stopped by the hon. members of the New Democratic Party. That is the party whose leader goes across this country, the galloping Uriah Heep of Canadian politics, twisting his hands, telling people how badly off they are and how his heart bleeds for the Canadian people who are paying such high interest rates and paying so much on their houses, and paying so much on their mortgages, and paying so much to the banks. He rubs his hands and tells them how sympathetic he is concerning their situation when he is the one who put them in the position of dire straits. He is the one who put them back under the tutelage of the Liberal Party of Canada. That gentleman should also take a hint and resign, if he is worried about the people of Canada and what they are suffering from today. He is the one who is in bed with the government and its economic policies and in bed with the government and its constitutional policies. He could not wait to get into bed with all of those policies.


An hon. Member:: You were in bed with the oil companies.


John Carnell Crosbie: Pardon?


An hon. Member:: You were in bed with the oil companies.


John Carnell Crosbie: The only person with whom I go to bed-I will not mention her name in this chamber. 1 am not in bed with anyone, except occasionally.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Where does this lead us to? Here we have this piece of legislation, Bill C-89. The minister who puts his name to this piece of legislation will go down in Canadian history as-what is the name of the meanest character Charles Dickens ever invented?


An hon. Member:: John Crosbie!


Mrs. Mitchell:: Uriah Heep!


John Carnell Crosbie: Uriah Heep, Fagin-he will go down as the most miserly housing minister in Canadian history. If the minister responsible for housing could not do better with the Minister of Finance than he did, he should resign. He should quote, to the Minister of Finance, some of these quotations that I found without any trouble at all. He should quote to the minister. Do hon. members know what the Minister of Finance said? He said his budget had three themes: restraint, equity and economic renewal. He should start to ask the Minister of Finance, "Where is the equity in your budget, minister? You are giving me $38 million to meet the needs of the 950,000 mortgage holders, or whatever the number may be, whose mortgages are coming due this year."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order!


An hon. Member:: Time!


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


John Carnell Crosbie: No, Mr. Speaker, I am just starting.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Housing


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: According to the time allotted by our rules, the hon. member has finished his intervention.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, it is far from the first time that 1 have risen to debate this sort of bill in the House. Notable times which occur to me were in 1973, 1975, concerning two bills of this sort, and in 1979, to name a few that I can recall. The first time, in 1973, I had some advice for the government which essentially boiled down to two words, which were to "get out" of the housing field if it wanted to help matters for Canadian people.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is what they are doing!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: That is what the government has not done over the nine years since I first made those remarks. However, the minister of the day, the Hon. Ron Basford, did take my advice in that he got out. First of all, he got out of the housing and urban affairs ministry; a few years later, he got out of the justice ministry; and a few years ago, he got out of Parliament altogether and set himself up as a private citizen in Vancouver. Maybe at the time of the next election, whenever it comes, hon. members opposite will find that they are getting out of this House too, or at least out of this government, so that the enterprise sector of our country can start to provide some housing which is so badly needed by everyone in Canada.
However, did they get out? Did they do anything about trying to encourage the enterprise system? I refer the House to the public accounts of 1981, Volume III, the financial statements of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation which indicates that the No. 1 liability of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is borrowings from the Government of Canada which amount to over $10 billion. It has borrowed $10,085 million from the Government of Canada.
We know where that money came from, do we not, Mr. Speaker? It came from the taxpayers of Canada who are out there struggling, trying to provide themselves with housing while this burden of taxation is around their necks. Not only has $10 billion been borrowed from the taxpayers of Canada and put into the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for whatever purposes the minister may have had in mind, but there is also an item in the public accounts showing grants, contributions and subsidies on behalf of the minister for the year ending December 31, 1980, and the total charged to the minister, as per Schedule 5 in those public accounts, is $997 million. Three million short of $1 billion has been charged off in the current fiscal year to the minister for grants, contributions and subsidies. That is a trend which started in 1979 with $840 million, amounting, as I say, to $997 million in 1980. The current estimates cut that slightly, but it is still well around the $900 million mark for the current fiscal year for the minister's discretionary expenditures on housing.

February 24, 1982
Housing
I want to refer back to 1975 for a moment, which is seven years ago, after all. In the debate at that time, 1 quoted an excerpt from The Vancouver Province of September, 1974. The editorial in The Vancouver Province observed that:
'-our housing difficulties, particularly in the rental field, compose a classic case of problem creation by government.
It continued:
We did not begin to experience real rental shortages in this country until the federal government removed the tax incentives that channelled a lot of private money into rental accommodation.'
Do we remember what things were like prior to 1971 when this government changed accounting principles, changed the taxation principles, and drove out large segments of the enterprise sector from the housing field? All of a sudden, the government changed the rules for accounting and said, "Yes, if you manufacture something, or if you have a big industrial plant, you can deduct the capital cost allowance, the depreciation, from your plant and machinery and from your building". However, it also said, "If you are providing housing for Canadians who cannot afford to buy or build their own, if you are building rental housing in Canada, you will not be able to deduct a loss created by depreciation, by capital cost allowance, from other income".
Having completely destroyed or perverted the accounting principles that had been accepted in this country for a hundred years and more, the result was predictable. High income Canadians, those in the position to invest in housing, have to protect themselves and invest their funds somewhere. However, those whom we want to encourage to provide housing and invest in Canada were driven out of the housing business. That is when the shortages started.
I have often said here and in other places that we have no housing shortage in Canada. The minister should know that; he need only count up the unsold, speculatively built units that are found across this country. There is no housing shortage in Canada. What we have is a money shortage among certain people who cannot find housing they can afford. This is the affordable housing that we on this side of the House talk about. We talk about it all the time. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) talks about affordable housing. This is the problem.
If you have enough money, you can go anywhere in Canada, even in Point Grey, as the member for Vancouver East says, or in my riding of Vancouver Quadra, and buy a single family lot for $500,000 cash, if you have it. Then you can build a house. Or you can do what others are doing in Vancouver and buy a run down house for $245,000, tear it down and build a new one.
There is no housing shortage in this country. What we have is a money shortage. This government has taken the money, splattered it all over the map and has not hit the target of where the money is needed.
The hon. member for Vancouver East sometimes thinks my housing policies are strange. However, I find support for my policies from unexpected sources. The Canadian Organization
of Public Housing Tenants may seem a strange outfit for me to call on for support. It turns out they realize the same problems that I have seen and which this government has presented to them. They wrote the following in their official newsletter, "The Raised Roof'. I quote from a 1979 speech that I made in this House. I find I am the greatest quoter of my own speeches in this House. The first page of this "Raised Roof' newsletter is headlined "The problem is not really housing". In their lead editorial they say, and I quote:
The group has tried to show members of government, housing corporations and authorities that the problem in housing is not really housing, but the entire economic question, of which housing is merely one part.
That is what I have been saying for a long time. I have heard others on this side of the House say the same, but the government cannot see that there are individuals with problems. They seem to think there is a housing problem. What do we have now in Canada? We have a great underutilized private sector that wants to provide housing, but they are unable to do that because of the whole economic climate that the minister's colleagues have imposed upon us.
These remarks that I am referring to were made seven years ago, but nothing has improved. I will not say nothing has changed, but nothing has improved. We might ask ourselves what went wrong.
I mentioned 1971 when the government changed the basic accounting policies and said that losses created by capital cost allowance depreciation could no longer be deducted. I compared that with the fact that one can deduct capital cost allowance depreciation on machinery or a factory building. It is absolute nonsense when you compare the merits of the two cases.
What happened? Why did we get into this terrible situation in which we now find ourselves? Why has it become so much worse over the past three, seven or ten years? We saw that high-income individuals had stopped investing in rental housing because the climate had been made so bad for them. It started off with the policies of this government. This government tends to produce ministers of finance who have strange attitudes when it comes to economic policies that create problems for all Canadians.
The minister of finance seven years ago was one named John Turner. He was the first to sound the idea of taxing the imputed value of home ownership to see whether the government could raise more money. After all, those who owned their own homes and had equity in their homes, whether it was clear title or just an equity, did not pay any taxes on that income. I do not know whether it was that idea or one of his other ideas that caused him to get out of the finance portfolio. In any event, he is gone.
There has been a succession of others who have not really done anything other than to pay lip service to the economic problems we have in Canada today. Talk about strange things. We now have a Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) who wants to tax income before it is received. I am referring to the life insurance situation. He not only wants to tax income
February 24, 1982

before it is received, but tax income that may never be received. On deferred income securities, the Minister of Finance wants to accrue income for tax purposes.
The minister has made a broadside attack in his current budget on the institution of marriage by denying married people the same tax benefits as two single people who live together are entitled to. I refer here to the exemption of capital gains tax on a second residence. The married couple will be denied that even though two single people will be entitled to it. If a widow and a widower should happen to get together and want to marry, this government will impose a terrible penally on them. The pension benefits of the widow and widower would be taken away from both of them whereas they would continue if they stayed single.
The Minister of Finance says that a businessman can deduct the wages of those who help him earn his income, such as a secretary, stock clerk or shop clerk, but a working mother who must have an attendant or some other child care expense can only deduct $1,000 for tax purposes, even though she may have a nanny living in the house whom she pays $7,000 for that service. If she takes advantage of a child care service, even the one that will be offered by the House of Commons this year, it will cost about $4,000. The Minister of Finance says, however, that only $1,000 can be deducted.
The Minister of Finance is supposed to be encouraging people to work in Canada and to pay taxes. These women are working because they want to or need to, or both, yet they are being denied the proper deductions to which they should be entitled.
The Minister of Finance says that interest expenses on certain investments in Canadian businesses will not be deductible, another departure from generally accepted accounting principles. It has always been accepted that if money, particularly interest, was laid out for the purpose of earning income, even if not this year's income, it would be a deductible expense.
Many Canadians invest in Canadian businesses, not with the prospect of immediate profit. They may be willing to wait one, two, three or five years. Sometimes they do not know. The Minister of Finance, who is creating this bad economic climate for the housing industry, is also creating this bad economic climate for all Canadians who want to invest in Canada.
It is not only the federal government that is creating these problems and has created the problems in the housing field. The provincial governments have also got into the act. Rent controls have been in existence in a number of provinces. These have prevented economic rents being charged and new buildings were therefore not built. Housing was not provided where it was needed.
New buildings were exempted from rent controls after a few years because provincial governments realized that there was no new construction. They indicated that if new buildings were rented they would relax the rent controls. Of course, the predictable happened although those governments did not see it. Older buildings which were still under rent control became
Housing
uneconomic units. They were torn down and replaced with new, more expensive housing which just created more problems for those people this minister responsible for housing is trying to help through this feeble bill which is before us today.
It is no wonder that there was not a flood of new units once the others were freed from rent controls. Investors were nervous about entering the market with brand-new, expensive units while many units were already on the market under rent control, resulting in severe competition to the newly-built units.
What else has the federal government tried to do during the last decade? We have had an alphabet soup of programs and one which comes to mind now is ARP, the assisted rental program. This was a scheme whereby a monthly subsidy was paid to developers to provide new units at a rent less than the economic rent. It did not have anything to do with the tenants. All that tenants knew was that they were getting a good deal on their rent. This scheme depended entirely on continuing high inflation for its success. Not one minister responsible for housing who would dream up an assisted rental program such as this could have expected it to work unless he had the collaboration-and even the collusion-of the Minister of Finance, who would guarantee that inflation would continue at a good high rate. If that were not the case the building owner would ultimately go bankrupt because his debt was ever mounting and his interest liability would eventually begin.
Did all this government intervention help? Did it result in more housing units? Apparently not enough, according to the minister. My colleague from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has quoted some figures on the shortfall of current housing starts to meet the needs of Canadians.
What did the government then decide to do? It gave us more alphabet soup. It introduced MURBs, a program designed to encourage multiple unit residential buildings. That program was introduced around 1976. It was only a restoration of the principles which were in effect in 1971. But did the program admit that it was wrong in cutting off this very valuable and efficient source of housing in 1971? No; it brought in a new portion of the alphabet which it called MURBs. It would not want to admit that it was wrong by restoring the old policy.
I suppose the MURB program was designed to confuse the industry and it certainly did that, along with the rest of Canadians. The plan was then to have the program expire at a specified date. The industry did not know when this date would be or whether it would expire at all. The industry put pressure on the government, which responded that it might be continued or it might not be. The industry did not know what to do.
This illustrates how the enterprise system has demonstrated time and again that it can tolerate any set of rules which the government may wish to impose upon it but cannot tolerate unknown rules and sudden changes to the rules. This uncertainty upsets all industrial planning. The government has not realized that fact yet.

February 24, 1982
Housing
As a result of this uncertainty, the housing industry was upset. It was continually turned off, then turned on, to the point that it did not know whether it was coming or going. The industry hoped that the MURB program would be renewed, which it was on numerous occasions, but always at the last moment. Finally, last December the MURB program was allowed to die. Whether it is a final death, only time will tell. Perhaps the housing minister will be able to resurrect it, but 1 am sure he will not get help from the Minister of Finance.
What was the result of the MURB program being finished in December? It created a panic in the housing industry which in its plans for 1982 it had laid on all this land, and which would not qualify for a MURB if it did not dig the foundations and instal the footings by the end of December. The predictable result of that was that jobs had to be done at overtime rates with high rentals on equipment which eventually resulted in added costs to construction. This will result in higher rents for those who occupy those MURBs.
I have talked enough about the government's programs. I would like to talk now about interest rates. Do interest rates not have something to do with the housing industry? If they do, the minister does not seem to confer with the Minister of Finance in order to do anything about it. The House will recall that one of the first acts of the Clark government in 1979 was to refer the problem of interest rates which were already too high at that time to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I had the honour to be the chairman of that standing committee during the Thirty-first Parliament. It was a serious study which was conducted by members of the House. Economists, those knowledgeable about interest rates, consultants and professors were summoned from all across the country to try to advise the Standing Committee on Finance. Trade and Economic Affairs on how to resolve the problems created by high interest rates and show what avenues were open to the government at the time.
It is curious that the finance critic for the Liberal Party at that time who was a member of that committee, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), who is the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, referring in his remarks to the hon. member for St. John's West who was then minister of finance, said to the Commons finance committee on October 30, 1979, that:
Your high interest rate policy would slow down the economy: it will mean the loss of thousands of jobs; it will mean increases in the cost of living. It will probably bring the housing and construction industry to a halt, with thousands of jobs being lost in those sectors.
It will put housing beyond the reach of most middle and lower-income Canadians. It will hurt small business, which depends on bank borrowing to operate. It will hurt farmers, who have the same dependency on bank borrowing and will add, therefore, to the cost of food.
That remark was attributed to the member for Windsor West in the Commons finance committee, October 30, 1979.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, an election ensued not too many months after that statement. During that election campaign and afterwards, that same member who is now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Regional
Economic Expansion promised the House, his electors and the people of Canada that if interest rates did not stay down or could not be brought down he would resign. I will give a comparison between what the interest rates were and what they are now.
Before I do that, I would like to recall some remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, during the election campaign in Toronto, on February 10, 1980, promised that he would manage the economy in such a way that interest rates would, in fact, come down because the economy would be administered in a sounder way. The government may be trying to administer the economy in some way but it certainly is not in a sounder way. If I were in the Liberal government and administering the economy with the result it has achieved, I would not want to admit it.
Where were the interest rates then and what are they now? The interest rates which were causing the hon. member for Windsor West such panic at that time, in the 1980 election, were as follows: the Bank of Canada rate was 14 per cent, the average mortgage rate was 13.5 per cent and the chartered bank prime rate was 15 per cent. By August, 1981, the bank rate had climbed to a record 21.24 per cent; the chartered bank prime rate was 22.75 per cent. Some lenders were charging in excess of 22 per cent for first mortgages.
The government opposite has had a bit of luck since then-I do not think it could be attributed to good planning or to anything but good luck-and mortgage rates are currently closer to 19 per cent than the 22 per cent rate. However, that is a far cry from the mortgage rate of 15 per cent about which the Liberal opposition was complaining.
We know what this government has done. An hon. member who is now a minister threatened to resign. The government has done nothing about interest rates or, at least, nothing which has had any effect.
During the Thirty-first Parliament our government put forward a proposal which was, I think, one day away from passage, the so-called mortgage interest and property tax deductibility scheme. Some members of the Liberal opposition were ready to stand up for it. Some had voted for it at earlier stages. That bill was debated for about seven days when finally the axe fell on it. This bill has been debated four and a half days, and the minister stood up today and told us that that is enough. He told us he has to get this puny bill through in a hurry. I will talk about the bill more in a moment. The minister is giving us notice that tomorrow the provisions of Standing Order 75C will come into play, and we will have a debate about that.
The mortgage interest and tax deductibility scheme we introduced in the Thirty-first Parliament would have helped every one of those Canadians who are having trouble now because of the economic policies of this government. Even prior to the introduction of our bill anyone with some money and some good tax advice could have arranged his affairs to
February 24, 1982

have his interest made deductible in any event. The bill we introduced was simply an attempt to bring all Canadians onto an equitable footing so that all Canadians could deduct interest-and property taxes too-paid on their principal residences.
Because of the inaction of this government with respect to that particular scheme, the situation which has developed is ludicrous. With the markets we have people are forced to take back second mortgages on the sale of their homes, and the interest on those mortgages taken back is treated as income for tax purposes. This is a regime enforced by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey). At the same time, when an individual goes and buys another home-just a replacement home, nothing special or different-and has to borrow because he does not have all his money out of his former home, he is not allowed, under the rules of this government, to deduct the interest on the new mortgage in calculating his taxable income. The government has imposed a double jeopardy on people like this who want to change homes for whatever reason. These moves might be required because of jobs, family reasons or whatever.
What we might question at this point is what this bill is all about. Bill C-89, which has been before us for these few days and on which the government opposite is imposing closure, will provide an "opportunity" for Canadians to go deeper into debt. Is that not a great favour from the government? It is encouraging Canadians to go deeper into debt. I have always felt that government should encourage people to become selfsufficient and retire their debts. But no, this plan allows individuals who are faced with higher mortgage payments to borrow more money and to go deeper into debt. Of course, the government will provide insurance so that lenders will not be jeopardized; they will be assured of getting their money back.
This bill also proposes to provide legislative authority for interest-free loans of up to $7,500 per unit to landlords constructing new buildings, as outlined in the budget. Seventy-five hundred dollars a unit might be all right in some cities such as Ottawa; perhaps the land cost per rental unit in Ottawa might be $10,000 up to $20,000. But in cities like Calgary and Vancouver $7,500 per unit would be absolutely worthless. Land costs in those areas are such that this bill would not encourage the construction of a single unit. Even if landlords get $7,500 loans, they will have to repay the loans, and rents will have to reflect the amortization of those loans from the government.
There are a couple of other things this bill proposes which are more serious and prehaps even more dangerous. The rate of interest payable on loans issued by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation would be determined by the corporation and not by the governor in council. This Parliament is supposed to make decisions dealing with taxpayers' money. As I said earlier, $10 billion is a lot of taxpayers' money for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to be dealing with. The government likes to take responsibility for taking decisions away from Parliament and making such decisions through the governor in council. I do not think we should forget that there were some 3,500 orders in council in the last
Housing
fiscal year. However, this responsibility is being taken away not only from Parliament but also from the governor in council-the cabinet-and it is being given to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That is a very serious transfer of power away from elected representatives. I hope the minister is paying attention to this because he is losing control as much as all other Members of Parliament.
Another aspect of this bill is an observance of the fact that as many as 40,000 Canadian families may lose their homes because of the current high interest rates. A family income of $45,000 is now needed to afford an average-priced home in Canada. Hon. members do not need to be reminded of the mail they received from their constituents with respect to the current salary for a Member of Parliament of $48,000, which is only $3,000 more than the basic $45,000 needed to afford an average home in Canada. The salary of a Member of Parliament is not considered to be an average salary, it is considered to be a high salary, so where does that leave the average Canadian who earns less than $45,000 when he wants to buy a home?
Serious shortages are developing in many centres, and the number of housing starts in the last half of 1981 was barely half the number needed to keep pace with housing requirements.
I think I have said enough for this kind of bill. In closing, I just want to say that for over ten years the housing issue has been tossed around by this government. I referred earlier to the Hon. Ron Basford, who had this responsibility when he was minister of state for urban affairs. Not only has that minister come and gone but the ministry of state for urban affairs has also come and gone. I cannot remember who had responsibilty for housing in the meantime, but now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) is responsible for housing in this country, and I can only remark that this indicates the lack of importance this government attaches to the housing issue. Housing is a very important Field, but it is a responsibility of the minister responsible for public works, a subject which is also very important.
We on this side of the House say that this bill is totally inadequate and misguided. The government should give the enterprisers of this country who are just waiting to get out there and build houses the opportunity to provide the housing Canadians need. They would provide it at rates which are suitable to the market, and they would sell their housing. This government should concern itself with making sure that there is no shortage of money for those who need affordable housing and making sure there is no shortage of policies which would provide economic soundness to this country.
We know what the unemployment situation is. We hear about it every day in the House. There are over one million unemployed. That number could be reduced by 10 per cent. One hundred thousand jobs could be found immediately in the housing industry if this government would give some encouragement to the enterprise sector which wants to build housing for Canadians.

February 24, 1982
Housing


Mr. Tousignant:: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that the salary of a Member of Parliament is $48,000, I do not want him to mislead people. Anyone who works 15 or 16 hours a day, seven days a week, can make that salary anywhere else in Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on Bill C-89 which proposes certain amendments to the National Housing Act, recognizing that it is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before Parliament for some time.
There is a very serious housing crisis in Canada today. As Members of Parliament we had a right to expect that the government would come forward with serious and responsible solutions to that crisis, but I regret to say that Bill C-89 fails completely to address the concerns of my constituents in the municipality of Burnaby and of Canadians generally. I say that not only from the perspective of the provision of rental housing and ensuring that Canadians have sufficient funds to be able to afford adequate housing, but as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) indicated, also from the perspective of employment and jobs. 1 mean the jobs that thousands and thousands of Canadians could be filling if the government would only respond to the crisis that faces the people of Canada.
Some people may ask on what basis 1 identify the situation as a crisis. Mr. Speaker, in the last several months I have listened very carefully to the people of Burnaby. In response to a questionnaire which I circulated with a newsletter, 700 constituents have told me how they are affected by the housing policies of the Liberal government. I have also received many letters from constituents outlining their concerns about the housing situation in Burnaby and in British Columbia generally. I have received phone calls and many people have come to my constituency office to explain-not in alarmist tones but often in tones of sadness, despair and with a lack of hope for the future-how they are affected by the housing crisis.
In some instances several generations are involved-the children of my constituents, the young people faced with the tragedy of knowing that there is virtually no possibility of obtaining their own home in their lifetime under the policies of the present government, their parents, senior citizens who are in very serious difficulty. There are long waiting lists for affordable accommodation for senior citizens. This is a very serious concern that the government has failed to address.
Finally, I heard from my constituents at a large housing rally held in a school in my constituency in November last year. At that time men and women, young and old, came from all parts of Burnaby to express their concern and anger about the failure of the government to act on what must surely be recognized as a fundamental social right in a democratic and civilized society-the right to warm, clean and affordable housing.
As I said, my constituents are concerned and they are angry. I am here today to take part in the debate on Bill C-89 in
order to express, on their behalf, their demand that the government take responsible, tough and effective action now-not in the future-to deal with the housing crisis in Canada.
I mentioned the questionnaire which I circulated in my constituency. I do not want to take the time of the House to read all the responses, but I think the minister and the House should hear how my constituents and their families are affected by the government's failure to respond to the housing crisis. A renter in Burnaby replied:
We, a family of 4, have had to move several times to be able to afford the place we live. Still where we live now we are having a very hard time, but we cannot find a cheaper place.
At this rate we will never own our own home and if rents go any higher we won't be able to rent-
A Burnaby home owner who lives on Ewart Street in South Burnaby wrote:
Our payments have jumped from $511.00 to $818.00 per month, almost half our income per month.
They added that extras or home improvements are out of the question for them. Their interest rate went from 10.75 per cent to 21 per cent. Another Burnaby home owner replied:
Both husband and wife must work to maintain home, plus we rent part of our house to a couple to help cover the mortgage, and help the other couple too-
Having a family is out of the question, Mr. Speaker. What kind of sociological impact will the policies of this government have upon Canadian society today? Another Burnaby renter writes:
The chances of my owning a home seem remote. I don't feel the government should deny me this opportunity with their present policies-
Another Burnaby renter from Forest Grove Drive replied:
Can't afford a house as rent etc. has gone up so much in B.C. We have filed for bankruptcy-
A resident of Saturna Drive wrote:
Yes, as a young professional it is impossible for me to expect to be a home owner, given the mortgage rates, despite a reasonably good income-
A home owner on Portland Street in south Burnaby wrote:
Because of the "don't care'' attitude of big business and big government, we will be forced to cut back our retirement dreams in order to pay the bank to keep our homes, while bank profits soar-
These are just a representative example of the hardship being faced by my constituents in Burnaby, Mr. Speaker. Another renter writes:
My rent is roughly 60 per cent of my total income which means I must cut basic and pleasure spending-
The writer adds that his diet has been affected by the housing policies of the government.
That is the devastating effect that the lack of a comprehensive and humane housing policy is having on my constituents in Burnaby. Not only are interest rates unacceptably high, but it is virtually impossible for people to find a home at an affordable price.
I have a few clippings from recent issues of The Vancouver Sun and The Vancouver Province. What is commonly known as a "handyman special" is advertised for $125,000. The advertisement says that if you can overlook some traffic and do
February 24, 1982

a bit of upgrading-and there is not much of a view, apparently-you can get a house for $125,000 in Burnaby. Another advertisement triumphantly claims that the price is reduced by $20,000 to only $259,000 for a basic three-bedroom bungalow in South Burnaby. Another is listed as "builder's own" for $189,000.
There is also a problem with rentals for those people who obviously cannot afford the exorbitant housing prices in Burnaby, which are the highest in Canada. In South Burnaby a two-bedroom basement suite in a duplex goes for $600 per month; a small one-bedroom basement suite with shared toilet facilities goes for $350 a month; in Times Square, overlooking Burnaby's Central Park, one-bedroom suites start at $550 per month; a two-bedroom basement suite at the foot of Simon Fraser University is only $475 per month. The government is condemning thousands and thousands of Canadians in my constituency of Burnaby to totally inadequate levels of accommodation, Mr. Speaker.
The government says, "Let us get on with Bill C-89". The fact of the matter is that if the government was serious and brought forward legislation which dealt in a responsible manner with the housing crisis, we would be the First to support it. Bill C-89 is totally inadequate to deal with the real concerns of Canadians in the housing field.


Mr. Young:: It is the Liberal scheme of caring and sharing.


Svend Johannes Robinson: As the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) puts it, it is the Liberal scheme of caring and sharing.
My constituents are angry and concerned about the government's failure to address what is unquestionably a housing crisis for all British Columbians; they feel a lack of hope for the future.
What is the housing policy of the Liberal government? Perhaps Paul Martin said it best in May, 1968, when he said:
Our housing policy can be summarized in three words: Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
If the summary of the Liberal housing policy is "Pierre Elliott Trudeau", it is further evidence of why we in British Columbia have quite properly rejected any suggestion of Liberal members of Parliament in that particular province.


Mr. Heap:: The Prime Minister himself lives in public housing.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, he is one of the few who is fortunate enough to live in public housing.


Mr. Kelly:: Where do you live?


Svend Johannes Robinson: As I say, it is no surprise that British Columbians have rejected the Liberal party.


Paul James Cosgrove: You are holding up the bill.


Svend Johannes Robinson: There are some calls on the other side defending the policies of the Liberal government. Those
Housing
persons will have the right to stand before their constituents and explain to them why they are losing their homes and cannot afford proper accommodation.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) came out to British Columbia not so long ago. He is my twin in Burnaby. I intend to put before the people of Burnaby the voting record of the Minister of National Revenue on the policies of the government and on the budget. I will let the people of Burnaby decide whether my twin, the Minister of National Revenue, is seriously interested in the concerns of those people. Recently the minister spoke to some Liberals in Burnaby at a convention where he said he could sympathize with westerners who felt alienated because the federal government seems to be so remote and "doesn't always respond to local needs". He called the Liberal government "quite a national government" in the matter of housing. If it is a national government in housing, certainly its policies seem to stop at the British Columbia border. We in British Columbia and we in Burnaby are hurting from those particular policies.
What about the Conservative Party? Some people suggest that while the Liberal Party has failed-and of course they are right-to address the concerns of Canadians in this time of a housing crisis, the Conservative Party may have some answers. Let us look at the policies and the record of the Conservative Party during its short tenure in government. It was not the NDP who threw out the Conservatives; it was the people of Canada who threw them out and no one else. During its short term in government, interest rates increased five times. This hurt small business people, home owners and many other people in the community of Burnaby. I should like to give one example. A large hotel owner in South Burnaby wrote to the then prime minister in a telegram as follows:
Congratulations Mr. Prime Minister Clark. We both are flat broke. You politically, me financially. We all will be out of business very soon. It is impossible for me or anyone to pay 16.5 per cent interest on $2 million on debenture to the Bank of Montreal from business $2.3 million gross take.
You just didn't have heart to nuzzle these interest rate hungry pirates.
P.S. Please don't tell me it is good for Canada and the only way out. I can give you half a dozen ways to keep the dollar where it is today without bankrupting Canadians.
This telegram is reflective of many other people in British Columbia who quite rightly rejected Conservative policies on housing in Canada. The Conservatives took steps to totally dismantle CMHC.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Hurray!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I hear the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) cheering at the suggestion that CMHC should be dismantled. I suggest he should tell the thousands of Canadians who depend on CMHC for adequate housing that he believes it should be dismantled entirely-


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I will tell them what it is costing them.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -and turned over to his friends in the private sector. In a moment I will deal with the friends of

February 24, 1982
Housing
the Conservative Party in the private sector. Of course, its allies in the Social Credit provincial government are trying to dismantle rent controls and have failed miserably to address the serious housing crisis in British Columbia. Their first action was to dismantle the B.C. Housing Corporation shortly after assuming power. The B.C. Housing Corporation was established by the progressive New Democratic Party government in the years from 1972 to 1975.


Mr. Jarvis:: What did the people do to them? It seems to me they were thrown out.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What else did members of the Conservative Party have to say about interest rates? There were some rather enlightening comments on the subject. Hon. members of the House may recall that it was the Conservative government and the Conservative minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who reappointed Gerald Bouey, or "Bouey XIV", as he was called by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae).


Mr. Blais:: He called him "Bouey XVI".


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am sorry, "Bouey XVI". He reappointed Gerald Bouey as Governor of the Bank of Canada. In the summer of 1981 the hon. member for St. John's West said:
Yes, I would continue to back Mr. Bouey ... I agree that our interest rates have to keep track of those in the United States-
This was the Conservative minister of finance agreeing with high interest rate policies.
This is not something in the distant past. The present Conservative finance critic, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), said just a week ago that he accepted the high interest rate policies which government is espousing. He said:
One after another the premiers proposed reducing interest rates, while accepting the inflationary consequences of a lower Canadian dollar. They were convinced that the benefits of lower interest rates and increased economic activity would offset the negative effects of increased inflation.
What did the Tory finance critic have to say about that? He said, "I do not agree with the premiers" that interest rates should be lowered. It is clear the Conservative Party offers no responsible alternative either. Is it any wonder that both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have failed to address seriously the housing crisis in Canada, when one looks at the fact that both parties receive substantial financial contributions from major banks of the country which are the only institutions to benefit from the pain Canadians are suffering as a result of the housing crisis?
I have before me the returns which show the donations made to the Conservative Party and to the Liberal Party.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: How much?


Svend Johannes Robinson: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra asks how much.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: It was $50,000.


Svend Johannes Robinson: It was $50,000 from each of the five major banks in the country; $50,000 to the Liberal Party and $50,000 to the Conservative Party each year.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: A pittance.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra indicates that they want more. 1 am not surprised. I am sure they will probably receive more. Not only do banks support both the Liberal and Conservative parties, but what about big land developers?


Mr. Howie:: What about CLC?


Svend Johannes Robinson: But what about the big speculators in the land? Let us have a look at the documents to see who they support. Nu-West Development Corporation gave the Conservative party $11,000. Deyong Management gave $15,000. Cadillac Fairview Corporation gave the Conservative Party $16,000. Genstar Ltd., major land speculators in Canada, gave $30,000 last year to the Conservative Party. Each and every one of these land speculators and developers also gave money to the party in power, the Liberal Party. They gave a little less. Daon Development gave only $10,800 to the Liberal Party. I guess they are happier with the policies of the Conservative Party, and again that is not surprising.
What we must recognize is that both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are squarely in the pockets of the land developers and speculators in Canada today. It is no wonder that they are so bankrupt when it comes to policies to benefit home owners, renters and workers at this time of housing crisis. It is no wonder they want to remove rent controls in Canada; they have to pay back their friends in the land development community. They are just looking after their friends.


J. Robert Howie: What about our mortgage interest deductibility proposal?


Svend Johannes Robinson: We in the NDP have a different approach to housing in Canada. It is a fundamentally different approach. We say that every Canadian is entitled to clean, warm, affordable housing as a fundamental right, just as they are entitled to health care, to proper education, to adequate diet and to a clean and wholesome environment. In fact, we feel so strongly about this that we proposed an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would recognize these as fundamental rights. Because as Frank Scott put it so eloquently, "the trappings of democracy hang loosely on an emaciated body politic". We need all of them. We need those fundamental rights to proper housing and the other rights that I suggest.
We have a positive alternative for housing. I am quite prepared to put it on the record today. We suggest that interest rates must be lowered, and lowered quickly.


Norman Kelly: By how much?
February 24, 1982


Svend Johannes Robinson: The hon. member opposite asks by how much. 1 welcome his contribution to this debate-and his suggestions as to how far we should be lowering interest rates. What we have said is that interest rates should be lowered to one point above the rate of inflation today. That would have an immediate and dramatic impact on the housing crisis in Canada.
We suggest that banks should set aside a specific proportion of their lending portfolios for long-term mortgages at lower rates, primarily for first-time buyers. Instead of dismantling CMHC, as the Conservative Party has suggested, we believe we should restore the presence of CMHC in the housing sector with the inclusion of an additional $500 million to the capital budget for social housing. That is a minimum. That is a start. It is needed to provide non-profit co-op and rental accommodation. That is just the beginning.
In the province of British Columbia the forest industry is in a state of crisis. Thousands of forestry workers, members of the IWA in particular, are out of work having been laid off, and others face the uncertainty of lay-off in the future. That industry is in a serious slump. It is about time this government came to its senses and recognized that the thousands of construction workers and forestry workers looking for jobs to meet a real need for affordable housing in Canada should be put back to work. Put Canadians back to work to build affordable housing for all Canadians. That is the kind of tough and effective program that we would implement were we in government.
We also believe that federal Crown land should be made available on a leasehold basis for affordable housing. We believe in tough and effective programs of rent control. Some say "Well, you are not in government." I point to the government of Manitoba which has recently announced a major program along the lines I have suggested today that will be of significant help to the renters and home owners in the province of Manitoba.
What about another large group in my constituency, the students? There is a serious problem with student housing, particularly in my constituency of Burnaby in which is located Simon Fraser University, the B.C. Institute of Technology, which is the province's only high-technology training institute, and the Pacific Vocational Institute. BCIT graduates some 1,900 students annually.


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


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member entertain a question?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will entertain a question at the conclusion of my speech, if the hon. member will await that time.
As I was saying, BCIT graduates some 1,900 students annually. It accepts students from throughout the province. It has a student population of about 4,000, half of whom come from outside the lower mainland. There is an on-campus facility for only 250 students. This is not adequate. Each year
2,000	students require housing at BCIT. Many of them who cannot find housing are from rural parts of British Columbia and are denied an adequate education in these very important
Housing
high technology areas. The demand has been increasing over past years. In fact, it would need 6,000 students to meet the demand for graduates from BCIT. It is a very successful institution in our province. BCIT cannot expect to meet its potential if out-of-town students cannot find proper housing in order to attend the institution.
About a year ago the municipality of Burnaby undertook to enforce its illegal suite bylaw. The inspectors swooped down at mid-term. Students at BCIT, PVI and SFU had to persuade the politicians that it would be disruptive to toss out students from these illegal suites. That is the situation we are in. Students are forced to double and triple up in illegal suites in order to find adequate housing accommodation.
The Pacific Vocational Institute had different housing requirements. Many students are trades people who come on campus for a four to eight-week period. They are there for a relatively short stay. They need unique and special forms of accommodation. PVI has approached CMHC for housing. Unfortunately the administration has been told that there is no money available for this form of housing. Right now, PVI needs 350 housing units for on-campus housing. In the very near future it will need 500 units.
Finally, Simon Fraser University, also located in my constituency, shares many of the same problems. Simon Fraser University has a critical situation on its hands. There are over
9,000	students at SFU. On-campus housing is adequate for only a small fraction of those students. There are 210 apartments on campus and a 225-bed dormitory. In September, 1981, 3,200 applicants applied for on-campus housing. There were 300 applicants for 20 beds. Where do the rest of those students go? They either go into substandard housing, basement suites where they are doubling and tripling up, or they are giving up and returning to their communities in despair and being denied the education to which they are so properly entitled.
Simon Fraser University has asked for housing assistance from the minister responsible for CMHC. Simon Fraser University has been told "Not a penny for your student housing."


Norman Kelly: What about the B.C. government?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Hon. members over there try to pass the buck to other governments. They will have their opportunity to speak. The federal government is cutting back on aid to provinces, but hon. members will have their chance to speak and to explain to my constituents and to the students of Simon Fraser, BCIT and PVI why they are denying those institutions adequate housing. Liberal members will have a chance to explain. The administration of those institutions cannot attract faculty because housing is prohibitively expensive if it can be obtained at all. Liberal members opposite can explain all of that. I welcome the opportunity they will have to explain that.


Neil Young: The B.C. government is just as bad.

February 24, 1982
Housing


Svend Johannes Robinson: Obviously the B.C. provincial government, the Social Credit government, has to accept its responsibilities as well.
I have a few more remarks on elements of this legislation that I believe should be changed. There are some serious problems with the provisions respecting mortgage financing. In many instances, Bill C-89 will do nothing but ensure a number of mortgage gimmicks, gimmicks that do not benefit the borrower in the end but which will certainly benefit the wealthy lenders, the banks, friends of the Liberal and Conservative parties.
There are four gimmicks that will be allowed under this bill. First, the interest deferred mortgage, the variable rate or floating mortgage, equity participation mortgages and second mortgages. I do not have time to go into the details of each of these, but there is no doubt that each gimmick does not begin to address adequately the real need for housing in our community. Even the bankers recognize the folly of this government program. I quote Peter Carter, who was then assistant general manager for retail lending and mortgage services with the Royal Bank of Canada:
As a responsible banker, working in a consumer-oriented society, I just cannot agree with a plan that sees the borrower ending up after five years owing more money than he borrowed in the first place.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the Liberal government's answer. That is what they said to home owners who cannot afford their monthly payments-"We will let you defer some of the interest and at the end of the year you will end up owing more than you started out owing at the beginning of the year". That is Liberal economic policy. That is the Liberal government's answer to the housing crisis and we reject it.
I mentioned that one of the areas we would promote is cooperative housing. We do have a concern with respect to the suggestion that the profit-making element may be allowed to move into the co-operative sector, and we are going to be examining carefully the proposed amendments to Section 15.1 and Section 56.1 to ensure that the intent of the co-operative movement is in fact met.


Paul James Cosgrove: They agree.


Svend Johannes Robinson: If in fact the phrasing of those provisions is adequate, Mr. Speaker, certainly they will be supported. However, we want to ensure that this does not in any way permit the commercial profit-making sector to move in on the co-operative area. At the present time, Mr. Speaker, co-operatives have huge waiting lists. We should be significantly expanding this particular sector of the housing market.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the importance of adequate and effective rent controls. 1 could talk about how the present minister responsible for housing has indicated that rent controls must be disbanded. We do not accept that. We have seen the attempts of the Social Credit government in British Columbia to eliminate rent controls, and we reject those attempts categorically. More and more renters are finding that because of rent increases they are moving beyond
the level at which rent controls protect them and they are being gouged. In addition, high interest rate costs are being passed on to renters and rents are escalating very dramatically.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that my constituents are angry and feel a sense of betrayal because this government promised, during and before the last election, that it would be taking effective measures to deal with the housing crisis. No one in my community, no one in the municipality of Burnaby, believes that any of the measures this government has taken, whether it be the disastrous budget, the high interest rate policy or this totally inadquate bill, will begin to address their serious and real concerns.
We have an obligation to hold out hope for the future. We have a great country with great potential, but what are we telling our young people? This Liberal government is telling them: "Forget it; you will not be able to afford your own home". Well, both I and my constituents reject that message. Young people, elderly people, native people, working people generally, all of us, demand that this government finally come to its senses and bring forward a realistic and responsible housing policy which recognizes the fundamental social right of all Canadians to affordable accommodation. That kind of policy will put Canadians back to work in the forestry and construction sectors, and we as New Democrats will be fighting for that in the weeks and months ahead. It is because Bill C-89 totally fails to address those very serious concerns that we will be opposing this bill on second reading.
[ Translation]


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in this debate. I was listening with great interest to what the member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) was saying. I understand that there were some discussions with the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation about co-operative housing, and that an agreement was almost reached. I want to point out to the hon. member that I was very concerned when I heard him say that he does not agree with this bill and that he intends to vote against the bill as a matter of principle, all this in spite of the fact that there has been so much co-operation and collaboration on the part of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) who tabled the bill.

I have heard the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. member for Burnaby debate this bill this afternoon. I got the impression from the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that he supports this bill in principle; at least, he did not say he is going to oppose it. In that he seems to be of the same view as the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), that in effect he is going to support the bill. However, the hon. member for Burnaby in his conclusion said he would not support the bill. I am not surprised. The NDP are like that. They are very contentious and disputatious and oppose most of the measures introduced by the government as a matter of principle.
February 24, 1982


Svend Johannes Robinson: Because they are wrong.


Jean-Jacques Blais: However, what he fails to recognize is that this bill favours British Columbia more than any other province on a per capita basis. Of the 15,000 units envisaged by this bill,
3.000	are going into the lower mainland of British Columbia. So by opposing this bill the hon. member is in effect saying to
3.000	families-


Paul James Cosgrove: Of moderate income.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -"we are not interested in supporting your access to additional housing". He did not address that question, but that is exactly what he is saying.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Nonsense.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Plus all the jobs, of course, created as a result of the use of products from the B.C. forest industry. They are not going to use northern Ontario jack pine or white pine in order to build houses in British Columbia; you can bet your bottom dollar on that.
Having said that, 1 want to commend the minister responsible for housing for the attention he has paid to British Columbia. We all recognize that Vancouver and the lower mainland have had a difficult time in the recent past because of the increasing demand for housing. As was said by a famous American humorist, "Invest your money in land because they don't make it any more." They do not make land in the lower mainland of British Columbia. It takes a long time for the Fraser River to deposit sufficient silt in order to create additional land for use in housing. The lower mainland is a beautiful market for speculators. That is its history. We are attempting to address that as best we can, which is what this bill attempts to do.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, 1 am a bit concerned-less so now because we are going to have time allocation-at the opposition's attitude because 1 get the impression that the members who have spoken on this bill-and I have not had time to read all the speeches-do not really oppose the bill. And they cannot be seen in their own ridings as opposing this housing measure. I say that quite readily. However, it does not seem to stop the hon. members from delaying the passage of this legislation, which frustrates the attempts made by the minister responsible for housing to alleviate some of the concerns and hardships which are being felt in the marketplace.
I am advised that to date there has been a grand total of some 720 cases brought to the attention of the minister. Of those, 384 have been brought by Members of Parliament, and 340 have been brought singly or privately by the parties concerned. A large number of these 720 cases will be dealt with by this legislation. Unfortunately, until the legislation is passed the minister's hands are tied.


William Herbert Jarvis: You are still taking applications, J.-J. Nobody's hands are tied.
Housing


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. gentlemen opposite who are now making noises are the ones who are delaying passage of this bill. I therefore commend the minister responsible for having taken measures under the rules to limit debate and permit passage of this very, very necessary piece of legislation. However, I am not surprised-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: -at that particularly niggardly attitude of hon. members opposite-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Jean-Jacques Blais: -because they have a terrible record when it comes to housing. The hon. member for Burnaby was quite accurate when he spoke about their very negative attitude during that short time, that brief period, when Your Honour and I were on the opposite side looking at the fumbling which was occurring on this side on a daily basis. If Your Honour recalls, during that mindless period there was an attempt by the gentlemen on the opposite side to deal with housing.
There are two items which come to my mind, that stick in my mind, as I am sure they stick in their minds. The first was the commissioning of a report on CMHC with a view to privatizing it. For those hon. members who do not understand the jargon, that means to send out into the private sector, into the glory of private entrepreneurship. What was the target for privatization? It was not the CCI, which was having major problems at the time the Tories had control over it, but, rather, the then central mortgage and housing corporation. That institution, that Crown corporation, had been responsible for the creation of more housing units than any other institution in the whole of Canada. It had been able to integrate and provide more access to housing for Canadians at a time when there was a high demand for housing, namely, in the early seventies, than any other government institution or corporation any place else in the country. They wanted to privatize that, so they hired a political hack, a fellow named Donald Matthews, to prepare their report. Of course, being of the Tory bent, he provided the sort of report that they love to read.


William Herbert Jarvis: Dave Peterson may read this speech.


Jean-Jacques Blais: He said they should privatize CMHC. However, not only did he say that, but he also said, "Let us get rid of cooperative housing. We do not need co-operative, non-profit housing; that is a Liberal invention. It smacks of socialism. We can get rid of that quite easily and return to our old reactionary practices".
That is what the Tories wanted to do. They did not do it because they did not get the time. However, what indirectly caused their defeat, again, was another housing measure. That was the ill-fated mortgage interest tax credit. That was one of their major inventions. Of course, if it costs a fortune now, one can imagine how much the treasury would have lost had they been successful in passing it. However, at the time it was a great Tory idea to favour the wide swath of the middle class which was paying interest rates for all of their friends.

February 24, 1982
Housing
However, they came to the fateful day when they were dealing with that particular measure in this House and they were facing opposition on this side; but effectively they perhaps could have passed that measure. But were they serious about passing it? I have my doubts, because although that measure was available to them to debate and to pass before Christmas of 1979 so that they could go and sell their budget during that Christmas period, they chose not to pass that bill, not to get it accepted by the House, but to-


William Herbert Jarvis: After how many days of debate?


Jean-Jacques Blais: -to go ahead with the budgetary measures.


William Herbert Jarvis: Seven days of debate.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The budgetary measure is that which they
chose-


An hon. Member:: You filibustered.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -knowing full well that they could not pass that budgetary measure but would have to go and defend the budget, the mukluk budget, before the people of Canada. I cannot see that a government with some wisdom would have wanted to be defeated. If hon. members opposite were serious about a housing bill, they should have preferred to pass the housing bill, if they were interested in housing measures, because there was sure defeat pending at the end of their noses. Since they went to the budget, it is undoubtedly because they did not want to pass the housing bill. I suppose it is a bit convoluted to my own way of seeing things, but their rationale seems to be self-evident. They preferred to face defeat rather than deal with the housing bill.


Mr. McCauley:: A Tory syndrome.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I was immensely sorry to see that but I was not surprised, because now, in effect, they have received representations from housing groups in this country, including HUDAC-


Paul James Cosgrove: 


Jean-Jacques Blais: -and the UDI, the Urban Development Institute, which said "Pass that measure". The wise minister responsible for urban-


Paul James Cosgrove: Housing.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -for housing-


William Herbert Jarvis: That is part of the problem: you do not know either!


Jean-Jacques Blais: It said, "As the wise minister responsible for housing has presented it to the House, pass that measure".


William Herbert Jarvis: You put your finger on the problem right there!


Jean-Jacques Blais: "Pass that measure as rapidly as you can because we need that in the housing industry". These fellows are sitting
on their hands over there. Look at them! They are all sitting on their hands-


William Herbert Jarvis: I want to speak.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -waiting for something to happen because, of course, they do not want to present any initiatives of their own. In effect, I feel that housing needs a shot in the arm.

Everybody is agreed on that. As far as housing is concerned, well, I come from northern Ontario, and in my area, there have been substantial lay-offs in the forestry industry because there is very little demand for construction lumber, which has led to production cuts and the lay-offs in question. The House will recall that not long ago, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) announced that a federal-provincial agreement had been concluded with the province of Ontario under which his department will be promoting jobs in the forestry industry in northern Ontario for 2,000 workers who were laid off because of a lack of markets. Obviously, since those markets include more than just the Canadian market, this bill or any other bill, for that matter, will not be able to generate a recovery in the housing market that would increase employment in my area, because the majority of forestry products from my area are exported to the United States, and when their market is slack, this obviously reduces the number of jobs in my part of the country. Mr. Speaker, it is a recognized fact that the main cause of these lay-offs is high interest rates, which in turn are affected by high inflation rates, because if we analyse the situation, the main problem, and everyone will agree, is the high rate of inflation which has been going on for far too long. The government has approached this question by saying that it will bring down inflation. Thus, interest rates will drop and lower interest rates will increase our economic stability, which means that people will be prepared to invest in business and housing. Once those investments have been made, the demand for housing and for lumber used in housing construction will increase and create jobs in my part of the country. Meanwhile, I am most indebted to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who chose my area for the purpose of assisting those people in the north who have lost their jobs because of the labour market situation.
In effect, the agreement that will allow approximately 2,000 temporarily laid-off lumber and forestry workers to continue working in forestry-related activities during the current downturn in the industry was a very good initiative on the part of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It required not only his will and that of the government, but the will of the province of Ontario which provided co-operation, as well as the
February 24, 1982

forest products manufacturers in northern Ontario who recognized that there is now a soft market in the lumber industry.
I am very confident that there is a building demand in the marketplace for housing. There is an increase, not a dramatic but a gradual increase, in the number of family formations. There is a relatively low vacancy rate in most rental markets in Canada. Therefore, there is a demand, but that demand will not be satisfied when interest rates are volatile. It will be satisfied once interest rates are brought down as a result of inflation being brought down and the whole is stabilized. That is the basic aim of the government's policy.
I am very pleased at the initiatives being taken by the minister responsible for housing. However, I am somewhat dismayed at the lack of understanding, comprehension and especially foresight demonstrated by members of the opposition when they speak very briefly in response. I suggest they have no knowledge at all of the real world as it relates to Bill C-89 or to the current economic climate. Let me say that this government is determined to demonstrate leadership and restraint and to recognize the principle of equity in putting new programs in place. I applaud these measures that have been proposed by the minister of housing.
Now, for the sake of clarification and edification of members opposite so that they may more fully understand what these amendments to the National Housing Act will accomplish, let me review some of the proposals briefly.
First, the amendments would allow Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to have a greater impact on the supply of rental accommodation. That is most important. For many years now there have been certain business restrictions regarding the operation of CMHC in the marketplace. These amendments will enable CMHC effectively to resolve these difficulties.
For example, in the recent past premiums charged for graduated payment mortgages were inadequate regarding the business risks involved, and the deteriorating markets over the past four years have not helped the situation. It is to such an extent that premiums even on ordinary NHA home owner loans have been marginally inadequate to cover the risk.
The solution to this problem is before us. The amended legislation would allow CMHC to adjust mortgage insurance premiums and to set them at a level that would be appropriate for the risk involved. It would also allow CMHC the wherewithal to cover the cost and expenses of doing business. In short, CMHC would have the same flexibility with regard to premiums as a private insurer.
The advantages would be obvious, even to the most clouded thinker, and Lord knows there are a lot of clouds on the other side and very little in terms of silver lining.


An hon. Member:: Clouded stinkers?
Housing


Jean-Jacques Blais: I said clouded thinker. "Clouded stinker" would be unparliamentary.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Turn around.


Jean-Jacques Blais: As far as I am concerned, I am showing my best side to those who feel most comfortable with it.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Show a little respect.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I am showing that as well.
Let me raise another important element in the legislation which the opposition has fogged in this debate, the Canada mortgage renewal plan. Between clouds and fog, we are getting the colour of the other side. Allegations have been made that the renewal plan is, in effect, too little and too late. To refresh the memories of members opposite, let us define who needs help the most.
It has been standard operating principle, followed not only by the government but by most major lending institutions in the country, that people should have a gross debt service ratio of not more than 30 per cent. That has been the rule of thumb. I recall that from when 1 was practising law. We talked of 27 per cent to 30 per cent being the gross debt service ratio. This means that Canadians who need help are those families and individuals who have to pay more than 30 per cent of their gross income on payments of principal, interest and taxes, and 50 per cent of condominium charges.
Think about it. This has been the benchmark that has been the guideline for years. Yet if you followed the convoluted rationale of some members opposite, we would be opening up the vault, no matter what the cost, to people who are not experiencing hardship and who can afford to make their payments without help from the government.
We can follow the rationale of the official opposition, the members of the Conservative Party, quite readily. They are the ones who advocated the mortgage interest tax deductibility program which, in effect, did not target any sector of the economy and favoured those with the most.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: They would have loved it in North Bay.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The high flyers borrow a lot of money to buy a $200,000 house. They may pay $120,000 a year on a mortgage at today's 20 per cent interest rates and deduct the whole works from their income. Imagine that! What about the renter? He would have been left holding the bag, the one who would have had to make up the difference.
We believe that the amount available should be targeted to those most in need. Were it not for the frustration that we face from the members on the other side as a result of what they are doing to this bill, we would have had this in place a long time ago.


An hon. Member:: Three and a half days.

February 24, 1982


Jean-Jacques Blais: There have been five days of debate on this bill. The minister responsible told me that is how long he has to sit here listening to the guffaws of frustrated politicians on the other side who today recognize they missed their chance when they could have done something about housing and did absolutely nothing. See you tomorrow.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please! It being six o'clock and pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), I do now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 25, 1982