1982-03-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, the deadline for the filing of income tax forms is only weeks away, yet this year taxpayers and officials in the Department of National Revenue are caught in a horrible muddle. Officials are advising taxpayers to complete their forms as if proposed tax measures contained in the budget of last November were law, or face retroactive charges with interest penalties. Taxpayers following these instructions are also being told that no tax returns Tilled out according to the budget will be processed by the department until the measures in the budget become law. People claiming refunds could be waiting for their money for a long time. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Finance immediately present his tax change measures to the House for debate; Canadian taxpayers must be able to file claims based on actual, not hypothetical legislation, and officials in the Department of National Revenue must have the authority to process these claims.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, the decision of the Department of Agriculture no longer to pay the cost of grading beef, pork, veal and lamb carcasses in abattoirs will have a spiralling effect upon the cost of meat to consumers because they will have to absorb these costs. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the government reconsider this decision which will take added millions of dollars from consumers' pockets in even higher food costs in these already
difficult times of high unemployment, high inflation, and poor economic conditions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, the word is out that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is contemplating a new budget. Since we have been advised that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has funds available for persons who need retraining, and since it is in the interest of Canadians to avoid another disastrous budget at all costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook):
That this House instruct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to provide the Minister of Finance and his departmental bureaucrats with a short course in simple economics and the basics of the free enterprise system, to ensure that the new budget will assist and promote economic recovery in Canada rather than destroy it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the 1950s the Micmac Indians of Newfoundland, instead of being registered as Indians under the Indian Act, have been administered by the province through a federal-provincial agreement, which therefore denies these Indians the right to entitlements under the Indian Act. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):

March 31, 1982
5.0.	43
That this House direct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to take immediate steps to finalize the registration of the Micmac Indians of Newfoundland under the Indian Act and to assume complete responsibility for funding as is done elsewhere in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The NDP government of Saskatchewan last week legislated striking hospital workers in the province back to their jobs, even though they were on a legal strike. I am sure the House will agree that this was a remarkable political somersault by a party which has claimed sole possession of labour support. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent):
That the House condemns the national leader of the NDP and the president of the CLC for their hypocrisy and double standards in not speaking out publicly against this trampling on the rights of Canadian workers by their political colleagues in Saskatchewan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN UNITY
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In western Canada the spectre of separation is a growing movement. One separatist was elected in Alberta, hundreds are turning out to meetings, and it appears the Western Canada Concept will run any number of candidates in the coming Saskatchewan provincial election. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House, rather than condemn the separatists, to form a special parliamentary task force to study the anger and frustration of western Canadians in order that remedial action may be taken by the government to end the threat of secession and keep this country together.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Recent sworn allegations concerning admitted murderer Cecil Kirby raise important issues regarding the limits of acceptable conduct within our criminal justice system with respect to immunity from prosecution. Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
Thai this House recommends that the subject matter of immunity from prosecution be referred to our Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in future for a hearing of all points of view, including whether amendments should be made to the Criminal Code.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker,
I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since Canada is a respected member of the international community for her role in promoting human rights and social justice in the world, and in view of the fact that Canada supports the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in view of the fact that the Government of the U.S.S.R. continues to persecute and imprison numerous Ukrainians for upholding their human rights, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House urge the Government of the U.S.S.R. to take all the necessary steps to release from imprisonment and/or exile the following Ukrainian prisoners of conscience, all of whom were members of the Ukrainian Helsinki Monitoring Group: Yuriy Shukhevych, Lev Lukyanenko, Oksana Popovych, Mykola Rudenko, Ivan Hel, Ivan Kandyba and Rev. Vasyl Romanyuk.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 31, 1982


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.

[Stage Direction]
[Editor's Note: And the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) having entered the Chamber, the House rose and applauded.]
Madam Speaker:: I believe the House has said it all. I do want to wish the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) our warmest welcome and to tell him how much we all love him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker and friends, 1 thank you indeed for your kindness and for welcoming me back here after these long six months. I am very grateful for this opportunity to say a few words of appreciation.
First, 1 want to say thanks to members of my family, to my friends from this House of Commons, and to others who have done so much for me during the past six months. Also, I want to say a word about the people in the hospitals where I spent considerable time. They are the most wonderful people. 1 refer to those at the hospital on Carling Avenue and to those at the hospital on Smyth Road. They have been just tremendous. The doctors, the nurses and the workers have been wonderful and they made me feel that there was a chance, despite my serious illness, that I might come back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have here a piece of paper so 1 would be sure to get the right names. One of my problems, of course, with this illness is that I have a little trouble with my memory, but at any rate I am doing fine.
At the same time, Madam Speaker, having expressed my appreciation of so many people and so much help, and for the fact that what had seemed hopeless now seems to be coming along-at least I can get back here-there are two people in particular whom I would like to mention because of the special help they gave me. Those two people are Norman Smith of Ottawa and Jim Sinclair of Vancouver. About six years ago both of these friends of mine had an illness almost as serious as mine; not to the full extent, but it was the end of everything for
Mr. Knowles
them. Yet somehow the hospitals, doctors and other people helped them to try to make things better.
What did these two men do? One wrote me a letter from Vancouver, and the other came to see me in Ottawa. They did this because they wanted to encourage me to do my best to make it back. I have to say to my friends who know about it that that experience has meant a great deal to me, and I thank in particular Norman Smith and Jim Sinclair.
I thank everyone for the reception you have given me here today. I cannot be here every day because I have to go back to the hospital two days a week for therapy and so on, but 1 will get fully back as soon as 1 can. It means a great deal to me to have the kind of reception you have given me today. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon the House rose a second time and applauded.]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I thought I might add a few words on behalf of members on this side to express our delight at seeing the hon. member back in his seat. The words he has just spoken are reassuring in many ways, but there are two questions which will remain unanswered until he deigns to answer them himself.
1 remember as a young man I read a quotation from, I think it was Sir Thomas Browne, who was speculating on what song the Sirens sang, and what name Achilles assumed when he hid among women. There are now two further questions which historians will have to ask themselves: had the hon. member been here earlier this month-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -would it have happened, Madam Speaker? Or would some "Sermon from the Hill?" by the hon. member have prevented that from happening?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The second question which must remain unanswered is: in view of the fact that members of the Senate kept working whilst we here in this House had interrupted our labours, would those members of the Senate have the approval or the indignation of the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the quotation from Sir Thomas Browne that I have in mind he went on to say that although these are puzzling questions, they are not beyond all conjecture. Well, 1 hope the hon. member, with his regained health and obviously very lively wit and mind, will be able to help historians on their way. In the meantime, we are happy to see him here. I personally am encouraged to see that a man of 73 can maintain that vigour. It is an encouragement to myself and many others.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 31, 1982
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English J

Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I will direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. On August 4, 1977, in this House, the Minister of Finance, who was then the President of the Privy Council, told us that the Alaska natural gas pipeline would create, during its construction phase, 25,000 direct man-years of employment and 220,000 indirect man-years, mainly in the manufacturing sector in central Canada. These jobs were further confirmed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he assured us that he had an ironclad guarantee that this pipeline would proceed.
In view of the continuing delay in the construction of the pipeline, I wonder if the Prime Minister can give this House and the jobless of Canada any ironclad guarantee that they will ultimately be the beneficiaries of the government's promises.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in so far as this government is concerned, I can give that guarantee. We have the evidence given by the government when it moved and permitted the pre-build, which was an indication of this government's commitment to that pipeline. In so far as being able to guarantee the performance of another government, we will do our best to ensure that the spirit with which that agreement was entered into by President Carter and myself will be respected by the present administration.


CONSTRUCTION OF ENERGY PROJECTS
William Herbert Jarvis: Through Your Honour, may 1 draw the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that every major energy project that his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has touched has been a disaster? Alsands and Cold Lake, the magaprojects, have been either delayed or cancelled. Two hundred and twenty-six conventional oil and gas drilling rigs have fled the country, and now the gas pipeline has been delayed yet another time. Can the Prime Minister name any significant energy-related project that will proceed? When will such project commence construction? As a result, how many jobless will be taken off the welfare and unemployment rolls and put to work where they belong and where they want to be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question seems somewhat rhetorical in character.
I would point out to the hon. member that many energy-related projects have begun and are proceeding. The Q & M PipeLines is one example. The hon. member mentioned the tar sands. I think it is premature to say that that megaproject will not proceed. There was an agreement announced yesterday, I
believe, between the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada indicating that they were still seeking a solution. However, 1 would point out to the hon. member that as he knows, in this House, for the past 18 months, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been indicating government support and agreement to the terms requested by Alsands. He will recall that it was the Premier of Alberta who held up that project for the simple reason he gave, that he did not want the Alsands to proceed until the energy agreement was signed. I think, viewed with hindsight, that was a regrettable position taken by the Premier of Alberta.


William Herbert Jarvis: Pass the buck.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. As the minister knows, the automotive quota agreement with Japan expires today with no renewal arrangements in sight. To add insult to injury, the GM-Iraq deal for 12,500 Malibus has fallen through, even after the minister has bragged about that deal for over a year. Now we hear that there was no formal contract, yet 80 million tax dollars are at stake with the Export Development Corporation. Normal procedure or not, I, for one, along with my party and, more important, the taxpayer, find this to be totally unacceptable. Therefore I would like to ask the minister to tell this House how he and his bumbling colleagues in cabinet could endorse the Export Development Corporation's involvement in a deal where there was no formal agreement on this last 12,500 cars-even after the minister's numerous trips to Baghdad.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked a multitude of questions in that one. First of all, it is normal international practice that the export supply agencies insure payment obligations by foreign customers to Canadian exporters, or exporters to a particular country.
In this particular case we have had no evidence that there is a bona fide contract, so at this point in time the Government of Canada and the people of Canada are not obligated for one single cent.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Otto John Jelinek: Although the EDC agrees that it is normal practice, it will be reponsible for $80 million of the taxpayers' money in this regard. I am wondering whether the minister is saying that he expects the taxpayer to foot the bill for $80 million for these blunders. Is that what he is saying?
March 31, 1982

Surely he is irresponsible as an administrator for the government when he allows this deal to go through, patting himself on the back all the year round, without a formal ironclad contract being established. Therefore 1 want him to tell this House, first of all, was he aware that General Motors already filed a claim with the EDC on February 27 and secondly, what is he going to do to save the taxpayers from footing the bill for this $80 million for this funded program that he put together and that the minister has bragged about all the year. I suggest that he has no answers and, if he does not have the answers, could he bring the whole matter to the appropriate committee for proper consideration?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, at this point in time the people of Canada are not obligated for one single cent of this particular transaction. No bona fide contract has been put forward to the Export Development Corporation. Since 1944 the Export Development Corporation, and its predecessor, have insured contracts all around the world on behalf of Canadian exporters. Only once in one year during that whole period have they lost any money. As a matter of fact, 99.6 per cent of all contracts insured are paid for by the customers. The scare tactics used by the opposition, and by the hon. member, as usual are invalid.


FILING OF CLAIM BY GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I have one final supplementary. The minister did not respond to my question as to whether he is aware that General Motors in fact did put a claim in to the EDC on February 27. That is one question to which 1 wanted an answer. Second, if he is so sure of himself, can he guarantee to this House and the Canadian taxpayer that in fact the Canadian taxpayer through the EDC is not going to be responsible for one red cent for the blundering program that the minister introduced as far as this agreement or arrangement is concerned?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, first of all, if the hon. member checks the record, as he very seldom does, he would find that we made only one announcement, and that was with respect to the first 13,000 cars. No announcement has ever come forward from General Motors or from the Government of Canada, or from the Export Development Corporation, regarding the sale of the next 12,000 cars. 1 am aware that General Motors has put forth a claim but, as I said here on three previous occasions, I am advised that they have not forwarded any bona fide contracts and consequently, as far as the Government of Canada and the Export Development Corporation are concerned, at the present time there is no obligation on behalf of the people of Canada.
Oral Questions ENERGY


FUTURE OF ALSANDS PROJECT
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I regret the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not in the House today. Perhaps 1 could direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has repeatedly told this House that there is a limit to how much of the taxpayers' money is to be thrown into the Alsands project. Yesterday the government threw another $8 million into this project, a gift to the corporate oil fraternity, to keep them interested in the project for another month. Oil representatives are saying that because of the drop in world oil prices there is little chance that the oil project can be saved, in spite of the $8 million. 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister when is the government going to admit what appears obvious to everybody else, that unless tremendous and massive tax concessions are granted to the companies participating in the Alsands project, it is not going to go ahead.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that that is the very subject which is, to the knowledge of the House, being discussed between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the persons involved in the Alsands project and the Government of Alberta.
The hon. member mentions the two governments putting money in to keep the project open for discussion one more month. He, of course, realizes that the two governments have a large equity position in Alsands. It is normal for them to want this matter to be resolved in the interests not only of the people of Alberta but of the people of Canada who, as the hon. member points out, include the consumers of energy. This also involves a very high number of jobs which would go with the proceeding of this project. That is the subject matter of the negotiations that are going on which have a deadline of less than a month from now, and which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will report on when he is in the House.


QUERY RESPECTING ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I am certain that the public is particularly interested in the question of how much public funding, regardless of equity, the government is prepared to throw into this project, because Alsands looks risky both in terms of job creation and the per barrel price of oil. Has the government considered taking action on some alternative processes for the same money, such as enhanced recovery, which can produce oil at a lot cheaper per barrel price, and going further into the heavy oil instead of synthetic at Alsands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the price of oil, I think the hon. member would have a good point if he were certain that the price of world oil would forever and a day remain low and not return to the kind of escalation we have known since 1973. That is the basic

March 31, 1982
Oral Questions
question on which everyone connected with the business will have to make up his mind. Do we want to become self-reliant in Canada with oil which might be higher priced than world oil, or will world oil go up higher than tar sands oil? Will we then be happy to have had even this high-priced oil produced in Canada? I repeat, the question is being debated now.
1 find it a bit singular that the hon. member would suggest alternate uses for these funds. I remember I was making that argument about a year and a half ago before progress had been made with the Alsands, and pointing out that there were alternate sources, those that the hon. member mentions, the offshore oil around Hibernia, and the Beaufort Sea oil. There are many areas where we can go.
1 point out to the hon. member that then it was his party, and more specifically the leader of his party, who was saying that if the private sector was not going ahead with Alsands, the people of Canada through the government should be financing and putting money into it. How can he reverse his position so easily with this kind of hindsight? He should consult with his leader who was telling us to put more money into Alsands. He is now telling us to put less.


Mark Willson Rose: As far as reversing positions is concerned, for the past 14 years I have been staring across at the Prime Minister. We have learned something about that. 1 do not agree that we have reversed our position at all.


REQUEST THAT ALSANDS BE MADE A PUBLIC UTILITY
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, despite the business of whether Alsands goes ahead or not, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been running around lately saying that Alsands proceeding was not crucial to self-sufficiency for Canadians by 1990. It seems to be a question of whether it really is necessary to proceed with Alsands. Instead of blindly bailing out the private sector all the time at the taxpayers' expense, will the Prime Minister consider setting up a special small parliamentary task force to examine the alternatives to Alsands and give the commitment that, if it is absolutely necessary for Alsands to proceed and the private sector continues to go on strike, Alsands will proceed as a public utility?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now, Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking that Alsands proceed as a public utility. I once again suggest that the task force that the hon. member refers to should be set up within his own party so that they arrive at a position on this. When they have, we can perhaps begin rational debate.


PROJECTS AFFECTING AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to address my question to the Minister of State for International Trade. The minister has failed this country miserably and has
done damage to jobs in the auto industry due to the lack of positive action. The minister is now a two-time loser. Will he advise the House what project he is working on to strike out for the third time?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, it is rather ironic that a year ago when we won a $100 million contract for the first time in our history with respect to the export of Canadian automobiles, not only did no one in the opposition acknowledge any action by the Government of Canada, but nor would one find any mention in the back classified pages; however, as soon as the contract is lost, all of a sudden it is front and centre with misleading questions. I cannot think of anything that has hurt the Canadian automobile industry more than some of the questions by opposition members that have been asked about the quality of these Canadian products.


EXPORTS OF MANUFACTURED GOODS
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, a year ago it was different than it is today. Now there are 1,100,000 unemployed. We are talking about taking action to create jobs in an industry which employs one out of every six Canadians. Has the minister ever considered, instead of trading our raw materials for other people's finished products, trading somebody else's raw materials for our finished products? I suggest to him that perhaps he go back to the Iraqis and save us $80 million by offering to purchase petroleum from them in exchange for the cars that are sitting on the docks at Halifax.


Mr. Nielsen:: Go back to Baghdad.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is obviously not aware of the fact that over 70 per cent of the goods exported by Canadians are either fully manufactured or in semi-processed form, and not all are in the raw material stage as the hon. member suggests. As the hon. member should know, that is all labourintensive. The hon. member has obviously not paid attention to some of the success stories which the Canadian manufacturing sector has had internationally during the past two years. Half of the trade surplus last year in goods was in the finished form. The hon. member should do a little more research before he makes his statements.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC-THE LAPRADE AFFAIR-DESIRABILITY OF SETTLEMENT WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is directed to the minister responsible for Quebec affairs. The minister will probably remember what is now
March 31, 1982

referred to as the Laprade affair. Since the federal government was committed to paying to the Quebec government the sum of $200 million, provided certain conditions were met, and since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! I think the hon. member should perhaps direct his question to a minister other than the minister responsible for Quebec affairs. I do not think the latter's function has been clearly defined as one on the basis of which questions may be asked in the House. The question itself is legitimate, but I think it should be directed to another minister.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, my question will be directed to the Prime Minister. Is Mr. Joyal the minister responsible for Quebec affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, he is as a matter of political convention but not according to the rules of the House, and I think that is what you must try to explain to hon. members.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REACH AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC
Roch La Salle: It is important for Quebecers to know exactly what the responsibilities are of the minister or member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
In any case, the Prime Minister has heard my question about the Laprade affair and the $200 million the present government had promised to pay back to the Quebec government. Recently, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that he was prepared to settle the matter and it could, in fact, be settled in less than half a day. Would the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, be prepared to give instructions to the minister responsible so that the case can finally be settled and Quebec, provided certain conditions are met, can reach some kind of agreement with the federal government on the $200 million?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 should be glad to accept on behalf of the minister the question and the suggestion made by the member for Joliette. Actually, we need this kind of support and the support of the party to which he belongs. We are going to spend the $200 million in Quebec, as much as possible in that particular area and for energy purposes. We need the support of the member's party because for a long time now, the minister has been meeting with his provincial counterpart to identify
Oral Questions
projects that would be supported by both the Quebec government and the federal government, and we have failed to do so. Since the hon. member is now suggesting that we act unilaterally and that his party supports this position, I am pleased to give him the assurance that we are going to proceed.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER BE CHARGED WITH SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE
Roch La Salle: Thank you very much. Madam Speaker. First of all, I want to make it clear that I never asked the Prime Minister to act unilaterally-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor in order to ask a question.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, that being said, would the Prime Minister, who has shown that he wishes to settle this matter, inform the House whether and when he is going to instruct his minister to settle this matter with the government of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, he has a mandate to do so. I shall repeat for the hon. member, if he has not understood, that the minister has met several times with his Quebec counterpart, that attempts have been made to identify projects worth $200 million, preferably in the energy sector and preferably in the region in question. These attempts have not been successful, and that is an understatement. The hon. member is now asking me to instruct my minister to proceed-


Roch La Salle: -to open the discussion.


Mr. Chretien:: It has been going on for four years!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The discussion has indeed been going on for four years, since 1978-


Roch La Salle: It takes two to tango.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Exactly, like the Constitution where it takes 11-


Roch La Salle: Ten or 11.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member will let me answer, I shall try to explain our position. From 1927 and up to 1981 we tried to get the support of the provinces, and we failed. Is the hon. member now asking us to do something with these $200 million or does he want us to wait a little longer until the PQ government-


Roch La Salle: I am just asking you to negotiate with Quebec.

March 31, 1982
Oral Questions


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the interest and concern generated by private member's Bill C-451 regarding gun control legislation, can the minister say if the government is planning any change to gun control legislation along the lines proposed in Bill C-451 ?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member noted, that bill is a private member's bill.


Mr. Epp:: By a former Solicitor General.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It proposes to tighten firearms legislation. I read the bill. I do not agree with it. It is not government policy. I have no intention of proposing changes to the present legislation.


Mr. Clark:: Are you writing any form letters?


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It arises from last November's budget. I think that the minister recognizes that the changes which have already taken place mean take-home pay of about $300 less per month to thousands of workers. It will mean that to tens of thousands of workers next January. I think that the minister knows that this kind of policy will discourage families in permanent resource oriented communities, whether it is Cassiar or Faro, or any of the isolated communities in Canada. Before we go back to the dark ages of fly-in labour camps, could the minister tell the House whether he would support, as he did last December 1, putting in place a task force to go to a sample of those communities and come back to the House with an informed policy on which we could make a decision?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I take it the hon. member is referring to what we are going to do in terms of the moratorium that extends into December. The situation is that the Minister of Finance did extend the moratorium until December 1. That is the second or third time it has been extended. This has been a positive response to the needs of northerners who made representations to this government that they had to have some relief in terms of a moratorium on the taxation of these benefits, many of which they won under
collective agreements. It was as a positive response to those concerns that the moratorium has been granted.
Rather than the very misleading premise of the hon. member's question, I think perhaps some credit should go to the government for responding in this very positive way to the real needs of northerners. That should be acknowledged.


Mr. Murphy:: Bullshit.


John Carr Munro: The second thing I would indicate to the hon. member is that, yes, I have been delegated the task of bringing together some of the key ministers involved in the northern benefit package. 1 met with the leaders of the labour movement, yesterday, many of whom came from the north. I have heard their views and what they are asking is, in effect, would the government entertain an extension of the moratorium.
As far as those people who get no benefits are concerned- and they acknowledge that there is a real need there in terms of equity because many of them are in the small business community, employees who have no collective agreement-the moratorium means nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Carr Munro: They would like us to develop a policy with respect to them. I indicated that we would look into it-


Mr. Lewis:: Sit down.


John Carr Munro: -and we hope to have a policy in place by the end of the year.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member over here put it in a nutshell, describing that as bovine excrement. I think the policy the minister put forward for north of sixty, that is going to apply to everyone and will be income related, is something that this House would want to examine. There are 550 communities, 450 of them south of sixty. What members of the House want to know, and what the workers in Cassiar and all kinds of communities want to know, is what policies will the minister be bringing forward himself, as well as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and will he have a task force of all parties of this House travel north of sixty and south of sixty to a sampling of those communities so that we can come back to the House and make an informed decision before the House of Commons.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I have always regarded the hon. member as rather an expert on excrement, in view of some of the exchanges we have had in the past. I do not think he listened very attentively, and I will tell him again that we have already received many representations from the union movement and we have received many representations from the mining community. We have received much in the
March 31, 1982

way of well-thought-out documentation in terms of what should be done by members of the House. We are prepared to receive more. There is a task force which is now in place and we are considering having them visit interested parties in the north again prior to a decision being made at the end of the year.


FORESTRY
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Can the minister tell us whether the province of Saskatchewan has applied to his department for assistance in employment in the forest industry under the program recently announced whereby unemployment insurance funds will be used for employment?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I would have to say that we have not yet had a response from the province of Saskatchewan to our offer. However, our officials are meeting and discussing the matter on that particular level. We certainly would hope to enlist the assistance of the hon. member in trying to promote some action by the province of Saskatchewan and other provinces so that we can get people back to work in the forest industry.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL NEGOTIATIONS
Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, since MacMillan Bloedel shut down last fall and Simpson Timber has announced that it will lay off within a week or so about 400, in a community of only 2,400, and peoples pulp, or Saskatchewan Forest Products, are stockpiled until they no longer have any more room in the yard, can the minister assure the House that he will help Premier Blakeney, who loves to spend federal money, expedite any negotiations to help save employed people and avoid unemployment, as well as the embarrassment of Premier Blakeney having a Crown corporation laying off workers during the provincial election campaign.


Lloyd Axworthy: As the hon. member pointed out, Premier Blakeney is otherwise occupied these days. He may not be applying his best efforts and talents to the question of how to employ people in the province of Saskatchewan. I would certainly be prepared to undertake these representations and see if we can get the Government of Saskatchewan to provide work under our new program. I hope that other provinces will also take up this offer. I think it is an important method of achieving something very valuable for Canadian workers.
Oral Questions


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The heading on order in council No. 1305 indicates that it derives its authority from other than statutory authority, which must mean that it derives its authority from Crown prerogatives. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what the limits of Crown prerogatives are in this context. Does he have a legal opinion regarding the limits of this power under the new Constitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would have to look at the particular order and the particular prerogative that is involved. Certainly I am on sound ground in saying that any prerogative, royal or otherwise, can be limited by statute. That would be the position I would take.


AVENUES OF REDRESS
Benno Friesen: 1
have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. As the Prime Minister must know, there is no statute in place for this particular order in council, and it is the cause of some grave concern across Canada that there are no limitations on the regulations because there are no statutes.
The Prime Minister has also said in this House that if anyone is aggrieved as a result of regulations that have imposed hardship on them, for example the internment camp issue, they will always have recourse to the courts. In this Chamber on December 17 the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council enumerated five ways in which citizens could find redress, not one of which indicates that there is judicial recourse. All of them come by way of internal committees within the government. I should like the Prime Minister to explain that particular contradiction.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker I do not see any contradiction. I do not have in mind the five recourses mentioned by the parliamentary secretary but I would easily admit that they do exist, and that there are internal recourses and ways of redress which exist within the administration. Certainly above all that rests the Canadian Charter of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which offers redress, which 1 myself have heard the President of the Privy Council say, and I approve, either by writ of prerogative, whether it be injunction, mandamus, prohibition, or even habeas corpus-all these writs lie under the Charter of Rights. There is also a provision for financial compensation, so all these redresses exist and are supplementary to, I suppose, the ones mentioned by the parliamentary secretary.

March 31, 1982
Oral Questions FINANCE


THE BUDGET-CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE PROVISIONS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Yesterday the Minister of Finance advised the House that after five months of public debate he was proposing the extraordinary measure of introducing draft legislation on the budget prior to referring the budget to the House of Commons in the normal legislative process. This obviously compounds the uncertainty that many Canadians feel about the effect of the changes of the budget and of the subsequent changes on December 18, when they are filing their 1981 income tax return.
Because of the importance of the capital cost allowance to job creation, would the minister advise the House whether he has seen this draft legislation and, if so, would he advise the House whether there are any substantive changes in the legislation compared to the budget or the December 18 changes?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate to discuss communications between ministers in question period. I am surprised that my hon. friend seems to oppose the efforts the Minister of Finance is making to have a more open budget process and to have a better input from the community at large.


Mr. Kempling:: You do not even know if there is a budget, Herb.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the whole point of the question is to try to open up this process so that people who are filling their income tax returns will know what they are dealing with. That is the whole point; people do not know what they are dealing with.


TAXATION OF HEALTH AND DENTAL BENEFITS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Many Canadians are now paying actual taxes on health and dental plan benefits, and many have expressed to me their uncertainty about whether they should continue in the plans because these plans will now be taxed. Would the minister advise the House whether she has seen this draft legislation and, if so, if there are any changes in the legislation that relate to the December 18 changes and the November budget?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I do not understand what the hon. member is talking about.


PREPARATION OF DRAFT BILLS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. We are now some five months down the line from the introduction of this rapidly disappearing budget. Yesterday the Minister of Finance indicated, for what I believe is the first time in Canadian history, that instead of introducing budget legislation now, four months after the event, he is going to introduce draft budget bills to be discussed before he brings the budget before the House of Commons. Will the Prime Minister tell us if those draft bills are ready yet? Has he seen them? Have they been prepared?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I understood the Minister of Finance to indicate the contrary yesterday-that he was proceeding under the Ways and Means motion and that when he would produce a bill in the House it would be for debate, as all bills are. I suppose, without playing on words, that I would indicate my view that every bill is a draft bill until it becomes law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear some doubts expressed over there, Madam Speaker. Let us try to get to the bottom of this one.
If a bill is presented for first reading, the House is seized of it; if it goes to second reading, the debate begins and it can be changed. That is what I understood the Minister of Finance to say-that all budget bills in the past were subject to this particular rule and when they came before the House they could be amended. In that sense I suppose you can say they are draft bills.


DISCUSSION OF DRAFT LEGISLATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this is becoming "Pierre and Allan in Wonderland". It is becoming more and more absurd as we go on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Minister of Finance yesterday, as shown at page 15954 of Hansard, was as follows:
Will he tell the House whether he is considering publishing draft budget legislation before he introduces the budget bills-
The reply given by the minister was that "the answer to the . .. question is yes." That is what he said yesterday.
Today the Prime Minister is saying exactly the opposite. Will he tell the House whether the government, for the first time in Canadian history, is preparing draft budget bills instead of introducing real budget legislation? If so, will the Prime Minister, as the presumed head of this government, if anybody is, tell us whether he has seen this draft legislation, whether it is ready, whether it has been discussed by cabinet, or whether Canadians who are filling out their income tax
March 31, 1982

returns are simply going to have to wait and wait and wait to know what the law is?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not see why the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is getting excited about the question. He has some experience of sitting in the seat of the Prime Minister and I am sure he recalls how bills are put together by cabinet memorandum and by discussion in cabinet. I would be very surprised if he behaved differently from the way I do in this. The actual signature of the bills in bill form generally happens hours, or at most days, before the bills are given first reading. That is the way 1 have always proceeded and that is the way I am proceeding now. It does not mean that the subject matter of the bills and the precise intention of the minister or ministers are not known to cabinet before and are not debated as a result of memoranda being brought forward.


CABINET APPROVAL
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have a wholly new practice here. Instead of proceeding with budget legislation the Minister of Finance, continuing his retreat, is introducing draft budget bills to Parliament. That must have been a government decision although the Prime Minister did not appear to know about it. It must have been a government decision.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons whether the cabinet of Canada has approved the policy announced yesterday by the Minister of Finance to present draft budget legislation rather than the real thing? If so, have those draft bills been prepared? First, did cabinet approve what the minister said yesterday and, second, have the draft bills been prepared?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in all honesty I can only give the same answer. I do not know if the bills have been physically printed out yet. Maybe the Queen's Printer does. 1 do not know, but I do know that the subject matter of the budget bills has been discussed repeatedly in cabinet between the Minister of Finance and myself. Naturally these discussions are privileged. I cannot say whether the bills are physically printed. I know that I will only see them for signature probably moments before they are tabled in the House.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question. Did the cabinet of Canada approve the new procedure of having draft budget bills prepared five months after the presentation of the budget, in place of the submission of real budget bills to the House of Commons? Was that policy decision taken and approved by cabinet?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, obviously the decisions of the Minister of Finance have the support of cabinet. As to what was discussed in cabinet and what particular subject matter came up and when,
I should like to read to the hon. member, because he seems to forget the rules which prevail as to what goes on in cabinet. They are called-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will read them, Madam Speaker:
-you will keep close and secret all such matters as shall be treated, debated and resolved on in Privy Council-
That is the oath of members of the Privy Council which all members of cabinet must take before assuming office. Therefore I do not see any way in which the Leader of the Opposition can expect me to say what goes on in cabinet.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I will not belabour the Chair by asking the same question three or four times in a row. My question is directed to the Minsiter of Transport. Last October 20 when I asked him about making an investment in 30 LRC train sets instead of ten, he said, "Agreed". When I asked when the order would be placed he said, "We will, in the fall". In view of the fact that there will be 300 indefinite lay-offs at the Bombardier plant in Quebec, will the minister arrange for the orders for these new LRC sets to be placed immediately? Is he aware of the fact that if they are not placed before April 8 the price of the train sets will increase?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am very much aware of that fact. In order to place the order I need two things. I need the money from Treasury Board-and this is before Treasury Board now in the capital budget of VIA-and I need a contract between VIA and Bombardier. As my hon. friend said, this is being negotiated now. I have excellent reason to believe that the two actions will come together rather soon.


PASSENGER EQUIPMENT AND HOPPER CARS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, last fall the Minister of Transport said that he would save $100 million by cancelling 21 VIA Rail routes, and VIA Rail is still being starved for cash. In agreeing that they should order 30 more LRC train sets, the minister said that they would be ordering new passenger equipment for transcontinental trains from Halifax to Vancouver. When does the minister intend to call for tenders for those orders to prevent further lay-offs at General Motors and Bombardier? Also, has he made up his mind yet as to when they will order those 1,300 hopper cars in Nova Scotia?

March 31, 1982
Petitions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not think I ever said that I would order rolling stock for the transcontinental route; I do not think I did that. The present concentration, as is well known, is on intercity routes, and that is where our efforts will be made. On the subject of the purchase of hopper cars, the first purchase of 1,280 is a commitment of the government. We are working on it now in order to announce it as early as we can.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the past incarceration of a native person in Nova Scotia who was recently released from prison and about which there now appears to be some question as to the guilt of the individual. Is the minister aware of the case and, if so, is he looking into the matter to see what assistance he may give to this individual?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am. It is a very serious situation. The possibility exists of an Indian being incarcerated for 11 years, and now there is some real doubt as to whether or not he was guilty. I spoke to his father and his lawyer when I was in Cape Breton on Saturday. His lawyer is coming down to Ottawa. He asked that I make arrangements with the Minister of Justice. I have done so, and the Minister of Justice will see him on his arrival. Also I talked with the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the RCMP, who indicated that he is prepared to be, and has been, as helpful as possible.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and eighty-ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) on Tuesday, March 30, 1982, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order while the government House leader is still in the House. A moment ago during question period Madam Speaker intervened in the questioning of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), having come to the conclusion that the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) was not responsible in his portfolio for the subject matter which was being raised by the hon. member.
I have had newspaper accounts brought in announcing the appointment of the Minister of State. A Canadian Press release of today reads:
Joyal, who now will share constitutional repsonsibility with Justice Minister Jean Chretien-has also been given unspecified duties as cabinet spokesman on Quebec affairs.
The question which was being put exclusively involved a Quebec matter. In order that we do not meet this problem in the future, I wonder whether the government House leader would be good enough to table, as he does now with names of ministers, acting ministers and second acting ministers, a specific definition of the responsibilities of ministers of state so that we, as members who have responsibility for framing and posing questions, might determine the proper minister to whom to direct our questions.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: The ministers might like to know, too.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I will take into consideration the suggestion of the hon. member and see whether we can further explain the law to his party. Ministers of state are appointed according to an existing statute. If it needs clarification, I would be glad to try to find some lawyers who will give me an opinion, which I would transmit to my colleague.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am fully aware of how ministers of state are appointed; I need no instruction on that. What the government House leader may have missed, in my request for the sake of orderly conduct of our affairs here, was a request that a precise definition of the responsibilities of ministers of state be tabled. He knows as well as I that those duties and responsibilities are normally designated to ministers of state by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) merely by way of a letter; then we have second-hand information from news releases and news stories. It would certainly expedite our business if that definition were of a more formal nature and on the Table, in much the same fashion as he now tables information on ministers, acting ministers and second acting ministers.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I understood very well the question asked by the hon. member, and that is why I answered it as I did. I do not have much to change, except to remind him that it is not the practice to table an explanation of regional responsibilities of any minister because-
March 31, 1982


Erik Nielsen: I was not referring to regional responsibilities.


Yvon Pinard: -they cannot be asked questions in regard to their responsibilities as regional ministers. If the hon. member is talking about ministers who are responsible for a region which is called the province of Quebec, that is something else.


Erik Nielsen: No.


Yvon Pinard: In any case, my first answer stands. If he needs clarification on the law, I will see that it is given to him.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, every time the government House leader rises he throws more sand about. I am not asking about regional ministers and their responsibilities. I am asking about responsibilities which are imposed upon ministers of state by the Prime Minister. In this case, according to news reports, the Minister of State under discussion has two responsibilities. One responsibility is that he will "share constitutional responsibility with Justice Minister Mr. Chretien''. The other responsibility is that he has "been given unspecified duties as cabinet spokesman on Quebec affairs". That is only a news report. Surely as members we are entitled to know what defined responsibilities the Prime Minister has seen fit to impose upon the Minister of State.


Walter David Baker: If any responsibilities.


Erik Nielsen: That is the information I am asking for.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have nothing else to add to the answer that I have given to the hon. member. If he wants clarification, I will see if some clarification can be given to him. Once again, with respect to regional responsibilities-


Erik Nielsen: It is not regional.


Yvon Pinard: -hon. members cannot ask questions of a minister on his regional responsibilities.


Erik Nielsen: No, it is not.


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the responsibilities of ministers of state are concerned, they are provided for by the law and the practice in this place. If my hon. colleague needs clarification, I will see that he gets clarification.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on this very important point, will the government House leader or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), whom we see in the House, tell us whether there are any duties performed by the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) for which he is answerable to the House of Commons and, if so, what are they?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the minister to whom the hon. member refers has the same responsibility as any other minister of state appointed by the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I do not see why he asks this question. It seems to me that it is not the first time a minister of state has been appointed by the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, perhaps if it were allowed, we might ask the Minister of State what it is he does, for which he can answer to the House. The government House leader has just said the Minister of State in this case is in the same position as, say, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, (Mr. Fleming) and, say, the minister responsible for the status of women. On those particular matters we know that we can direct questions relating to multiculturalism and relating to the status of women. But we have been precluded today from directing a question to the Minister of State responsible for Quebec affairs-I presume that is why he is there-on a matter that pertains exclusively to Quebec. The minister will not tell us what the duties of the Minister of State are. I repeat my question again, it is very simple: is there any duty possessed by the Minister of State, for which he is answerable to the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I apologize. I did not know that this point of order was on a question in which I was involved earlier. I have listened to the last answers given by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). I have very little to add except to point out, in answer to that last question posed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that there are cases where a minister of state is assigned specific duties under the Financial Administration Act or under order in council to assist a minister who has a portfolio under an act of Parliament. There are also ministers of state-they used to be called ministers without portfolio-who have no such responsibilities. Madam Speaker. They are there to assist from time to time in areas where the Prime Minister so designates them. These ministers without portfolio, under the rules, do not have to answer questions in the House.
The argument of the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that the minister of state responsible for Quebec would have to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) would lead to the ridiculous conclusion that the minister of state, so-called responsible for Quebec, would have to answer every question which concerns Quebec. I think the Speaker quite properly redirected the question posed by the hon. member for Joliette to myself. Obviously, I have to answer for all ministers, and I have to answer in cases where the minister is absent and he is not replaced by an acting minister or by a parliamentary secretary. What is a minister without portfolio?


Erik Nielsen: What does he do?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They have existed from time out of mind. I am now asked by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) what he does. He has a regional responsibility, much as regional ministers do.


Erik Nielsen: That is fine.

March 31, 1982
Privilege-Miss MacDonald


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) for instance, is a regional minister. He has the over-all responsibility for organizing the Quebec caucus of ministers, and so on. But he cannot be interrogated in that particular area. He can only be asked questions regarding his portfolio, the portfolio of energy. The minister without portfolio, the hon. member of whom we are talking, has no administrative responsibility under the law. He has a political responsibility, as is the case with ministers of portfolio named since the beginning of parliamentary times, both by Conservative and Liberal governments.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, before the Prime Minister leaves the House, could he clarify the situation in which we seem to have a minister who is not only without portfolio but without any responsibility? Will he tell us-and he must know-what duties he has assigned, as Leader of the Government, to the minister of state for Quebec? Would he tell us, either today or in a written submission tomorrow, if he has to consult records, on what questions the minister of state for Quebec is accountable to the House? In what areas can questions be properly directed to that minister, or is he simply a silent minister-
[ Translation]
One of the silent ministers, with a title that is silent as well. [English]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 think the Leader of the Opposition is deliberately trying not to understand. The hon. member is a minister without portfolio. As I understand the rules of the House-maybe, Madam Speaker, you should be called upon-but no, 1 understand this is not a question of order, it seems to be just a political debate. The Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) does not have any administrative responsibilities under the laws of this Parliament or this government; he has political responsibilities. That is quite simple. 1 understand the Leader of the Opposition has some political responsibilities too, a few, and so do I, Madam Speaker. These political responsibilities, as I understand it, cannot be subject to questions in the House. The hon. member cannot ask me a question about how I am organizing the party in the west.


Erik Nielsen: What party?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The western Canada party. It seems to be harming the Conservative Party out there a great deal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is the answer, Madam Speaker.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MISS MacDONALD-ALLEGED MISLEADING STATEMENTS OF MISS BEGIN
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, of which I have given you notice and which you indicated to me that you were
prepared to hear under Standing Order 17(2). It concerns misleading statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) as reported in Hansard on March 22, 1982, on which day she was allowed to answer three questions. These questions appear in Hansard at pages 15666, 15667 and 15671 and they dealt with the status of Indian women. In her replies to those questions, the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that no Indian woman had lost her status during her time in cabinet. Subsequent to that, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) indicated through the press that the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was incorrect. Indeed, 1,810 Indian women have lost their status between 1976 and 1980. In a press release, the minister commented that what Madam Begin did was to equate enfranchisement-the right to vote-with status. I understand the minister was confused between enfranchisement-the right to vote-and the loss of status. That does indicate her confusion and the extent of it, because the loss of status is a much more serious question than the loss of the right to vote, serious as that right is. The loss of status means the loss of culture, the loss of identity and the loss of being as an Indian person. She indicated to the House that no such loss had occurred to any Indian woman during the time she had been a cabinet minister. I ask, Madam Speaker, that the minister rise in her place-and I quite understand her confusion-and correct her statements for the record in Hansard. She could have done that previously, but I would like her to do it now.
My question of privilege is that there has been a misleading statement made here in the House which we would like to see corrected. As long as it remains on the record of the House of Commons, it is indeed a question of privilege which concerns all Members of Parliament who have been misled by a minister of the Crown.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I support what the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has said. If you look at the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) as reported on page 15667 of Hansard, you will find seven instances of remarks which reflect upon the member asking the question, such as:
The hon. member has made innuendoes that are not acceptable, beginning with a false quotation which I would like him to check and correct . .. the hon. member should state the complete situation .. . the hon. member's questions are among the most dangerous ones I have ever heard in the House-
We have waited, Madam Speaker, for the minister to come forward with the truth and set the record straight. If you do not allow this question to be put to the minister, then the record will stand as condemning members on this side with those words. The reason we ask that you allow this question to be put is to set the record straight. Hansard is the history of this House, and we do not want these remarks to remain on the record in their present form.
March 31, 1982


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I have had an opportunity to examine the statements made with regard to this matter, and I think it is unfortunate that the question went as far as it did. In looking at your comments I see that you were trying to be generous because you were not at first clear as to whether or not the question did in fact fall under the jurisdiction of the minister. Beauchesne's states in Citation 359(10):
A question ought not to refer to a statement made outside the House by a minister.
That is the first point on which we seem to have got off the track. Citation 359 also says in part:
A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the specific minister to whom it is addressed-
And then Citation 359(6) says:
The minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his present ministry-
On page 329 of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May it
says:
Questions to ministers must relate to matters for which those ministers are officially responsible.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that that ends the matter. I think you have disposed of this matter according to Beauchesne's, Erskine May and according to precedent. I see no other solution, unless we are to break with all tradition and precedent of parliamentary procedure.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, you will recall that what gave rise to this question was a speech by the minister made in Vancouver where she said it was her responsibility and that of other female members of cabinet to approve certain orders in council which affect the status and rights of native women. It was on the basis of her responsibility that this question was asked, because in her speech she said no Indian person had lost her status in the time that she, the minister, had been discharging this responsibility in cabinet.
The minister explained to the audience in her speech, quoted in the House, what her direct responsibilities were. Obviously she was confused, and she should have the opportunity to clear up this matter on her own behalf and on behalf of native people.


Madam Speaker:: I think I made it quite clear in my intervention the other day that I was in doubt about whether or not the question should be allowed, but I let it go because things do happen very quickly in question period. I now know for sure that the question should not have been allowed to be directed to that particular minister. It might have been allowed to another minister, but not to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) because it was not within the realm of her administrative responsibilities. I let it go and the procedure did suffer a bit because it ought not to have been allowed. I do regret that and ask the indulgence of the House.
There was a question posed, not repeated today, that since I had allowed those questions then, should I not allow the
Privilege-Miss MacDonald
questions that were asked yesterday. The fact that there was a slip in procedure on one day of course does not mean that the rules of the House should be altered. Therefore, since I was very sure that the questions yesterday did not relate to the administrative responsibilities of the minister, I did now allow them. I repeat, the questions might have been directed to another minister whose responsibility it is to answer them.
As to the question of privilege put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the fact that the statement might be judged to be misleading by a member of the House, of course, does not constitute the basis for a question of privilege. That is a matter of judgment. The hon. member might feel it is misleading, as is her right, but it is a matter of judgment and does not constitute the basis for a question of privilege. The only circumstances under which that might be considered to be the basis of a question of privilege is if the statement had been deliberately misleading, and that charge would have to be made.
The minister might want to make a statement-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: -somewhere, either in this House or somewhere else, to clarify the statement, if she feels she should do so. However, that is her choice, and I have no authority to force the minister to make that statement.
Therefore, on those grounds, I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege in the question raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, you have just ruled, and the House naturally accepts your ruling. However, we have had a rather difficult situation created here. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), in responding to questions-indeed, as you read Hansard you will see that she asked that questions be directed to her. On page 15671 of Hansard, where I was directing a question to the appropriate minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is reported as saying:
Ask me.
In other words, she invited the House of Commons to direct those questions to her. That is very clearly on the record. Indeed, some of us are particularly concerned about the aspersions cast by the minister, in her response, upon hon. members on this side of the House. Her response was an illegitimate response under a strict rendering and reading of the rules. It is, nonetheless, on the record. It is, nonetheless, an aspersion cast upon hon. members on this side of the House which the facts do not merit.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has it within her power, if she acts gracefully, to rectify the situation. When we were putting questions, she said to me, "Ask me the question". As one hon. member of this House to another, I

March 31, 1982
Privilege - Miss MacDonald
would now like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to accept her responsibilities, to follow the courtesies of this House and to extend an apology to those hon. members whose names, perhaps inadvertently, she called into question.


Mr. Paproski:: There is your chance, Monique.


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) knows that this kind of language is constantly used in the House. It is not the first time, and it does not really constitute the basis of a question of privilege. This kind of language is used in debate, and as long as it does not go beyond what is considered to be parliamentary language, I cannot force the minister to withdraw any of those words. If the hon. minister feels that she should withdraw the words she may do so, but it is up to her. However, at this particular point I do not feel I can oblige the Leader of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, he did not ask me to do it. He was only addressing himself to the minister. However, I just want to correctly state for the record that there is no strict obligation for the minister to withdraw her remarks.


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps this is a hypothetical question and, consequently, not one which can be dealt with. However, if the language used by the Minister of National Health and Welfare had been language which the House would normally hold to be unparliamentary, would the fact that she was answering in an illegitimate capacity preclude us from setting the record straight?


Madam Speaker:: I would not think so, frankly. Unparliamentary language, as it is spoken, should be a matter for redress. Today, if the hon. minister has chosen to answer, for instance, some of the hon. members who intervened on a question of privilege, I could have allowed the hon. minister to reply. Now the problem has shifted to one of a question of privilege, and any hon. member of this House involved in a question of privilege is free to reply or not to reply.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, there is another dimension to this problem.


Madam Speaker:: Is this a legitimate point of order or is the hon. member just continuing the debate on this particular question? 1 want the hon. member to really consider that before he rises again.


Frank Oberle: It may be a new question of privilege. Madam Speaker, I really think there is a new dimension to this matter or another dimension which Your Honour has not considered.
Your Honour will recall that, following the exchange between the minister and my colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), I did address the same question to the appropriate minister. It is quite clear to everyone in the House that there is a requirement for an order in
council before the status of an Indian person is denied or cancelled. I asked the minister responsible for native affairs in this country who it was that had signed the order in council to disenfranchise, to remove the status of 1,810 Indian women from 1976 to 1981. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said she did not sign the order although she had been responsible all those years. That question has not been answered, and we have a right to know the answer.


Madam Speaker:: That is debate. That does not enter into the realm of a question of privilege. The hon. member might ask questions in subsequent days at the time of the question period concerning these matters on which he wants to elicit information. However, this is not a question of privilege.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the folloing bills, namely, Bill C-99, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1982; and Bill C-100, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1983.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
March 31, 1982
Madam:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Bertha Wilson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 31st day of March, 1982, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Madam, Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de
Lotbiniere



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from approximately 170 citizens
March 31, 1982

of the City of Toronto who are in opposition to the proposed testing of the Cruise missile in Canada.


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. 3,448, 3,622, 3,688, 4,051 and 4,124.


Mr. Herbert: Did the Department of the Secretary of State finance in whole or in part the publication of the November, 1981 "Canadian Studies Bulletin" and, if so (a) how many copies were printed and to whom were they distributed (b) what is the objective of the financing of this and similar publications?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: The November 1981 issue of the "Canadian Studies Bulletin" was financed by the Canadian Studies Office of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges. The office has received grants from the Secretary of State Department under the National Program of Support for Canadian Studies.
(a)	Three thousand copies were printed and distributed, largely to faculty members in the colleges, institutes and CEGEP's of Canada. Each issue is also mailed to selected individuals in provincial ministries of education, universities, and to members of the federal Parliament. The publication is designed to address issues and areas of interest to educators in post-secondary non-degree-granting institutions.
(b)	The department's objective in financing this kind of publication under its Canadian Studies Program is to disseminate and promote existing resources and information about Canadian materials, and to provide a pan-Canadian platform for the discussion of national issues which concern Canadian educators. More broadly, the program is designed to increase and disseminate knowleldge about Canada by supporting the efforts of organizations and individuals working with all levels of formal and continuing education.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In the fiscal year 1980-81, what amount was paid under the student loan program to (a) lending institutions (b) collection agencies?
2.	Do the lending institutions and collection agencies record the student loans by home, province or university location of the student at the time of the making of the loan?
3.	Did the answer to question No. 2,474 state "it is not possible to separate these budgetary allocations by province" and, if so, does the government take any additional steps to ensure reasonably equal accessibility to student loans on a regional basis?
Order Paper Questions
4.	In the fiscal year 1980-81, what was the estimated value of the tax points transferred to Quebec in connection with the program and docs the $17,452,507 transferred in 1980-81 contain any equalization of the tax points transferred?


Gerald Augustine Regan: 1.	(a) $36,298,427.66 (b) $ 3,224,927.70
2.	Lending institutions record the home address of the borrower at the time of making the loan. Collection agencies record the address of the borrower at the time the debtor is contacted after defaulting on a loan.
3.	Yes. Under the Canada Student Loans Act provinces are allocated a portion of the basic loan provision made under the act in the ratio that the 18-24-year-old population in the province concerned bears to the same population in Canada. In addition the act provides for supplementary allocation of 30 per cent of the basic loan provision from which allocations may be made to any province which may exceed its basic allocation due to regional factors and provided it has followed the agreed criteria for assessing applications. Financially needy students have, therefore, access to student loans.
4.	The alternative payment to Quebec is calculated on the basis of the costs (interest charges, net loss claims, death claims, and amounts paid to lenders for collections) of operating the program in the preceding year. The actual payment is determined by applying the ratio of the 18-24-year-old population in Quebec to that age group in the rest of Canada. There is, therefore, no transfer of tax points to Quebec under this program.


Mr. Herbert: Did the Department of (a) Employment and Immigration (b) Regional Economic Expansion (c) Industry, Trade and Commerce offer assistance to Du Pont of Canada Ltd. in an attempt to avoid the plant closing at Coteau-du-Lac, Quebec and, if so, what was the form of the assistance?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows:
(a)	The commission has offered to establish a joint labour-management consultative committee under the sponsorship of the Manpower Consultative Service (MCS) to assist the workers affected by the closure of the plant at Coteau-du-Lac, Quebec. The MCS committee would attempt to find jobs for the workers and explore other labour adjustment measures, such as retraining and mobility assistance.
The company is presently considering this offer. In the meantime, counselling, job search assistance, training, mobility, unemployment insurance and other CEIC programs and services are available through the Canada Employment Centre (CEC) in Valleyfield, Quebec. The Valleyfield CEC is working closely with company representatives.
(b)	No.

March 31, 1982
Order Paper Questions
(c)	No.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Is there now or was there recently a Statistics Canada survey relating to home security in Halifax, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) what is or was its purpose (b) what questions are or were being asked?
2.	Are or were questions involving salary and personal habits necessary for the survey and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Who has or will have access to the information provided by the respondents?
4.	How many persons in Halifax are being or will be asked the questions and how many persons responded to the questions?
5.	Are or were the questions being asked in other cities or areas and, if so (a) which cities or areas (b) how many persons responded?
6.	Are steps being taken or will steps be taken to ensure confidentiality of the responses and, if so, what are such steps?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports:
1.	(a) Statistics Canada conducted a survey related to the effect of crime on the population (victimization) during the period January 14 to February 26, 1982. The survey included in its coverage Halifax and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. It contained some questions concerning home security or crime prevention. The survey was conducted for the federal Department of the Solicitor General and its purpose was to obtain information on the frequency and distribution of certain crimes, their impact on victims' perceptions of their experience, their needs and concerns.
(b) The survey included questions about respondent characteristics (age, sex, marital status, income range, etc.) and questions on the respondents' perceptions of the prevalence of crime in their city and neighbourhood, on their attitudes toward the police, and on their use of crime prevention measures. If the respondent had been the victim of certain crimes during 1981, details were collected about each crime, including information on injuries, loss and damage.
2.	The questions concerning personal habits, income and demographic information were necessary and important in identifying the risk of being the victim of a crime for various groups in the population. Previous research has shown that information on personal habits is closely related to the risk of crime.
3.	Statistical information will be made available, in a form that guarantees the confidentiality of respondents, to the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, to local police departments, and to any person or organization interested in the data.
4.	In the Halifax-Dartmouth area approximately 10,000 households were contacted and although final information is not yet available the response rate is expected to be between 85 and 90 per cent.
5.	(a) The survey was conducted in the greater Vancouver region, the cities of Edmonton and Winnipeg, metropolitan Toronto and Montreal, Halifax-Dartmouth and the city of St. John's.
(b) The number varies by city but in total approximately 70,000 households were contacted. Some 58,490 interviews were completed of which 8,800 approximately were from Halifax-Dartmouth.
6.	The information is being collected under the authority of the Statistics Act which obliges Statistics Canada to safeguard the confidentiality of information provided by respondents. Survey data will be handled only by employees sworn to secrecy under the Statistics Act, and the data will be processed in such a manner that absolutely no information will be released which would allow individuals to be identified.


Mr. Neil: Is $5 million in wheat being supplied through the Canadian International Development Agency to help feed Afghan refugees camped along the northwestern border of Pakistan and, if so, what was the price per bushel paid to the Canadian Wheat Board?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes. The price per bushel paid to the Canadian Wheat Board was $7.


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for the production of paper No. 49, standing in the name of the late hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt).


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Cossitt:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, memoranda, records of telephone conversations, etc., between the minister responsible to Parliament for CBC and any senior officials of CBC for the years 1977 to 1980 inclusive.
March 31, 1982
Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: The present Minister of Communications has the responsibility to produce information with regard to transactions conducted only during his term of office which started on March 3, 1980. Elowever, included in the requested material are papers which relate to responsibilities of the government and the minister pursuant to Sections 41 and 44 of the Broadcasting Act, concerning the corporation's acquisition of real property and the making of its bylaws. Release and publication of such material would be inconsistent with the responsibilities given by Parliament to Crown corporations, in particular the CBC. Since the CBC's creation in 1936, Parliament has maintained a custom of not requiring a response to questions which pertain to the details of the corporation's internal management and administration. I would therefore ask that this motion be withdrawn.


Erik Nielsen: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, if you will call all motions in my name Nos. 76, 86, 95, 96, 97 and 98, I will request that they be transferred for debate.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 97 in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is acceptable to the government.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the rest?


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the other notices of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I believe the hon. member for Vaudreuil mentioned three or four notices of motions for the production of papers, not just one. Does the government accept all of them?


David P. Smith: Well, the hon. member for Vaudreuil is free to request that those motions be transferred for debate if he so desires. That is a decision that he must make.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, things have been going so fast here. Was the notice of motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil which has been accepted by the government one of those which the hon. member for Vaudreuil has requested be transferred for debate and which was the subject of the Chair's direction?


Harold Thomas Herbert: As I understand it, Madam Speaker, after 1 requested this, the parliamentary secretary suggested that Motion No. 97 was acceptable to the government. 1 assume
Motions for Papers
under those circumstances the motion will be accepted and that the other motions will be transferred.


Erik Nielsen: I thought that was the state that we had reached, Madam Speaker. I am afraid the parliamentary secretary has hoisted the member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). The action had been taken by the House in transferring all the motions for debate. Then the parliamentary secretary comes along and wishes to produce. That is fine with us, but I think the appropriate time for it to happen would be when the motion comes up for debate. I suggested it cannot happen now. We would have no objection to the provision of the information to the member, but I do not think the precedent should be set at this time.


David P. Smith: With respect to my hon. friend, the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I believe that he is making a mountain out of a molehill. 1 thought it was appropriate for the House to know that motion No. 97 in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) was acceptable to the government. If he prefers to have it transferred for debate, that is a decision which presumably he can make. He is capable of making that decision.


Madam Speaker:: My understanding was that Motion No. 97 was accepted and that the other motions mentioned by the hon. member, namely, Nos. 76, 86, 95, 96, and 98 were transferred for debate. Is that correct?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all amendments since October 1977 to the book "Project Evaluation-Perspective and Methodology" of the Canadian International Development Agency.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 76-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the latest signed agreement between the government and the province of Quebec under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Transferred for debate.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all questionnaires given to public servants and all studies made by the Treasury Board in 1980 and 1981 in connection with day care centres.
Transferred for debate.
[Stage Direction]
March 31, 1982
Housing
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 95-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 regulations of the Canada Post Corporation pertaining to the receipt of mail by persons living in towns who are not entitled to postal delivery at their residences.
Transferred for debate.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 96-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 government and the representatives of airline companies in connection with the division of landing rights and other services between Dorval and Mirabel airports in Quebec.
Transferred for debate.
GOVERNMENT STUDIES CONCERNING USE OF GENERIC DRUGS Motion No. 98-Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all government studies completed in the past five years concerning the use of generic drugs.
Transferred for debate.
Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove).
Madam Speaker:: I have examined the motions in amendment to Bill C-89 and I would like to inform the House that Motions Nos. 1 and 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), should be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out line 20 at page I and substituting the following therefor:
"sisting of one or more houses or homes, one or".
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, be amended in Clause 25 by striking out line 29 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"sition of his home, including floating homes, for a term that has".
She said: Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to draw to the attention of members of this House a housing need they have probably overlooked when dealing with Bill C-89, that is, the need for floating homes. Most members of the House are spared the ecstacies of west coast living, flowering Japanese plum blossoms and daffodils already in full bloom.


An hon. Member:: And crocuses?


Pat Carney: There is also the ability to use the coastline and the sea as your marine lot.
In moving this amendment, Mr. Speaker, I would like to identify the objective of Motion No. 1 which is to make financing more easily available to residents of floating homes.
The objective of Motion No. 2 is to ensure that the residents of floating homes are eligible for assistance from the federal government in times of soaring interest rates, under the same conditions that all other home owners are eligible for assistance under Bill C-89. This would make this program more equitable.
I would like to point out that floating homes are indigenous to the east coast and the west coast and they are part of our Canadian lifestyle.
Floating homes are becoming increasingly popular as land prices rise and the supply of land dwindles. There are close to 1,000 houseboats and live-aboard boats in the lower mainland area, many of them in my riding of Vancouver Centre.
The major obstacle to the development of floating home communities is the expense of financing. Conventional mortgages are not available. Most people must take out shorter term chattel mortgages or consumer loans at interest rates as high as 21 per cent. This causes great hardship to many people.
1 would like to refer to a letter written to me by one of my constituents who lives on a live-aboard boat, who wrote: "From the mouth of high-ranking Liberals I have heard that no Canadians would be forced to leave their homes because of exorbitant interest rates. 1 am about to lose my home for precisely that reason." This person goes on to detail the increase in mortgage rates from 11.5 per cent to 21 per cent and how even though she and her husband are in the high income group-they are both teachers-they feel they cannot continue. She concludes by saying: "I am appealing to you to bring our case to the attention of anyone whom you can think
March 31, 1982

of who could offer some relief and keep us from losing not only our home but the dream of a lifetime."
Private lending institutions have told me that one of the major reasons they do not arrange mortgages for floating homes is that no mortgage insurance is available for them. Therefore, I seek to amend Bill C-89 through Motion No. 1, to enable Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide mortgage insurance for floating home developments.
The purpose of Motion No. 2 is to extend the coverage of the interest deferment plan to include floating homes. Since this government has said that it does not wish to see Canadians lose their homes because of high interest rates, I believe that the owners of floating homes should be eligible for this new program along with other Canadian home owners.
Some members of the House may believe that these amendments are so limited in their application that they are not worthy of consideration, but 1 would argue that it is the purpose of our institutions, including the House of Commons and our banks, to be sensitive to our needs and to accommodate them wherever possible. In particular, Mr. Speaker, a country such as Canada that is bordered by three oceans needs to be aware of the issues which arise on its coasts. Also, a country such as Canada with a growing shortage of affordable housing should also be prepared to consider ideas that would help to meet housing demand.
I would like to list some of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why floating homes should be encouraged. One is the availability of serviced land for housing development, which is very limited in the lower mainland. According to the greater Vancouver regional district planners, Vancouver is land short, as members from Vancouver are well aware.
Second, land prices are very high and house prices have skyrocketed. In fact, housing prices in Vancouver are the highest in the country, with the average single family dwelling selling for $127,000 and the average condominium for about $92,000 in February, 1982, according to the Vancouver Real Estate Board.
A third reason why floating houses should be encouraged is that water is plentiful. The fourth reason is that house boats are cheaper to build than conventional houses, because, for instance, a two-bedroom 900 square foot house boat, including its water lease, could retail for as low as $85,000-which is at the bottom of the market for Vancouver housing.
Floating homes are good for starter homes or for older couples whose children have left. They would, therefore, help to satisfy part of the housing market.
To be realistic, Mr. Speaker, floating homes will never provide any great deal of housing but they are prime sources of satisfaction to people who choose to make their homes on the water. There have always been people who want to live on the water, ever since Vancouver began as Coal Harbour. In fact, in Vancouver in the early days there used to be quite a floating community, complete with a floating brothel and a whiskey factory. It is traditional for cities on the water, such as London
Housing
and Amsterdam, to have people living on the water. Therefore, this should not be looked on as something strange and new.
In dealing with Vancouver, I would like to make some major points. The first is that this concept of floating homes is technically possible in Vancouver. We have developed sewage systems for house boats. Also, it is physically possible in Vancouver. It is estimated that between 10,000 and 15,000 units could be accommodated in the Vancouver-Victoria area. It is also administratively possible, for the greater Vancouver Regional District has devised construction standards and a model municipal bylaw. It is environmentally possible; there are health codes and fire codes to which house boat communities must conform.
However, the status of floating homes is very vague. Governments do not seem to know what to do with floating homes. For instance, the federal government seems to be in conflict. Revenue Canada treats floating homes like a house. In 1977 the federal government ruled that registered home ownership savings plans could be applied to floating homes; but Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not insure mortgages for them or allow floating home residents to be eligible for mortgage assistance under the interest deferment plan. As the minister responsible is in the House, I would like him to note this point.
The provincial government will give the home owners a grant for floating homes that have a land lease. The provincial government also assesses them under the mobile home tax act, but Victoria will not allow them to be included under the mobile home registry act, which means that mortgages on floating homes cannot be registered. This is an important obstacle.
The city of Vancouver classifies marinas as "floating mobile homes covered with water" for the purposes of licences, a wording which is baffling in the extreme. Floating home communities are subject to inspection by a wide range of government officials. These include the fire department, the health department, tax assessors, marine surveyors and the coast guard. They are regulated by municipal bylaw, must comply with the provisions of the regional plan and also come under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, to name some examples.
Most of the obstacles faced by the floating home owners are institutional. First, governments must decide how to deal with floating homes. At present they are forced to conform to a wide range of strict standards, but they receive no consistent treatment under the law. Second, financing must be made more accessible.
I would like first to deal with some of the problems raised by the banks. The banks identify several difficulties with making conventional mortgages available. First, there is nowhere to register the mortgages. Second, since water and land leases are usually for a short term, the rate of depreciation makes amortization over more than ten years impractical. Further, the banks do not know enough about floating homes; they need

March 31, 1982
Housing
more information. Finally, the banks say that another problem is that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not insure these homes under current legislation because of the definition of house, which 1 will speak to later.
None of these obstacles is insurmountable. Floating home mortgages could be registered under the mobile home registry act of British Columbia. If land leases were made available for longer periods, such as 20 years, amortization periods could be extended. More information could be supplied to the banks, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation could be empowered to make mortgage insurance available, meeting the requirement of the banks.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation also cites several problems for floating home owners. 1 mentioned the first, that there is nowhere to register floating homes. Another point that bothers CMHC is that there is no security. Floating homes can be floated away. Further, the National Housing Act restricts the structures for which insurance is available through its definition of house which is, under current legislation, "a building plus land".
I have already pointed out that the first issue of registration can be resolved. The question of security is more difficult. Owners of floating homes point out that the value of their home declines drastically if it is removed from its mooring. It derives its value and its comfort from its location in a marina. However, CMHC does not accept the argument. It might be possible, however, to meet the corporation's requirements by passing regulations that home owners must secure their house boats to piles and remove the engines in the same way that mobile homes are secured in one place. The point is that if institutions were flexible these problems could be worked out. Finally, my first amendment addresses the issue of mortgage insurance by CMHC.
Since Bill C-89 does not deal with the definition of house but does change the definition of housing project, motion No. 1 seeks to amend Clause 1, line 20, which deals with the definition of housing project. By inserting the words "or homes" after the word "houses", motion No. 1 removes the dependence of CMHC on the definition of house as "building plus land". If houses must be on land, then the word "home" could be used to include dwellings that are not on land, such as floating homes.
Motion No. 1 would empower CMHC to insure mortgages for development projects of all types no matter where they are located, on land or water. It is hoped that in the future the National Housing Act could be amended to empower CMHC to insure mortgages on individual units rather than on whole communities. It is only a first step. There are many more things that need to be done to encourage the development of floating homes, but it would be a start toward overcoming the institutional bias against floating homes.
The purpose of motion No. 2 deals with the fact that there is nothing in the present wording of the interest deferment plan which prevents floating homes from being eligible for assistance. That is quite important. In the present wording, they are not left out. However, officials of CMHC have told my staff that residents of floating homes are not eligible. They have
made this policy decision 2,600 miles away from where the need is.
CMHC argues that the taxpayers should not subsidize luxury accommodation. Somehow, in their unfamiliarity with what house boats are on the west coast, they equate them with luxury accommodation. I do not believe that it is the mandate of CMHC to judge the quality of living accommodation on land or water. I do not believe that CMHC assesses the luxury of conventional houses before determining if they qualify for other programs. If the houses meet the criteria, the residents are deemed to qualify. To use the logic of CMHC, its officials should look at the quality of the broadloom and the furnishings in homes to judge whether the residents are living in luxurious surroundings before allowing them to qualify for government programs. I do not believe that CMHC should have this discretionary power.
CMHC also suggested that if the residents of floating homes are having financial difficulties, they should move on to land. CMHC officials of all people should know about the crisis in affordable housing in Vancouver before making such a suggestion. Their regional director is certainly well aware of the problem.
1 also think it is unacceptable for CMHC to be telling Canadians where and how they should be living, provided that their home complies with municipal regulations and standards. This is clearly one of the problems with centrally-administered national programs. National institutions must be sensitive to regional needs. In the lower mainland area of British Columbia, regional needs include floating homes and a marine coast.
For all these reasons, I urge members of the House to support these amendments and extend equal treatment to home owners inventive enough to use the only space available to them in many areas, that is, marine space.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this is an important and a proud day, proud not only for the government but for all members of the House who have been associated with supporting Bill C-89. Most of all, it is a day that will show some ray of hope for thousands of Canadian families and individuals seeking assistance with housing and employment needs.
As I indicated in my remarks the day after the budget was introduced, November 13, Bill C-89 is a sensible and sensitive response to the needs that I have described. For many Canadians this is a very important piece of legislation. I predict, as 1 have throughout the many days and evenings of discussion with my colleagues in the House, that this bill will have a significant impact, not only on housing problems and conditions of Canadians, but on the economy and the provision of employment in that sector.
In short, Bill C-89 does four major things. First, it enables the Canada mortgage renewal plan to proceed without delay. Second, it allows the Canada rental supply plan to move toward operation. Third, it contains provisions which will be of
March 31, 1982

interest to all home owners, but especially to first-time home buyers. 1 will expand on that shortly. Fourth, it will enable Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to conduct its activities in a more efficient and, indeed, a more compassionate manner.
It provides very important steps needed to enable the government to deal effectively with housing issues, and as such it is very important to all participants in the housing market such as home owners, prospective home owners, rental entrepreneurs, renters, those seeking rental accommodation upon family formation, the building industry and the lending institutions which serve the industry.
Of equal concern is the situation of those who are concerned about rental accommodations, both its provision and its supply as well as its affordability. There is concern among lower income families about the availability of rental units and the amount they will have to pay for them. This government will be assisting in the construction of approximately 55,000 rental units in Canada this year which are comprised of 25,000 units under the non-profit and co-operative housing program under section 56(1) which supports co-operative and non-profit construction, as well as 30,000 units which have been identified under the Canada rental supply plan. These units have been identified by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and provided for by him through the commitment of $350 million in the next two fiscal periods.
1 would remind hon. members that of the 30,000 units to be supported by the Canada rental supply plan one third are designated to serve Canadians on a rent-geared-to-income basis. It is obvious in the case of those provinces which will cooperate and assist in that rent-geared-to-income program, which is specifically designed to assist Canadians who are seeking affordable accommodations, that there could hardly be a more equitable program than the rent-geared-to-income program which is in place and being further supported by the Canada rental supply plan.
I do not believe that I have to dwell any longer on the economic impact of the Canada rental supply plan in the housing market and the opportunities which it will provide to those working in the housing industry. I am sure that those members who have longer experience in the House and in this business understand well the immediate impact that the construction of 30,000 multiple units will have on Canadians from coast to coast.
There are two other features of the bill which I would like to address. First, I will discuss the topic of mortgage instruments and the provisions in the bill which would enable Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to facilitate the development of new mortgage instruments. As we arc all aware, the term of the mortgage instrument had declined from 25 years to 5 years, and now to one year-in some cases for even a shorter period of time. This has increased uncertainty for mortgage borrowers and has almost totally reduced the security which home owners used to have with fixed monthly payments over that period of time. This has made it much more difficult for
Housing
rental entrepreneurs who need five-year mortgage money because rental production is not economically viable to them for construction in the short run. The reason for this is that investors in mortgages do not want to invest in longer term investments only to see the investment returns increase in the future. This situation of volatile mortgage interest rates has resulted in considerable attention to new mortgage instruments such as the variable rate mortgage, shared equity or appreciation mortgage and price level adjusted mortgages.
I am pleased that this bill will enable CMHC to facilitate these new developments. These instruments do have the potential to improve the situation for both borrowers and investors; help to ensure the availability of longer term funds for mortgages and provide greater certainty of mortgage payments.
Another area dealt with by this legislation is the premiums which Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can charge for mortgage insurance, which are presently set out in the act and cannot be changed except for an amendment to the act. This is one of the reasons why these changes to the National Housing Act must be made to introduce this additional flexibility so that CMHC can operate in the marketplace in a more business-like fashion.
Not only is it essential to the efficiency of the corporation, but, in turn, it gives a better return for the expense side of the operation of the corporation and thus a better return to the taxpayer who is supporting the government operation.
The bill now before us would allow CMHC to accept an assignment of mortgage in a default situation rather than obtaining possession. This is another provision of the bill which makes the corporation more efficient and thereby reduces the cost of operation to the government and the taxpayer. For example, in the case of a multiple unit housing project which is in temporary difficulty but which CMHC believes is a viable business proposition, the amendments would enable the corporation to move in a way which will ensure not only a tax saving to the taxpayer but will prevent inconvenience to tenants in such buildings. It would also permit another option. The amendments would also allow another claim settlement arrangement whereby lenders would be permitted to sell a property where, after close examination, it is deemed by the corporation, in consultation with the project owner, to be practical and feasible. As far as the mortgage insurance fund is concerned, the result would be that it would acquire fewer properties and the case load on the fund would be substantially reduced. Again, it would thereby reduce the cost to the corporation and the government which, as you know, has had to move to assess the corporation in the last few years because of the high demand of failures and hence claims on the fund.
The Canada mortgage renewal plan will and is presently being prepared for implementation by CMHC in anticipation of the passage of Bill C-89 before the House. I can assure the House that no time will be lost in taking advantage of the legislation, which hopefully the House will deal with today. A comprehensive public information program will be undertaken

March 31, 1982
Housing
so that individuals will be able to have access to programs as they pertain to their particular circumstance.
1 was interested to hear the explanation and the urging for the adoption of the amendments proposed this afternoon which were addressed by the first speaker. I would have to indicate that although the corporation has responded by initially indicating its concerns for the proposed amendments, I have not had an opportunity to receive advice from the corporation, nor have we had time seriously to consider the implications of the proposed amendments. Certainly the amendments proposed by the hon. member urge a sympathetic hearing but, as you can well recall, the member also indicated the difficulties which exist in accepting such amendments. Because the amendments were introduced at a late stage we cannot support them today.
I want to make one further comment about the remarks of the hon. member who addressed what was apparently an observation by officials of the corporation about the quality of housing. He said that the corporation or the government should really have no role and nothing to say about the quality of housing. An integral and very important part of the Canada rental supply plan is that it is designed so that the Canadian government and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can ensure that the 30,000 units constructed under that program with the $7,500 second mortgage are of modest construction. One of our major concerns is to ensure that the incentives under this plan will guarantee that modest accommodation is provided-not luxury accommodation but that which will provide affordable and modest rental homes. One of the features of the plan is that the corporation can exercise control to ensure that the quality of building is modest and at the same time attractive.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all those Canadians who feel that the program may be of benefit to them, to investigate the options provided under it.
1 should like to thank my colleagues who have supported the legislation, Mr. Speaker. I should also like to thank members of the provincial legislatures who have indicated support for it and those various municipal officials who, in response to my communications offered support for it. I should like to thank the trade union organizations who indicated support for it and finally, the industry organizations such as CIPREC, UDI, and HUDAC, the traditional representative in the industry who, as we know, urged passage of the legislation as soon as possible.
The reward for adoption of this important legislation will be for me, as I am sure it will be for all members, the help it will offer to many thousands of Canadians seeking assistance in housing and in jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


An hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 1 (Miss Carney) negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on Motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


An hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 2 (Miss Carney) negatived on division.


Paul James Cosgrove: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to-
March 31, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 am informed that there is no debate at concurrence stage of the motion but only at third reading stage. We can proceed to third reading with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul James Cosgrove: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the House briefly at third reading stage of this bill. The House will remember that this legislation is the result of a year and a half or two years of promises by the Liberal Party to do something to help Canadian home owners. From that standpoint we welcome the fact that it finally came about.
Throughout the summer and fall of 1980 and into 1981, Canadians saw mortgage interest rates that they had never seen before. They saw an increase in foreclosures and power of sale proceedings became a way of life for thousands and thousands of Canadians who previously had no idea of the force and effect of this remedy. Interest rates continue to cripple the housing industry. Many Canadians have seen their mortgage payments double as a result of the Liberal high interest rate policy. Thousands are abandoning their homes because they can no longer make the mortgage payments.
After marches on Parliament by Canadian home owners in the fall of 1981 we finally got a budget which, in most ways, was a disaster. If there was any glimmer of hope for Canadians, it was in the provisions of the bill that was passed before the House.
Interest rates still concern us, Mr. Speaker. Since the bill was introduced, CMHC brought forward its annual report dated March 12, 1982, which focused upon high interest rates in 1981 and what they have done to the Canadian housing market and the ability of Canadians to make mortgage payments. The corporation stated that it is very very difficult for first time home owners to participate in the current market. In 1981 there was a crisis in housing starts. The current prediction is for 152,000 starts this year, although for various reasons CMHC has suggested that we need 220,000 starts per year. There has been some suggestion that the number will be reduced to 200,000. Even at that rate we would still have 25 per cent or 30 per cent below what CMHC says we need to house Canadians properly.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to some things that are being done in other countries. In March 1982 the mortgage rate in Great Britain was 15 per cent. Housing societies there, which are like our trust companies, cut the interest rate on mortgages to 13.5 per cent. It is a shame that all we can get out of this government is that, through this bill, it will give an interest free deferral of up to $3,000 to home owners who have five per cent equity in their home, and to home owners who have no substantial equity in their home it will give a grant of up to $3,000. In order to qualify, home owners must pay more than 30 per cent of their income for principal, interest and property taxes. I remind the House that
Housing
this plan only applies to mortgages which mature between September 1, 1981 and November 11, 1982. If the government continues with its Liberal high interest rate policy, there is no question the minister will be back in the House next fall asking for an amendment to the act in order to redress the problems the government will have created for Canadians in the intervening eight or nine months.
The comparison of this legislation is interesting. We on this side suggested to Canadians that they had every right to treat mortgage interest and property tax as legitimate deductions from income, as was done in the United States and in Great Britain. We suggested that it was a legitimate deduction from income which Canadian home owners could use. The net result of the much maligned-and I say much maligned by the Liberal Party-Progressive Conservative mortgage interest and realty tax credit plan would have been, in 1982, to give Canadians with normal $35,000 mortgages a tax break, credit or payment of approximately $150 per month. If we examine the increases in the mortgage payments of ordinary Canadians as a result of the Liberal high interest rate policy, we find that our suggestion, which was before the House in the form of legislation, would have gone a long way toward overcoming the grief with which Canadians are faced today.
Now I turn to the area of vacancy rates. The vacancy rates created by the government have reached all-time crisis proportions. If one lives in Oshawa, one is faced with a vacancy rate of 0.0 per cent. If one lives in Hamilton, it is 0.7 per cent. The standard figure of 3.0 per cent is considered to be acceptable in order for Canadians, with the normal flow of people in and out of apartments, to find decent, affordable accommodation in which to live and raise their families. The bill suggests that interest-free loans of up to $7,500 per unit will be given to assist in the construction of 15,000 rental units. This was proposed in November, and in the intervening months between November and early March the government found, as it has with many of its predictions, that its prediction was not correct. Perhaps the government was fooled by the many holes in the ground, or the in again out again, now you see it now you don't attitude, created by MURBs. The holes and footings in the ground were considered to be housing starts, but suddenly the government realized that nothing would be erected over these holes, so it came forward with the promise of another
15,000	units in March. This promise was made in an announcement by the minister contained in a comprehensive release from his office, in which he talked about what the government would do for repairs of Canadian houses.
This is all very nice, but I think it is well understood that apartments or rental accommodations are not being built because of the Liberal high interest rate policy. There is no way that one can economically build rental units under the present high interest rates which the cabinet and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) are supporting as a tonic for Canadians. It is not much of a tonic, because we are not

March 3!, 1982
Housing
receiving housing starts. Any Canadian involved in the development business realizes that apartments cannot be built with interest rates at the level at which the government is keeping them.
Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to participate in all committee meetings which were held, but 1 have reviewed the remarks that were made. I should like to bring to the attention of the House that there is some hope for Canadians. The Minister of Finance firmly suggested in the budget that it was the intention of the Liberal government to tax Canadians on the imputed rental value of their homes. This was based upon budget figures which were brought forward by the minister. He said that it was not correct, according to the Liberal Party, that Canadians should own homes, should pay them off, and then should be able to get away with not paying income tax on the imputed value. The Minister of Finance stuck to his guns on this. He absolutely refused to say that at no time will the Liberal government tax Canadians on the imputed value of their homes. This now appears to us to be government policy as enunciated by the Minister of Finance. Quite frankly we are shocked.
We feel there is no reason that Canadians should be forced to pay income tax on income which they have not received in cash. We feel this Liberal concept of imputed rental value ignores significant costs associated with home ownership, such as maintenance, mortgage payments and realty taxes. This concept could force Canadians to lose their homes. We have seen far too many homes lost under Liberal government policies, and we on this side of the House do not want to see Canadians losing their homes. The Liberals who are forcing this socialist concept upon Canadians will find that the Progressive Conservative Party, in all probability, will fight hard to ensure that the imputed rent concept gets no further than any of the other proposals upon which the Minister of Finance has backtracked.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Undoubtedly the hon. member was not in the House when the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) dealt with the particular issue by indicating that this concept resides only in the mind of the Dominion Life Assurance Company and in the minds of hon. members of the opposition.


Mr. Siddon:: It was in his budget.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 1 am quite pleased to address myself to the problems of the hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais). As deputy opposition House leader I have to be here every day. Undoubtedly I was present when the Minister of Finance, who was not present today, made his remarks. As to anyone understanding the remarks of the minister, I know there is great confusion on both sides of the House when it comes to that.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Whether the hon. member was in the House when the Minister
of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) gave in answer the opposite interpretation as to what has been said, 1 really do not know. However, my point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. minister is referring to an interpretation; I hope that is not his point of order.


Paul James Cosgrove: The hon. member indicated that it was introduced by the present Minister of Finance. In fact it was introduced by the former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


Thomas Edward Siddon: That is not true.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was not introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie); it was a departmental paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I will entertain a point of order from the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), but if he wants to indicate who introduced what, when and where, I do not think it is a point of order. Certainly it is a point of debate, but I will recognize the hon. member on a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I simply ask a question; Why was the minister crying that he lost $45 million if he did not intend to bring it forward?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I understand the confusion on the government side. We are not at all surprised that there is confusion on government benches as to what imputed rent means. We know the government wants to get at it, and we intend to fight it.
It is interesting to hear the minister of housing referring to matters such as this, because in one of his speeches to the Department of External Affairs he spoke on African trade. It is difficult to go from imputed rent to African trade, but the minister responsible for housing seems to have been able to do that. In the absence of the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley), we have no idea what that has done to African trade. We know what the minister for international trade has done for Japanese and Iraqi trade. Quite frankly, we on this side are surprised at the confusion in the housing industry. We see housing starts going down the drain and we see critical vacancy rates, but we find the minister of housing addressing an external affairs seminar on African trade. One cannot be surprised too much by that because we understand the minister responsible for housing addressed a sales seminar at a major real estate firm recently. There was some concern on this side as to why that might happen.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to tell the House that we have been able to determine the reason why the minister responsible for housing has addressed a sales seminar.
March 31, 1982

One knows that in the real estate industry it is important to get sales listings. Listings are what you get on the boards, the signs and the whole thing. We have come to realize that this minister of housing has done more to create listings in the real estate markets of Canada than any other housing minister, because the powers of sale he and the Liberal Party have created together with the foreclosures have led to more listings than ever as a result of the Liberal high interest rate policy.
I just wanted to draw that to the attention of the House. Just as there is confusion on that side with imputed rent, there is confusion why the minister would be flitting around the country making speeches like that.
In closing, I want to say that we intend to support the bill. We are shocked at the inadequacy of it. We are shocked that this is all this government could come up with after promising to rescue Canadians from the spectre of foreclosure. The government has created the spectre of a bill which is so totally inadequate to deal with the real concerns of Canadians.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member who preceded me.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 1 would think so.


Ian Deans: There were two matters that he raised and that I think are worthy of expansion, the latter being his indication that, although the bill be deficient in many ways, the Conservative Party is prepared to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the bill is indeed deficient in all of the ways the hon. member indicated. I had come to that conclusion myself some time ago. In listening to him enumerate the deficiencies, I was reinforced in my belief that though I would have liked to recommend to my caucus that we ought to support it, 1 could find no justification or foundation to make that kind of recommendation. 1 think when something is deficient, when something works a hardship and provides little if any benefit, then it is not supportable. In this instance, I believe that refers to this particular piece of legislation. I urge the Conservatives if ever they should pluck up their courage between now and, let us say, forty minutes from now and change their minds, they could join with us and we will defeat this government today, and we will build houses in this land when we become the government.
I want to make reference to another point that I think is worthy of at least passing reference. 1 hear the family squabble between the Liberals and the Conservatives-


Mr. Huntington:: The "socialist-alliance".


Ian Deans: -over imputed rent.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You would tax it.


An hon. Member:: Kissing cousins.


Ian Deans: I cannot help but smile-
Housing


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You are gorgeous.


Ian Deans: I realize we are not supposed to laugh at people when they are in trouble and desperately trying to get out of it, but when 1 listen to Conservative members rising in righteous indignation to demand of the government that it answer for this folly, the proposal to introduce in some form or other, at some date in the future, a concept called imputed rent, and then I go back to the budget papers of 1979, I think to myself how that very same concept in almost identical words-


Thomas Edward Siddon: Not in the budget papers. Tell the truth.


Ian Deans: -were contained in the ministry's background papers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is rising on a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member wants to be accurate, but that statement was not in the PC budget papers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Any correction can be made during debate or at a later stage, but certainly not in a point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, when I go back to reading those papers that travelled with the budget, those papers that were supposed to provide the background information-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is a little more accurate.


Ian Deans: -and the thinking that went into the budget- if you do not want to call them budget papers, you can call them what you like, Mr. Speaker; the choice is yours-I find right there in exactly the same wording the suggestion that the Conservatives too were considering imputed rent.


An hon. Member:: No, we weren't.


Ian Deans: All I can say on behalf of the tens, hundreds, thousands of Canadians who are desperate over the prospect is that if ever they were to elect a Conservative government-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Those words come from the socialist bureaucrats in the government.


Ian Deans: -it would be equally as bad as the Liberal government. There is every reason to believe that if the Conservatives were to win, they would do exactly the same thing.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Ian Deans: What is the matter?


Gordon Edward Taylor: The bureaucrats put that imputed rent out during our term of office. The Liberals accepted it and put it in their budget papers.

March 31, 1982
Housing


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 hope hon. members will refrain from raising points of order when they are not points of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in order to be charitable and fair,
as I always am-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You are misleading the House, my friend.


Ian Deans: In order to be charitable and fair, as I always am, I want to say to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) that if he wants today to reject that proposition on behalf of the Conservatives, then I accept that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: If he wants to say that they will never again have it in any of their background papers, I will accept that. I will not argue with him.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It is a socialist doctrine.


Ian Deans: Who am I to argue with the hon. member for Bow River?
In any event, all I can say is thank God it never became law. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are concerned, that when the NDP forms the government-remembering, of course, that we are now at 26 per cent of the popular vote and rising-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: -there will be no imputed rent.


Frank Oberle: There will be nothing.


Ian Deans: There will be no imputed rent. Not only will it not appear in the budget, it will not appear in any budget papers. It will not appear in any background paper.
There will be no imputed rent when we form the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Young:: Not like the Liberals and the Tories.


Ian Deans: It is noisy in here, isn't it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is fire hall talk.


Ian Deans: At any rate, let me deal with this bill in a little more detail. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the minister and I suppose to anyone else who cares to listen, that the legislation before us is inadequate. Normally if you had inadequate legislation placed before you, you would consider whether or not on balance it was supportable because of the little things that it did. But in this instance the inadequacy of the legislation in dealing with the prices that confront by far the vast majority of those who are attempting to buy homes or find rental accommodation is so great as to make it virtually impossible for anyone to support it who cares about making sure that people can get a home of their own at a price they can afford.
I have looked at this legislation in some detail. I am convinced it opens the way to even far greater problems than we already have. As a result of this legislation and other legislation which has at least been alluded to in recent days, we will undoubtedly see more and more Canadians assuming mortgage payments that will stretch their ability to pay to the limit. This stretching of their ability will result without question in their deferring principal and interest payments to another time when they hope they will earn more. When they make that deferral it will result in those people owing more at the end of any given year than they did at the beginning.
As a result of this legislation and this government's actions, and as a result of the interest rate policy Mr. Bouey is pursuing, we will see a repeat of the things which happened in the AHOP program. People were encouraged to buy homes they could not afford and assume responsibilities they could not handle. They put off the real cost of the home to a day five years down the road, and when that day arrived they found in so many cases that they were not earning enough to keep the home and they lost all of their investment.
If I am not mistaken, it was in Mississauga that something in excess of 50 per cent-I will get the exact figure if you want-of all the people who moved into an AHOP home ultimately lost it. They were encouraged to go in there by the government, and when they did so it was in the hope and expectation that their wages would continue to rise and they could cover the mortgage payments. That did not happen in the society we are living in, and they lost their homes.
That is the measure of this program, as well. With these variable rate mortgages and the short-term assistance program which, I might add, as the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) points out, terminate within a year, people are simply putting off to another day the inevitable clash with foreclosure.
The measures taken by the government are inadequate. If you look at them from an analytical point of view they are, if anything, harmful. For that reason alone I would not encourage people to become involved in these programs. The hon. member for Simcoe North makes the comment sotto voce that somehow or other I am not saying these things to the people in my riding. 1 want to make it quite clear that when I was in the Ontario legislature during the time the AHOP program was available, I advised people not to take it because I knew in five years' time they would not be able to afford the home.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Agreed.


Ian Deans: I say the same thing to them today. These are not programs which will enable families to create the kind of stability where at some point in their life they can own outright the home they are moving into. For that reason, and a number of others, I just cannot find this legislation supportable. It is an
March 31, 1982

entrapment, if you will. Many people will be further and further in debt as time goes by. Rather than paying the debt off, they will be accumulating even more debt.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: They have to have a roof over their heads.


Ian Deans: The hon. member quite rightly says that they have to have a roof over their heads, but 1 put to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be better if, instead of supporting a measure which will ultimately result in those people losing their homes anyway, we could combine our efforts in the opposition and force on this government the requirement that it get into the house building business, as it once was; that it get into the mortgage lending business, as it once was; that it take action to bring down interest rates, as it must do; and that it ensure that affordable homes are available for people who need them. That is a supportable measure, and it is not contained in this legislation. That is the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: If we in this House continue to support these ridiculous half measures brought forward by the government with all kinds of fanfare and rhetoric, the end result of which will undoubtedly be greater hardship and heartache in the long run, then we do the people of Canada a disservice. That is why we cannot support this legislation. It might appear to be useful for a few people, but for the vast majority it is entrapment.
Let us get together, Mr. Speaker, and insist that mortgage interest rates be reduced. Instead of supporting the Bank of Canada in its interest rate policy, why does the Conservative finance critic not get up and demand that they take a different tack in setting interest rates and respond adequately and properly to the needs of the Canadian people? Why is there no support for an excess profits tax on banks when they made hundreds of millions of dollars without having to do a single thing in the marketplace or anywhere else to earn them? Why is there no attempt being made to recover some of that money in order to reduce interest rates? Because the government will not do it and the Tories will not help us, that is why.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: They are quite content to sit there and allow their fat-cat friends to get fatter on high interest rates and live high off the hog at the expense of the vast majority of Canadians! That is why!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to maintain your composure when speaking about one of the most essential parts of any human being's life. I ask you, what can be more important than food on the one hand, and shelter on the other? These are the basic things that people must have. And we create a system which takes into account the needs of the people who lend the money, but not the needs of the people who cannot find accommodation.
Housing


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: What about property rights?


Ian Deans: As to the remark of the hon. member for Simcoe North, I say to him that on property rights we are firm. People in Canada are entitled to own their own homes.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is why you voted against it.


Ian Deans: Not simply by virtue of some paragraph in the Constitution, they are entitled to own their homes by virtue of the economic system we live in which will enable them to earn enough money to purchase and own the home they want to live in. That is the difference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: The question is an economic one; it is not putting in some fancy words concerning the right to own a home. I say unequivocally that people have the right to own their home. But on the other side, to give someone the right to own their home and then create an economic system which makes it virtually impossible for the average working man and woman in this country to do just that, I ask you, in heaven's name, what kind of right is that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: As I said earlier, this legislative proposal now before us is wrong-headed and speaks to the wrong things. It does not speak about providing more accommodation in order to raise our housing stock to the level required to meet the obvious need in this country. We need 220,000 housing units this year and we will build 157,000.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Ian Deans: Even with the minister's new plan we will still build just 157,000, and every single year we fall behind by
70,000	housing units. We are denying Canadians not only accommodation, but accommodation at a price they can afford. Surely that must be the key.
In closing, let me say that certainly the one major problem confronting us is that the minsiter, by his statements, makes it quite clear he is supporting variable rate mortgages; in other words, perpetual indebtedness. The banks cause perpetual indebtedness through variable rate mortgages. They make sure that one never pays off the debt. A person can adjust the mortgage rate all the time and forever accumulate more debt.
I will tell Your Honour something which is more important. I know Your Honour knows this because I can just see by your eyes that you are sitting there ready to tell me.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You cannot see that far!


Ian Deans: Your Honour knows that the variable rate mortgage is illegal under the Interest Act of Canada. The minister is sitting there, laughing. However, he does not mind illegalities.

March 31, 1982
Housing


Jean-Jacques Blais: He is not laughing. But he is very happy that you will let our bill go through.


Ian Deans: The banks have latched on to this very narrow concept. This is another way they will gouge the workers of this country and get more out of their meagre pay packets. The government is doing this to ensure high profits. What did their profit amount to this year? Was it $1.5 billion or $1.7 billion? 1 believe it was $1.7 billion.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Get your facts straight.


Ian Deans: The government is now bringing in these fancy new instruments supported by the minister to further erode the purchasing power of Canadians who want to buy homes. Not only is the government further eroding their purchasing power, but it is also able to do it in a way which is quite clearly outside the law of Canada as it presently exists. The minister nods his head, acquiesces, bows down and thanks the people for their efforts and tells them how wonderful they are. No, minister, we will not support the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate on third reading of Bill C-89. Just like the United States and the European countries, Canada is going through difficult economic times. Our government is committed to make the fight against inflation and the recovery of Canadian economy the top priority until this aim is achieved. This determination of the government to counter inflationary pressures does not mean, however, that we do not recognize the importance of helping those who need it most.
Regarding housing, the budget of November 12 stated that the government would offer interest-free loans to assist in the construction of 15,000 rental units in those areas where the vacancy rate is very low. Last March 23, the hon. minister responsible for housing and public works announced that the government would allocate an additional amount of $100 million to increase from 15,000 to 30,000 the number of new units eligible for interest-free loans of up to $7,500 per unit. This will give more Canadians access to proper housing at affordable prices.
Moreover, the government has earmarked $30 million in interest-free loans for the improvement of existing houses. These funds will be allocated to the areas with the highest unemployment rates. Quebec alone will receive 43 per cent of the total budget, or $9.6 million. The new assistance program for housing renovations will supplement the $169 million already allocated for this purpose under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, better known as RRAP, and differs from the latter in that the assistance will be directed to high unemployment areas. It will promote job creation because loan recipients will have to invest $7 for every
$3 of assistance granted. The renovation program will provide an incentive to the Canadian construction industry.
The government is also concerned with home owners who have to renew their mortgages and may lose their home because of higher interest rates. In that respect, the government has developed a plan under which if an individual has more than 5 per cent equity in his home and after having renewed his mortgage, considers that his mortgage payments plus property taxes exceed 30 per cent of family income before taxes, the approved lender could defer interest payments for a year, up to a maximum of $3,000. Where an individual has less than 5 per cent equity in his home, but his payments still exceed 30 per cent, that individual will also be entitled to a grant of up to the $3,000 maximum.
That plan applies to mortgage loans with maturity dates falling between September 1st, 1981 and November 1 1, 1982. These recent commitments as well as the existing programs will bring to 100,000 the estimated number of jobs that will be created directly or indirectly by the Canadian government's initiatives in the housing area.
Such initiatives are a tangible expression of this government's commitment to do all it can to remedy the precarious situation that prevails in rental housing, to help Canadians facing serious difficulties when renewing their mortgages, and to restore healthy economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, I listened earlier to opposition members who had reservations about this legislation, and I was tempted to laugh at all the proposals, suggestions and solutions which they were putting forward. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), referred to matters that can really affect all Canadians. His comments verged on demagogy, Mr. Speaker, for what could be more natural, Mr. Speaker, for Canadians than owning their own homes?


An hon. Member:: That is a fact!


Henri Tousignant: That is a fact, I admit it. What could be more natural than a young couple owning their own home!
They also raise the matter of the right to home ownership. Is there a more basic right than the right to home ownership? Tell me, are they not touching these people who speak from both sides of their mouths, Mr. Speaker? Why don't they say that it is all right to want to become a home owner, while it is not to want to buy a $75,000 home with only a $500 down payment? They would have to explain that. I feel it would be much more normal and make a lot more sense to tell people to buy instead less expensive homes, worth maybe between $45,000 and $50,000, and to make down payments somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000. But these people run around asking whether there is a more basic right than the right to home ownership and leaving all their listeners unsatisfied. There are others who refer to high interest rates, who blame the government for spending too much and who, in the same
March 31, 1982

breath, complain that the government is not spending enough on housing, saying that they support the bill, but that they would like to see the government spend more. Clearly, it is possible to deal with all the problems and cases piecemeal, one by one. Then, they come back after a while and complain that the deficit is too high and that the government should do something about it. Well, what do they really want?
Of course, just about any problem could be solved with a great deal of money, say $200, $400 or $500 million, whether in housing, agriculture, forestry or in the automobile industry. We are aware on this side of the House that problems exist and we can identify them. We have no masochistic reason to try to keep people in poverty and have them raise a hue and cry. We can identify all the problems which exist in Canada, but in order to solve them all overnight it takes money, and the people opposite are the first to tell us that the deficit is too high, that we spend too much. Then, Mr. Speaker, those people ought to become a bit more serious. Of course, I know they are not there to campaign for the government now in power, that is most obvious; but still, there comes a time when they should be a bit more honest in what they say, in what they do. So, I am being asked to speak on the price of gas. Of course, I am proud, and I thank the hon. member for throwing me a line. There again, that is what we hear from one end of the country to the other: "You, Liberals, you get elected by saying that the price of gas will not go up; now, look at how high it has gone. You beat us on the 18 cents".


An hon. Member:: Sky high!


Henri Tousignant: Sky high! 1 say this to the hon. member. He knows full well that with a Progressive Conservatives government the price of gas would naturally have also gone up to 85 per cent of the world price. We, instead, said 75 per cent of the world price. Those are the facts. In addition, they were talking about an additional 18-cent tax. That is the truth of the matter.
So, naturally, just as the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals had foreseen, the price of gas increased, just like the price of other consumer goods, such as bread, butter, etc. But they had planned an additional 18 cents. So, that is that. 1 am happy, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member gave me the opportunity to make that clear.
It is that kind of falsehood which is spread here and there and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the future those people will try to report exactly what happens without necessarily praising the government in power and at least be as honest as possible.
Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I know that on the whole they are all in favour. They had to speak against, of course, but on the whole I know that everybody is in favour. Therefore, 1 hope that the bill will be passed and I am quite pleased because it is an historic moment, as I mentioned a while ago, it will benefit many Canadians, since
Housing
60,000	jobs will be created, and with the $30 million provided under the other program, 30,000 further jobs will be created-


Paul James Cosgrove: 60,000!


Henri Tousignant: Therefore, this will benefit a great number of Canadians who will have access to cheaper rental accommodation. Evidently, they cannot obtain them free of charge. Of course, this cannot be done. We cannot pay for everything and the minister cannot build those housing projects himself. This legislation will enable many Canadians to get cheaper and better rental units. It will also put some Canadians to work in the construction industry. It will give a new impetus to construction. In the present situation, the minister responsible for housing has almost worked a miracle, it is an amazing feat. I am quite pleased this has happened today and I hope that in a few minutes the bill will be given third reading.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: This is the second opportunity I have had, Mr. Speaker, to rise to speak to this bill, C-89, to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act. I think back over the last year and the many times that members on this side have risen and put questions to the minister of housing. When is he going to help the home owner? When is he going to help the renter? The only answer we ever got from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) was to wait until the budget comes.
The budget came on November 12 and we questioned him again and he said: "I am going to bring forth legislation." That legislation came forward on January 28. On March 2 when the bells commenced ringing and all of us on this side implored the government to continue the committee meetings, the government House leader would not allow it and the Minister of Public works would not allow his committee to meet either. We asked for that committee to meet in spite of the division bells ringing. Mr. Speaker, there are many people who have spoken out against the lack of action by the government.
The Toronto Home Builders' Association said the federal budget discontinued various incentives to private investment in Canada. We believe the Department of Finance was inadequately informed as to the negative impact that many changes would have on the housing market.
The Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies said that high interest rates have made construction of new apartment buildings an unenviable proposition; in Ontario, to break even on a new building financed at today's figures a landlord would have to charge in the order of $800 a month for a typical one-bedroom apartment.
This bill does not address those problems. The CMHC estimates that between 210,000 and 220,000 housing starts are needed each year, yet the estimates of the number of starts is down around 160,000 to 170,000. I might indicate what the
16028

March 31, 1982
Housing
housing starts have been over recent years. In 1976 we had
273,000	housing starts; in 1977 we had 246,000 housing starts; in 1978 we had 228,000; in 1979 we had 197,000; in 1980, 158,000; and in 1981 we had 178,000 housing starts.
The minister can stand in this House and tell us how many jobs he is going to create. It is quite possible he will create many jobs if he brings the housing industry to a complete stop and then turns around and brings in legislation saying it will help the housing industry and will increase employment. Unfortunately, the housing industry does not agree; the industry suggests that 50,000 housing units are needed to bring up employment in the construction industry and that there will be 100,000 jobs lost, not gained, by this bill. That is reflected in about $2.8 billion lost to the construction industry, which translates into $400 million lost revenue to the government. Yet this minister insists on suggesting that he is going to increase employment.
In 1981 the average home sold for $61,000, which is 12 per cent higher than the previous year. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) then has the gall to stand in this House and say that people are doing well because the average income of a person buying a home is $36,658, an increase of 22 per cent over the previous year. His answer is that if incomes are up by that amount, more people must be able to buy homes. However, CMHC suggests that fewer people were able to buy a home in 1981 than in 1980. The age of the average purchaser went from 30 to 32. The proportion of buyers who were previous home owners rose from 39 per cent to 56 per cent. Surely the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Public Works have more common sense than to suggest that home buyers are better able to buy homes at these new prices.
At second reading, the NDP suggested that the increased price of homes was due to the increase in the price of land. Statistics for the last year indicate that the average price of land remained constant. Therefore, that is not the reason for the increase in price. It was due to the high interest rates and nothing more.
I have asked the Minister of Public Works questions in this House. There are more questions I would have liked to ask. Why is the government spending $60 million on advertising which could be used to help home owners and renters in this country? Can the Minister of Public Works tell us why foreign aid will be increased by 19.9 per cent, or by $157 million, in the coming year when this money could have been used for home owners and renters?
Can the minister tell us why more is not done about Crown corporations which continue to lose money? Eldorado Nuclear is losing $130 million, yet it was hiring people on the day it closed its mine last fall. In spite of this the minister has the gall to tell us he is doing all he can to help home owners and renters in this country.
From time to time members opposite have asked what we would do. We have many, many suggestions. I will mention just a few. We would encourage, not discourage, investment capital in this country. In the last two years $17 billion has left this country because of the energy policies of this government.
There is an excess of natural gas in western Canada. It has been estimated that up to $2 billion in sales could accrue by the export of this natural gas. What does the government do? It discourages exports. It discourages the development of the oil industry in western Canada. It is discouraging one of the few viable industries left in Canada. The government is attempting to do what it has done to the automobile industry, and we all know the terrible state of that industry.
This bill will do little. It is like giving an aspirin to someone who has an ulcer. It may help the pain just a little, but it will certainly not cure the problem. It does not deal with the real problem of high interest rates. However little the bill provides, we unfortunately must support it. However, we will continue to press the government for better legislation to bring needed help to both the home owner and the renter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Corbin	Messrs. Gourde	McKinnonCorriveau	(Levis)	McLeanCosgrove	Gray	McMillanCote (Mrs.)	Guilbault	McRaeCousineau	Gurbin	MunroCrosby	Halliday	(Hamilton East)(Halifax West)	Harquail	MurtaCyr	Henderson	NicholsonDantzer	Herbert	(Miss)Darling	Hervieux-Payette	NickersonDaudlin	(Mrs.)	NielsenDawson	Hudecki	Nowlande Corneille	Huntington	OberleDemers	Isabelle	OlivierDeniger	Jarvis	OstiguyDesmarais	Jelinek	PaproskiDingwall	Kaplan	ParentDion	Kempling	PelletierDionne	Killens (Mrs.)	Penner(Chicoutimi)	King	PepinDionne	Korchinski	Portelance(Northumberland-	Lachance	Prud'hommeMiramichi)	Lajoie	ReganDomm	Lambert	ReidDubois	Lamontagne	(Kenora-Rainy River)Dupont	Landers	RobinsonDupras	Lang	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Duquct	Lanicl	RocheEllis	Lapierre	RossiElzinga	La Salle	RoyEpp	Lawrence	SchroderErola (Mrs.)	LeBlanc	ScottEvans	Leduc	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Fennell	Lefebvre	ScottFerguson	Lewis	(V ictoria - H a 1 i bu r ton)Fisher	Loiselle	SiddonFleming	Lumley	SmithFlis	MacBain	SpeyerForrestall	MacDonald	StevensFoster	(Miss)	StewartFrancis	Mackasey	TardifFriesen	MacLaren	TaylorFrith	MacLellan	TessierGamble	Malepart	ThackerGarant	Maltais	TousignantGass	Marceau	TowersGauthier	Masse	TrudeauGendron	Masters	TurnerGimaiel	Mayer	VankoughnetGingras	McCauley	WatsonGourd	McCuish	Wise(Argenteuil-Papineau)	McKenzie	WrightAlthouse	NAYS Messrs. Jewett (Miss)	Yanakis-174. NystromBenjamin	Keeper	OgleBlackburn	Kristiansen	OrlikowBlaikie	Lewycky	RiisDeans	Manly	Robinsonde Jong	Miller	(Burnaby)Fulton	Mitchell	RoseHeap	(Mrs.)	SargeantHovdebo	Murphy	SkellyYoung-26.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I note by the clock that we have a little time until six o'clock. 1 understand there will shortly be a visit from the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, but until that occurs 1 think the time could be used appropriately by hon. members to raise certain matters.
Grievance-Hon. Walter Baker
While government members are in the House, and particularly while the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is here, 1 want to raise a matter by way of a grievance to air the issue. I should like to deal with the very vexing and disturbing questions which remain unresolved about the state of the nation's economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The Prime Minister can show his usual lack of concern for the plight of Canadians, if he wishes, by walking out of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: In terms of his attention to public business, he has walked away from the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House has time before we receive the visitor, I suggest that we call the borrowing authority bill and get on with the business of the House. If the hon. member wants to discuss the economy, he can use their allotted day on Friday to do so.


Walter David Baker: One problem is that the government does not realize that the economy of the country, the question of employment, the investment climate and the problems with respect to housing, are the business of the House. What else could be the business of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Why has the government not dealt with those questions? Where is the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) right now, when there is an opportunity for him at long last, months after the budget was brought forward, to present something positive with respect to the economy of the country? He has not done it; that is the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) on a point of order.


Mr. Breau:: Madam Speaker, I respectfully submit that the orders of the day have not been called by the Clerk as is customary. There is not really a substantive question before the House at this time and it does not seem appropriate for any member to make a speech when the orders of the day have not been properly called in the House.


Madam Speaker:: As we are awaiting the messenger from the other place, it is a period when the grievances of certain members may be heard.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 31, 1982
Taxation


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I believe the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is at the door.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Since the visitor from the Senate has not yet arrived, I should like to indicate that I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) indicate that there was no business before the House of Commons. If the economy of the country does not occupy the mind of the hon. member, then I do not think I know the hon. member for Gloucester, coming from the province he does. There can be no doubt about it-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!
{Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) has asked me to call the following order:


AN ACT TO AMEND THE STATUTE LAW RELATING TO CERTAIN TAXES AND TO PROVIDE OTHER AUTHORITY FOR THE RAISING OF FUNDS MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government bills (Commons):
Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of State (Finance) for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-93, an act to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds.
Some hon. Members:: Where is the minister?


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) seeking the floor to speak on this matter?


Walter David Baker: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has the floor.


Walter David Baker: It is very interesting that the government should attempt to cut off debate on the economy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -by bringing in at the last minute a bill dealing with financial administration, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), who is responsible for the bill, in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who is responsible for
the bill, and in the absence of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres), who is also responsible for the bill. We are talking about the financial and economic administration of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I would like if it were possible in the minutes remaining, some economic minister somewhere to rise-


Some hon. Members:: Where are they?


Walter David Baker: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is here.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister who resigned!


Walter David Baker: I should like that minister to tell us about the appalling record of the government with respect to development of industrial areas where many Canadians now find themselves unemployed.
[ Translation]


Mr.   Gimai@: Madam Speaker, I insist on raising a point of order because, if hon. members are allowed to debate interesting points during this period, I would suggest that I have every right to seek the floor, just as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has.


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. member please resume his seat. Of course, he has every right to seek the floor, just as any other hon. member has, but the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton already has the floor.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to turn my attention, if I might, to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I remember when our government was in power and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was the financial critic of the opposition. What did he say? He said that if we would vote Liberal in Canada, interest rates would stay down. In fact, he said "I will lay my seat on it".


An hon. Member:: Some seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He is sitting on it.


Walter David Baker: He is still sitting on his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Maybe that is one of the problems. Then there was the Minister of Finance. Do you recall the Minister of Finance, Madam Speaker?
March 31, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Walter David Baker: 1 am not going to be shouted down by that crowd over there, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Then there was the Minister of Finance. When he campaigned in Cape Breton-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -he said to us, "Vote Liberal"-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -"and keep your gasoline prices down". Not only did the gasoline prices go up-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) is rising on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Madam Speaker, my point of order is-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have a point of order from the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Madam Speaker, my point of order is-I suppose it is more a clarification that 1 seek-


Some hon. Members:: Order, then.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: 1 wonder what the rules allow for in a situation like this.
Some hob. Members: Order!


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Many of us would like to be involved in the debate, if I only knew at which point I could have the floor. Certainly members on all sides welcome the opportunity to speak in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If I may give the hon. member clarification in this period when we are awaiting a message from the other place, it is a time when grievances may be expressed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Taxation


Madam Speaker:: That process had begun when the parliamentary secretary asked me to put a certain motion to the House, which I have. Debate has begun on that motion I think, although I am not sure whether that is the motion being debated. But the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton did get up and he has the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Olivier:: I rise-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There can be no point of order. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has not yet spoken. He has the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the justice in your hands as you attempt to do something with that unruly crowd over there. 1 have been a member of this House for ten years, Madam Speaker.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker-


Walter David Baker: -and one of the things 1 have seen happen here, whenever they are a bit embarrassed is for government members to bark and try to shout people down. I said earlier I will not be shouted down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I rise on a point of order.


Walter David Baker: I was dealing with the Minister of Finance when I was last interrupted, Madam Speaker, and I want to return to him.
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe that the hon. member can-


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: 1 rise on a queston of privilege, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I wish that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton would be allowed to explain the grievance that he wishes to raise in the House. I understand that hon. members are perhaps not willing to hear this grievance, but as Speaker

March 31, 1982
Taxation
of this House, I must hear it. This is a time when grievances can be brought before the House. I have recognized the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and I wish that hon. members would respect that. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has the floor.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker-


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Sit down!


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am a great respecter of the rules of the House of Commons and I hope the chairman of the Quebec Liberal caucus will respect them in exactly the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: My hope may be futile, however.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, I rise-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do have to interrupt the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton now because the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) seems to have a grievance. However, we now have a message from the Senate.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Govenor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-II, an act relating to the inspection of electric and gas meters and supplies-Chapter No. 87;
Bill C-45, an act to amend the Pest Control Products Act-Chapter No. 88;
Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code-Chapter No. 89;
Bill C-99, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1982- Chapter No. 90;
Bill C-100, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1983- Chapter No. 91.


Madam Speaker:: It being past six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 1, 1982