1982-11-17

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   CANADIAN ARMED FORCES ACCIDENTAL DEATHS OF SERVICEMEN

['No.']
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I know that all Hon. Members of this House will wish to extend our deepest sympathy to the families and friends of the seven servicemen killed in the tragic accident yesterday at Canadian Forces Base Namao, in Alberta.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sure the House will want to express its sympathy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Communications announced that Senator Jack Austin, of uranium cartel fame, has been given the job of co-ordinating the Government's response to the Applebaum-Hebert Report. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That this House deplores the appointment of the chief Liberal philistine as "Cultural Commissar" for Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, November 11, Remembrance Day, is a time for all Canadians to gather at local veterans' organizations to honour and respect the Canadian war dead. It is not, as the NDP Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) alleged, a "booze-up". I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That this House condemns the rude slander made by the NDP Member for Burnaby and that the House demands that the Member make a full, public apology to the Canadian people for his inexcusable ignorance about the real significance of Remembrance Day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent concern to low income people. Bell Telephone Company has instituted a major attack on the poor through the introduction of a credit screening system which invades privacy and will deprive many pensioners, single parents, the disabled and the unemployed, of telephone services. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That the Government, through the CRTC, require Ma Bell to withdraw this discriminatory screening policy, which is a dangerous national precedent, and eliminate advance payments without due cause.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

November 17, 1982


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, this country's two neighbours are the most powerful nations of all time, armed to the teeth with destructive potential. Canada is effectively the physical fulcrum between these two balances of terror. Both countries now have relatively new leaders, who are, hopefully, men of peace. Very recently the new Chancellor of Germany called for an immediate summit meeting. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), one of the most senior of world leaders, has remained silent on a summit meeting. Therefore, Madam Speaker, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the Prime Minister, with the unanimous consent and urging of this Assembly, invite both President Reagan of the U.S.A. and Chairman Andropov of the U.S.S.R. for a face-to-face summit meeting on Canadian soil to strengthen nuclear detente, and initiate the process for nuclear arms stabilization and eventual reduction. I would suggest that the meeting place be Edmonton where, several years ago, Premier Kosygin held out the hand of friendship and smoked a peace pipe.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian wine industry is one of Canada's few growing industries. Quality wines to suit a wide range of tastes have been developed. International recognition and awards are being won by many of our wineries. Their problem is winning recognition at home. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That all Members support the Canadian wine industry by attending the reception hosted by the Canadian Wine Institute tonight and that all Crown corporations and Departments of Government take advantage of the many opportunities afforded them to promote and encourage the use of this fine quality Canadian product.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, Canada Post is currently undertaking a study to determine whether unique circumstances prevail in Prince Edward Island which would warrant the continuation of Saturday mail delivery. The people of Prince Edward Island would like the opportunity to assist with this study. Therefore I move, seconded by the Flon. Member for Fundy-Royai (Mr. Corbett):
That the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation instruct the President of the Corporation to conduct public hearings in Prince Edward Island in order to obtain direct input from the people on this crucial issue.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-AIberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has told fishermen in P.E.I. that the Report of the Kirby Task Force will not be made public until January. This decision to sit on the Report for two more months ignores the mandate given to Kirby, which was to proceed on an emergency basis, and the right of Parliament to deal with problems facing tens of thousands of Canadian families. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House instruct the Government to release immediately the now completed Report of the Kirby Task Force and all its related studies, reports and background papers, and that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be advised that until these materials are made public it should not vote the $1,047,000 earmarked for the Task Force.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Earlier this week the Ministry of State for Science and Technology released a report on conservation technologies. It was pointed
November 17, 1982

out that Canadians are still the worst energy wasters in the OECD, that it is still cheaper to conserve energy than it is to produce energy by any conventional form, and that Canada should finally fulfil its commitments on conservation by giving it as much financial assistance as it now gives to energy supply industries. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the Government immediately reverse its decision to cut back funding for the Canadian Home Insulation Program and start taking the advice of its own committees and increase support for demand-side solutions to any energy shortfall we might experience.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, Canada's two national railways, CPR and CNR, have saved countless thousands of dollars as a result of the Government's six and five program, yet many thousands of CP and CN pensioners continue to exist on the basis of a pension which was inadequate long ago and has not been indexed for some time. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That the Government instruct the two railways to use the money which they saved through the six and five program to index the pensions of their pensioners and finally give railway pensioners the income they deserve.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, it would appear that the Government is preparing to appoint a new commissioner to the Canadian Wheat Board. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Government consider appointing a new commissioner from the Province of Alberta to represent the wheat producers of that Province, as they have never been represented on the Wheat Board to my knowledge before.
Oral Questions


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I introduced a motion under Standing Order 43 asking that Louis Riel be pardoned, and it was turned down by Conservative Members of the House. Therefore 1 again move the same motion:
That, in recognition of his role as a founding member of the Province of Manitoba, this House endorse a resolution calling for the pardoning of Louis Riel.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL DECISION ON IMPORTATION OF ROMANIAN-MADE SHOES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the recent decision of the Anti-dumping Tribunal regarding the dumping of Romanian boots in Canada be reviewed by Cabinet.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and in the absence of the Minister of State for Economic Development, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
20734

November 17, 1982
Oral Questions
On Monday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced a major exploration agreement with PanArctic. On that same day, the President of PanArctic said that he would have difficulty fulfilling the terms of the agreement, in part because of the decision of the National Energy Board to postpone hearings on the Arctic Pilot Project. According to PanArctic, this delay will raise costs and put the project in jeopardy, and some of PanArctic's member companies want out. In view of this situation, what steps is the Government taking to ensure that the Acrtic Pilot Project will not join that very long list of megaprojects which have been killed by the National Energy Program?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I have not been made aware of the statement alluded to by the Hon. Member, but I am happy to take notice of it on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is due in the House very shortly.


Some Hon. Members:: Here he is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: The instant minister.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO ASSIST PROJECT
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is here now. Would the Minister comment on the actions he is prepared to take in view of the indications by the President of PanArctic that, because of the National Energy Board decision to delay hearings on the Arctic Pilot Project, PanArctic may not be able to fulfil the obligations of the exploration agreement that was announced the other day, and that unless action is taken by the Minister or by this Government, the Arctic Pilot Project will join the long list of casualties of the National Energy Program? Is the Minister free to do something else beyond babysitting the creation of his predecessor? If he is, what action will he take to ensure that some of the people who are now unemployed might be employed as a result of that project?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I indicated to the Press, and I am glad to have this question, that I hope the matter will be dealt with expeditiously by the National Energy Board, a body created by this House of Commons for which 1 am the minister who reports in the House. However, there are some problems for clarification by the National Energy Board before it can render a judgment.
I do hope the National Energy Board will be able to tell those participants in the Arctic gas project that they can export gas. I have discussed this problem with the National Energy Board. The Board has assured me that it has not put aside the request, but has just asked for a delay to get some more information. I hope the Board will be able to deal with
the project as soon as possible. If we can sell some Arctic natural gas to the European market and to other nations, I will be delighted.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The President of PanArctic was quoted last week in the Montreal Gazette as saying that fundamental changes to the National Energy Program are going to be required to get his company and other companies in the energy sector back to work employing Canadians. In a Canadian Press story from New York, on November 15, the Minister is quoted as saying:
The last thing we need is a period of uncertainty.
That statement is nearly right. That is the second last thing we need. The last thing we need is inertia from the Minister which will only guarantee that the tens of thousands of Canadians who could be employed in energy related projects will continue to be employed.
Is the Minister, within the context of the cabinet decision, able to exercise his responsibility as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and do more than babysit the creation of his predecessor, and introduce some of these changes which would give some hope to those tens of thousands of Canadians who are unemployed today as a result of the National Energy Program?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member likes to utter a lot of rhetoric. I have been in touch with the industry. I have been in Calgary and in New York. People understand that we have a program in place that we want to make work. I told the industry that I would offer stability and decisiveness. That is exactly what I am doing at this time. I would like to ask the Hon. Member to check with his friends in Calgary who, I am sure, will tell him that they like this approach. They know what is the name of the game. I intend to make the program work and Hon. Members can see that the 1983 predictions for the oil and gas industry are for a much better year than 1982.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Minister knows, I am sure, that the National Energy Program has had a disastrous effect upon the petrochemical industry and that, if it is not salvaged soon, it will collapse in a similar manner in which the oil sands and heavy oil projects collapsed. Right now something like a dozen petrochemical projects worth $3.5 billion to $4 billion are on
November 17, 1982

hold because of the heavy up front taxes caused by the National Energy Program, thus making Canadian petrochemicals non-competitive in world markets. What action is his Department taking to ensure that these projects go ahead? In other words, is he getting together with the Provinces and the industry to bring the parties together to ensure that at least some of these projects might be salvaged, in the interests of stimulating economic activity in the construction industry and thereby creating jobs?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, many energy related projects all around the world, because of the industrial economic recession, are experiencing the same slowdown. My officials and I met with the petrochemical industry as late as yesterday afternoon to discuss their future plans. We have had a departmental task force for about the last four months, which was initiated by my predecessor, working with the industry. Needless to say, our goals are the same as the Hon. Member's, to increase jobs right across the country in the major capital projects we would all like undertaken.


FUTURE OF MEGAPROJECTS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Minister and his Task Force can study this issue to death, but the fact of the matter is that it is the heavy up front taxes as a result of the National Energy Program which are making the products non-competitive in world markets. The Minister should know that and indeed does not have to study it any further.
The cancellation of the Alsands, the Cold Lake project, and other heavy oil projects, again a result of the National Energy Program, has caused the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in this country, 45,000 to 50,000 jobs in this country directly, plus the tens of thousands of indirect jobs. May I ask the Minister if he is currently undertaking any initiatives with his provincial counterparts, and with the industry, to see whether or not these projects may be advanced even on a smaller scale, given the fact that this energy source is going to be required if we are to achieve self-sufficiency? In the interests of selfsufficiency, oil security, and of creating jobs and real economic wealth, what is the Minister doing to ensure that these projects go ahead, even on a scaled down version of them?


Edward C. Lumley: First of all. Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the Hon. Member's question whatsoever. As a matter of fact, if the Hon. Member would take a look at our energy cost, First of all, I think right now, even our oil as feedstock is only about 80 per cent of the world price, which gives our petrochemical companies some advantage over other countries around the world. Second, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines
Oral Questions
and Resources, and I, have had several meetings with businessmen with regard to exciting energy related projects which the Hon. Member is not even aware of as yet.


MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Minister is quite correct when he says the feedstock at the wellhead is certainly competitive, but it is the effect of the federal Government's tax which is causing prices to be at more than the world level, and the Minister should know that and should not try to mislead the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Some of these projects were onstream before the National Energy Program was thrust upon us. What action is the Minister taking specifically to see that these projects go ahead, either the projects as they were developed, or scaled down versions?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the last time I looked we were not exactly responsible for initiating all these particular projects. However, as I said in my previous answer, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I, in the last couple of weeks, have had some very fruitful discussions with consortia in the private sector with respect to some of these energy projects.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his wish to use the change of leadership at the Kremlin as a means of warming up Canada's relations with the Soviet Union, and indeed I would hope reinforcing detente, is the Prime Minister reconsidering the Government's decision to fuel the nuclear arms race by testing new weapons systems and their delivery vehicle, such as the Cruise missile, or has an ironclad understanding apparently been reached with the United States that we will do such testing in return for a much larger share of U.S. defence contracts in the nuclear weapons field?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I know of no relationship between our decision to carry out, as a member of NATO, the two-track NATO decision taken in December, 1979, and increased defence contracts from the United States. Therefore, on the essence of the Hon. Member's question, I know of no relationship. It is true that when I was in Moscow, and indeed in Bonn and in Paris, I indicated to the Governments there the very serious concern of the Canadian people with the problem of nuclear escalation and our intention to make sure that both tracks, not

November 17, 1982
Oral Questions
only the re-arming track, but the negotiating towards disarmament track, be followed very sincerely by the two super powers.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT
Pauline Jewett: The
Prime Minister says that he knows of no such understanding. I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a few weeks ago this question which I now put to the Prime Minister: will he make available to the House, and to the Standing Committee on External Affairs, all the details relating to the framework agreement in the first instance, and any agreement which is negotiated for escalating the arms race through the Cruise missile? Will he also make available to the House and to the Standing Committee, all the details of what the quid pro quo really is in this field, and what new, further and larger defence contracts the Canadian Government is allowing Canadian firms to have with the U.S. Government, and particularly the Pentagon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would want to point out to the Hon. Member that when she prefaces her question by indicating that we are escalating the arms deal, the arms situation, 1 do not see it in that light. Since I proposed a strategy of suffocation in 1978, the Soviet Union has deployed some 300 SS-20s, each capable of carrying three nuclear warheads, aimed at Western Europe. That is the origin of the two-track policy adopted by NATO in 1979.1 can assure the Hon. Member that this matter of testing the Cruise and the proposed understanding with the United States in the form of an umbrella agreement, has been raised several times in Cabinet and in Cabinet committees in my presence, but not once did I hear one single Minister or official indicate that this would be with a quid pro quo for any exchange or purchases with the United States. I can give the Hon. Member that absolute assurance.


Pauline Jewett: It would be helpful, however, if the Prime Minister would cease being so secretive with the Canadian people and with this Parliament. I would also like to remind him that the Cruise missile is almost totally, if not totally, undetectable. That is what makes it totally different from the SS-20 or any previous generation.


Some Hon. Members:: Good.


Pauline Jewett: And if it is undetectable, it is hence unverifiable.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Pauline Jewett: I will turn to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who will recall his reply to me on October 29 that he would look into the matter of pursuing the commitment made by his predecessor that the framework agreement would be made public. Will
he now reply to my request of that day that a reference be given to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to go into the whole matter involving both the framework agreement and the Cruise missile agreement being negotiated underneath it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the framework agreement has not yet been signed but, when it is signed, which may be in the next month or so, I will certainly be ready to make the details available to Hon. Members of the House and members of the public. All the matters which are covered will be made available, and there will be no effort to conceal what is a very simple arrangement to conduct weapons testing in Canada in a general way. When that is done, it will then be necessary, before any testing takes place, for discussions to occur between the Minister of National Defence and his counterparts in the United States. That arrangement would have to take place under the over-all agreement. If that occurs, we will also make the details available to the House and to the public in the fullest possible way.


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In his absence we have been seeking information on the Macdonald Royal Commission on Economic Union and Development Prospects, but his colleagues advised us to wait until his return for answers. Therefore, once again we ask, did Donald Macdonald receive assurances that he could be released from his duties as Chairman before the inquiry finishes its work and, if so, what credibility can a Commission have if its Chairman has an opting out clause in his contract?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear that there is no clause and no opting out provision in the contract, if that is the term the hon. lady wants to use.


An Hon. Member:: You can always quit.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the point. He could always quit, and if Mr. Macdonald chooses to quit in some hypothetical situation where I would be resigning my job, then surely he is free to do that. To be quite thorough in my answer, the matter did come up. I told Mr. Macdonald that I could not bind him forever, that he was raising a hypothetical situation and he would just have to take that under consideration in deciding whether he would accept it or not.
I think that the same reasoning applies to the some 12 or 14 other members of the Commission whose names will be
November 17, 1982

announced very soon. I do not think that they are bound forever, either. There are some former Conservatives on the list, and 1 suppose they too could resign to seek the leadership of the Conservative Party.


ROLE OF PROVINCES
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Prime Minister. 1 would point out that Canadians are anxious to know what it is they are paying for, and who is going to be on the Commission. One of the tasks of the Commission is to make recommendations relating to the economic aspects of federal-provincial relations. What steps has the Government taken to ensure the participation of the Provinces as full partners in the Royal Commission process?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is a Royal Commission set up under the authority of the federal Government and it has not been envisaged that the Provinces would be full participants, to use the Hon. Member's expression, in the operation of that Commission. The Provinces set up Royal Commissions of their own without full participation of the federal Government in areas within their jurisdiction; and that is the way it should be.
This being said, Madam Speaker, I do regret that the nature of the leak which forced me to confirm the existence of the Commission before I had planned to do so precluded me from informing the Provinces, as I had planned to do before announcing the formation of the Commission and, indeed, the composition of its membership.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General has just issued a statement which puts into serious question statements made previously to the House by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and by the Minister for Employment and Immigration.
In part it says:
The Solicitor General has been informed that the handbook has been used as reference material with regard to security clearances, citizenship and immigration cases and responses to other Government Departments. It may also have been used for background or contextual information for other security reports.
Will the Solicitor General tell the House whether the individuals whose cases were affected by this document will be informed of that fact, what redress they will have, and how can he give the House the assurance that, as it says in his statement, the information contained in the document was not transferred to individual files?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in the statement I made today, the handbook has
Oral Questions
been made available to members of the Security Service, and limited to members of the Security Service, on an open shelf, in a limited access area, in the Security Service. I certainly cannot therefore indicate how often it was used and in what particular cases it was used.


POLITICAL DESCRIPTIONS GIVEN IN HANDBOOK
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the Minister's response will be of absolutely no solace to the individuals whose cases might have been affected by the handbook.
I want to put my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism who, on Monday, made the following statement to the House. He said:
It was an identification of political activities in the sense of old country politics, right wing, left wing, and what the source or goal was, if there was a political goal, in the sense of old country politics.
The Government has continued to insist there is no identification of the Canadian political involvement of these groups. How does the Minister square that statement with the description of the activities of the Central Association of Sudeten Germans in Canada, which says:
The political affiliation has been continued in Canada: first being CCF, now strongly NDP. All social activities as well as their publication, have a strong political undertone, advocating the principles and goals of the labour movement and the NDP.
How can the Minister expect to be believed by the House of Commons when he says that the only intention of this handbook was to describe old country politics, when in fact it tracks activities of these ethnic organizations as they relate to domestic political parties in Canada?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, 1 might point out to the Hon. Member, as was reported in The Globe and Mail after the release by the Hon. Member opposite yesterday of his copy that he or someone had been holding onto since the 1979 Clark Government, that one of 111 groups was referred to in Canadian political terms, which 1 believe makes my point-now he signals two of 111-which I believe makes my point that this book overwhelmingly dealt with organizations; few individuals were mentioned; and it was entirely different from the Party Quebecois list which dealt with individuals overwhelmingly, their Canadian political affiliation and, in some cases, their sexual orientation. It seems to me there is quite a difference.
I would also like to remind the Hon. Member, because he said this practice was reprehensible, that 1 do not think it is reprehensible to list the purpose of an organization if it is coming to you for funding, but I think it should be done on a case by case basis as I have been doing for the past two and one half years. The booklet was initiated by the Diefenbaker Government in 1960, including the restricted list and sending it to the "I" Section of the RCMP, and making it confidential.

November 17, 1982
20738_____________________________________
Ora! Questions CUSTOMS AND EXCISE


EVASION OF DUTIES BY AMWAY CORPORATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and it concerns the financial dealings of Amway Corporation with Canada Customs. I have before me confidential company documents revealing a massive and deliberate scheme by Amway to defraud the Canadian Government of millions of dollars in customs duties. Since the Government filed civil suit in 1980 to recover these funds and penalties, Amway has not even filed a defence, while it tries to negotiate a settlement on cordial relations with the Canadian Government.
Will the Minister assure this House that this civil action which has been delayed for so long will proceed forthwith, and that no cosy, secret deals will be made to allow Amway to escape full responsibility for this unprecedented corporate rip-off?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Bring back Rompkey.
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that yesterday, or rather towards the end of last week, the Attorney General of Ontario laid criminal charges against this corporation. The Hon. Member also informed the House that in 1980, the Government of Canada, or rather the Department of National Revenue, had filed a civil suit with the Federal Court. The Department of National Revenue does not make a practice of trying to make secret deals with respect to funds owed to the Government of Canada, and that will certainly not be the case here either.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, the Minister has still not answered the question of whether or not this civil action which has been delayed for three years is in fact going to proceed forthwith.
If the Government insists in making a deal with Amway, as they have been hoping, will the Minister in fact assure the House that all terms of such a deal will include full financial recovery of unpaid duties plus interest, plus penalties, and that the full terms of any such deal will be made available to the Canadian public?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, regarding the first part of the question which I had overlooked, namely, does the government still intend to pursue its civil action-of course we do. However, as far as the date is concerned, the Hon. Member will understand that depends on the other charges laid against the same company, and we are waiting for advice from the Department of Justice
as to the kind of action we shall be taking in future with respect to the civil proceedings.
As far as any deals between the Department of Revenue and the corporation are concerned, I may point out to the Hon. Member that it is not customary for the Department of Revenue to negotiate when money is owed to the government. We establish what we believe is the fair market value of goods for customs purposes. If the company or the opposing party objects to or challenges the Government's decision, they may appear before the Department to discuss any new data they may have, and if they manage to convince us that the new information alters the situation, we will change our assessment. However, we do not negotiate and there is no horse trading when money is owed to the Government of Canada.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It follows upon the question I raised on Monday last. It concerns the acceptance of an award or a title by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Pitfield, given by the Queen of Great Britain. Does the acceptance of this award or title by the Clerk of the Privy Council mean that the Government has changed the rules on the acceptance of foreign titles and for awards by Canadian citizens? In this particular case, did the Prime Minister or the Government give permission for the Clerk of the Privy Council to receive this award from the hands of the Queen of Great Britain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question of awards, honours and titles is a very complicated one that I always have some trouble getting clear in my mind. Very often Members of Parliament and other officials get offers from various foreign countries and we are obliged to advise them to refuse the offers. 1 know that I have been in that situation myself on several occasions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can, however, clarify this particular matter because there have been precedents in many cases during the time that I have been Prime Minister.
The Royal Victorian Order is an Order personal to the Queen. She appoints recipients of an honour under that Order on her own volition, without advice from the Prime Minister of Great Britain or, for that matter, the Prime Minister of Canada. There is sometimes information conveyed that it will happen, but never is it on a recommendation of the Prime Minister that Her Majesty awards such an honour.
November 17, 1982

1 have in mind a case in 1976 when 1 was informed that an honour would be awarded to a very distinguished Canadian, the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker. I had no power to recommend it. Indeed, I am sure that Mr. Diefenbaker himself had not recommended it when he was Prime Minister. Therefore, there are many precedents for such an award. I think the constitutional position would be that the award is made by the Queen of Canada and, therefore, she is not a foreign power awarding an award to a Canadian.


INCOME TAX
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Taxpayers are required to make periodic payments of income tax during the year. I quote from a letter to me from the Minister of National Revenue dated November 15, 1982:
If tax is not deducted at the source from at least three-quarters of an individual's income, as in the case of self-employed and many retired persons, that person is required to pay his or her estimated tax payable for the year by equal quarterly instalments.
I ask the Minister if he will consider removing this regulation from senior citizens and other retired citizens now barely subsisting on pensions.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, if, as the Hon. Member is saying, these senior citizens are barely subsisting, they will not be paying tax under our present very generous regime in terms of income tax for senior citizens, but I will look into the specific case given by the Hon. Member. I will give it a careful examination and I will consult with the Minister of National Revenue on the subject he has raised.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. In his absence, I will direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary who, I am sure, is aware of the situation. I have been informed that numerous postal districts in Ontario are holding or have held meetings to consider Saturday wicket closures in Post Offices. 1 wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us if the Minister is aware of these closures being considered, if he was consulted, and does he support this reduction in service.


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister may I say I believe the Minister is aware of the
Oral Questions
closure of postal stations. I believe it was done in order to reduce costs and to improve efficiency. I believe that the Minister is also considering various representations that have been made on this subject.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, I might remind the Parliamentary Secretary we are concerned with the Saturday closure of wickets in Post Offices. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the reliance placed on these Saturday wickets by rural people. They come in on Saturdays to pick up their registered mail and parcels. In this time of economic hardship there are people who work in other communities and only have the opportunity to pick up their parcels and so on, on Saturdays. They do their postal work on Saturdays. The Crown Corporation was not set up to give less service at a higher rate of cost. Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House he will press the Minister that, before this reduction in service takes place, or any other reduction in service that Canada Post is considering, it will be referred to a special committee of the House?


David Berger: Madam Speaker, we have to make a distinction between rural delivery on Saturday as opposed to the question the Hon. Member seems to be raising, which is picking up mail at the wickets. I will take notice of the Hon. Member's representations. I am sure the Minister will be prepared to discuss any problems that have occurred through this effort in trying to improve the efficiency of the Post Office and to reduce costs.


THE ECONOMY
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would like to welcome him back and tell him that I missed my sparring partner during the last week.
As Canada's adverse balance of trade in fully manufactured products, which are the ones that produce the jobs, increased from $4.9 billion in 1972 to over $21 billion last year and during that same ten years Canada's productivity fell steadily until today it is by far the lowest of the 16 OECD countries, will the Prime Minister outline to the House what new initiatives he and his Government intend to introduce to correct this very serious situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked this question in exactly the same form so many times that I think he should continue his shadow boxing and not worry about his sparring partner.

November 17, 1982
Oral Questions


OPINION SOUGHT BY PRESIDENT OF LIBERAL PARTY
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister would like to change shadow boxing into the real thing, I am willing to step into the ring at any time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I have certainly asked this question several times. The reason I repeat it is that I have never had an answer from the Prime Minister. He has ducked, he has slid, he has slipped. He has never come up and answered the question at all.
The reason 1 ask the question is a very particular one. It is because I have been asked to express my opinion on this very important matter by a very important person, a close friend of the Prime Minister, and an associate. It is no less a person than the President of the Liberal Party of Canada. I received a letter from the President of the Liberal Party of Canada addressed to my own home right here in Ottawa. In that letter the President said:
As National President of the Liberal Party, I want to know what you think, and I assure you that we'll listen to you, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Just get this: "And I assure you that we'll listen to you, too".
As I have been asked for my opinion by the President, Madam Speaker, and have been assured that I will be paid attention to, I would ask the Prime Minister if he would convey my views on this important matter to the new President and tell her that she will receive many more ideas-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I know the President of the Liberal Party would be interested in knowing that she would never get an answer out of the Hon. Member, he would always ask me for the answer.


George Harris Hees: 1 will give her plenty of answers. I hope I will get better results than I have been able to get making suggestions to the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member says he will give her plenty of answers. 1 am sure that is what he has been doing to his own Leader once in a while.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, it has been reported that the Minister of Justice's Department requires another $3.3 million to pay for the
increased cost of administering the Charter of Rights. Apparently the Minister's Department needs to increase its staff by 50. Can the Minister give any indication of what the total cost is going to be for administrating the Charter of Rights and repatriating the Constitution? A ball park figure-how many billions?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member, like other Members of the House, would wish to ensure that due attention is given this crucial part of our Constitution.
As I indicated to the House last week, one of the principal purposes of these additional person years is to enable the Government to scrutinize all of the statutes and regulations- thousands of pages, Madam Speaker-to attempt to ensure in advance, without having to trouble the courts for a decision on everything, that at least the more obvious conflicts which exist in our present laws would be straightened out by us. Of course, it remains for the courts to make final determinations in any case before the courts.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, since the Minister of Justice will not give us the cost of repatriating the Constitution, I would like to direct my supplementary to the President of the Treasury Board.


THE CONSTITUTION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, has the President of the Treasury Board conducted a cost-benefit analysis of repatriating the Constitution? There has been $1.8 million spent already on the proclamation; can he give us any idea of what the total cost will be?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the question is of a nature that can best be answered in the detail my hon. friend seeks by putting it on the Order Paper. If he will do that, I would be delighted to give him as complete an answer as possible.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Last summer the British Columbia Telephone Company announced it was laying off about 1,800 people. These people were laid off without adequate notice as required by the Canada Labour Code, on the basis that this was allowed under
November 17, 1982

the Canada Labour Standards Regulations. A B.C. Supreme Court judge subsequently stuck down those regulations, but before the ink was dry on his decision the Government enacted new regulations removing this protection.
Could the Minister tell this House if it is his intention to deny organized workers the same notice of lay-off as other workers, and could he tell the House why the new regulation was passed when a B.C. Supreme Court judge had already ruled similar regulations ultra vires?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this matter is now before the B.C. Supreme Court. When a decision is announced by that Court, then of course we will proceed in light of that decision.



NECESSITY FOR NOTIFICATION

Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, the notification provision for lay-offs under the Canada Labour Code says that 16 weeks' notification must be given if more than 50 workers are laid off from an industrial establishment. Bell Canada in Quebec is getting around this by designating literally dozens of industrial establishments within its operation. Because of this, Bell may lay off as many as 400 people without any proper notification.
Could the Minister tell the House if it is his intention that the legislation be used in this way, that is, that 49 people would be laid off without notification in each industrial establishment? If that is not his intention, what steps will he take to prevent this from happening?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is elaborating on the same point, and the answer 1 gave him a moment ago still stands.



GRAIN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY POWERS

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, there has been a recent task force report which indicates that the powers of the Grain Transportation Authority should be put into legislation and its powers expanded to supervise performance guarantees and efficiency incentives in what may be a new freight rate policy. Can the Minister of Transport indicate whether or not the Government is contemplating, in its Speech from the Throne in the new year, legislating the powers of that Authority, because this is basically what most farmers and farm organizations on the Prairies are seeking?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, when the grain transportation co-ordinator was established a few years ago by the then Conservative Government, it was done in a rather hurried fashion, and I am being very charitable. Consequently, all the refinements of the law and regulations were not necessarily taken into account. Since
Oral Questions
then we have lived with some difficulty with respect to this institution.
I have refrained from looking for a major change because that is one of the issues which will be dealt with in the western transportation Bill which is coming into this House in a few months. We hope that the central co-ordinating agency, recommended by Dr. Gilson, or something of that kind, will be created, which will absorb the grain co-ordinator, particularly in its main capacity as car allocator. Other functions might also be given to this central agency. In other words, we hope to rectify the legal situation by the creation of another institution which would take it over.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, Canadian fishermen were encouraged this year to sell their mackerel in over-the-side sales to the Soviets through Joint Trawlers Limited of Sweden for approximately 12 cents a pound. As a result of that, Canadian buyers were unable to compete, and today long liners in Newfoundland, indeed, in all parts of Atlantic Canada, are short of bait and are forced to buy back Canadian mackerel from European suppliers.
I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans how many tons of mackerel has he authorized his Department to purchase, what is the cost to Canadian fishermen, and what increased quotas did he give the Soviets, Poland or Japan, for relinquishing Canadian mackerel for Canadians?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, it is always wiser and easier to speak after the fact. Who could have predicted what happened? I am sure my hon. friend, if he knows something about fisheries, knows that no one could have predicted this situation. I have talked with the Cuban Minister of Fisheries and he told me that what happened this year with respect to the squid was something unpredictable.
What we have done is something very, very simple, and I think very wise. We have exchanged surplus offshore mackerel, which would not have been caught by Canadian fishing vessels, in order to secure bait for the fishermen of Newfoundland. I think, in view of the circumstances, the urgency of the need of the fishermen, the decision taken by my Department was the right one.



ALLOCATION EXCHANGES

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. I understand that the Minister did not pay for the mackerel from the Europeans. He has made available some 4,000 tons of halibut which will go to the Soviets or to Poland, and some 2,500 tons of redfish which will go to Japan in the form of quotas, in payment for these fish.

November 17, 1982
Business of the House
In light of the fact that these are high-priced species which would be worth many millions of dollars if caught by Canadians and sold to European markets, what steps is the Minister taking to assist Maritime processors who will, of course, as a consequence of this swap, lose their markets for that many tons of halibut and redfish? What steps has he taken to protect Canadian producers, following this type of deal?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend is distracted. What we have done is exchange allocations which were surplus in order to have bait for our fishermen. By giving that allocation to the Japanese, who have redfish, then if our industry is wise enough it will use this occasion to enter this new market and follow up what the Department has done. It will enter the new market in Japan with redfish. This is what I expect our industry to do now.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Madam Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rising on a question or-


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, it can legitimately be categorized as House business as well.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but the Question Period is really over. If it is to ask a question, I do not think I can recognize the Hon. Member. I thought he was rising on business of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Exactly, Madam Speaker. It is directed to the President of the Privy Council with respect to a matter which will be coming before the House in the form of redistribution.
Has the Electoral Boundaries Commission completed its work with respect to Ontario? Are the maps available and if they are available, have they received any distribution to enable Ontario Members to prepare adequately to meet the question of redistribution when it comes up?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, not to my knowledge, and I fail to see how this could be considered to be the business of the House. However, I can inform the Hon. Member that the Commission will be publishing its first report, I believe, at the end of this week in the Canada Gazette. Hon. Members, in fact, all parties concerned, will have 23 days to give notice of their intent to make representations. As far as I know, nothing official has been published yet.


Mr. McDermid:: Madam Speaker, privilege!


Madam Speaker:: Let us have a bit of order. The Hon. Member was surprised that I asked if he was rising on Business of the House, which is usually dealt with on Thursday.
The Hon. Member said he was rising on Business of the House. I do not concede that this is Business of the House. I would urge the Hon. Member to ask his question at another time. If he is rising now on Business of the House, I can allow that, but if it is to ask a further question to the one just asked, I do not think he can. I just announced that the Question Period was over.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if electoral redistribution is not the business of the House, I do not know what legitimately is the business of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: In order to allow Members to prepare for anticipated legislation redistributing boundaries of electoral districts, could the President of the Privy Council inform me whether maps for Ontario have received any distribution whatsoever?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it would be an insult to the ruling you just made if I were to answer this question.



PRIVILEGE


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege stemming from the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) during proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 43. During those proceedings it was alleged that I had made certain references to what was called a "booze-up" during the last November 11 ceremonies.
Last Thursday, on November 11, I attended Remembrance Day ceremonies in my riding, just as on previous-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member tell me in a straightforward manner what the question of privilege is. I have the impression that he is discussing a motion which has been dealt with by the House and which he could have debated at the time it was presented.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, it certainly was not possible to deal with this matter earlier. The Hon. Member misrepresented entirely and inaccurately the remarks which I had made. In his comments-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is debating the motion which has been dealt with by the House, and I cannot allow that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that, pursuant to the rules of this House and to Beauchesne, Citations 320 and 316(f), the language of the
November 17, 1982

Hon. Member during Question Period was unparliamentary. Citation 316(f) refers to making a personal charge-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is fine. If the point the Hon. Member is raising is about unparliamentary language, then he should tell me that. That is what I was asking him to do. He should tell me right now what his question of privilege is. As a matter of fact, it is a point of order. I will deal with it but I cannot allow the Hon. Member to debate the motion. I am sure he understands that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Certainly. I would draw to the Chair's attention that Citation 316(f) prohibits one Hon. Member from making a "personal charge" against another Member, particularly when that personal charge is completely unfounded and inaccurate.
As well, Citation 320(2) makes it very clear that the use of the word "slander" or "slanderous" is unparliamentary. Once again, it is particularly serious when the suggestion that was made by the Hon. Member is totally false and without foundation.
I would ask, therefore, Madam Speaker, that in light of the clear violation of the rules of this House as set out in Citation 316(f) referring to personal charges made against a Member, and particularly when I was misquoted entirely by the Hon. Member, and in light of Citation 320(2), which states clearly that reference to the word "slander" is unparliamentary, you call upon the Hon. Member to withdraw his completely unfounded and scurrilous accusation.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) well knows that what I am quoting from is the Globe and Mail. If this report is false, the Hon. Member should-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. The Hon. Member is also debating the motion. 1 thought he was rising to withdraw some words. First of all, I believe the first citation the Hon. Member gave me related to charges that may only be made under a substantive motion. I do not believe that this applies at all. I think what the Hon. Member wants me to deal with is the matter of the unparliamentary language. I do not feel that this expression was particularly unparliamentary. I think it would be counted as one of those very strong opinions which are often expressed in the House in vigorous terms.
I would point out to the Hon. Member that he is left with just the word "scurrilous", which is also mentioned in some of the lists in Beauchesne. I expect they cancel each other out. I do not feel that the particular expression used by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine was unparliamentary.
I know that there has been some use of the word "slandering" in different contexts with different adjectives that has not been accepted in this House, but today I did not feel that the language was unparliamentary, and I so rule.
The Late Hon. Robert Andras, P.C.



MR. McDERMID-DISTRIBUTION OF ONTARIO ELECTORAL BOUNDARY MAPS

John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege that I should like to raise which stems from the remarks of the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader regarding the new boundary maps for the electoral districts in the Province of Ontario. The statement was made that there has been no distribution of these maps, and that in fact, they will be Gazetted on Saturday. It has come to my attention-and I feel that this is my question of privilege-that certain Members of Parliament have these maps in their possession already. They are Liberal Members of Parliament, I might add. The maps have not been distributed to other Members of Parliament. Today-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have dealt many times with questions of privilege, or alleged questions of privilege, which have to deal with documents that were not distributed to some Members but were distributed to others. It might be a grievance which the Hon. Member will want to make at a proper time, but it is certainly not a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Surely, if Liberal Members of Parliament, like the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier), are entitled to receive copies of the electoral redistribution maps before they are Gazetted, all Hon. Members are entitled to receive those maps-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: The newspapers have them.


Erik Nielsen: -and not Members on the Government side simply because they happen to belong-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: Surely we are entitled to have those maps.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am afraid I have to interrupt the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) because he is bringing back the same question which was dealt with in the question a while ago.



THE LATE HON. ROBERT ANDRAS, P.C. TRIBUTES TO FORMER MINISTER OF THE CROWN

Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring news to the House which is very sad in nature. Today we have lost the former Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, a great family man, a great Canadian and a very good friend. He is a man who

November 17, 1982
The Late Hon. Robert Andras, P.C.
served the country well and held many portfolios in Government. Today, after a very lengthy illness, the Eton. Bob Andras passed away. I hope the House will join in sending condolences to Fran and to other members of his family.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to add my condolences to the Andras family, and to Fran in particular. I subscribe completely to what was said by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) as to the sense of duty and devotion of the former minister from that riding. As one who was in Cabinet over a period of years with Bob Andras, I want to say that he was a model of hard work and of dedication to his people. He was a man who worked very long hours, always with a sense of service, and for these reasons I am sure his memory will be treasured by all Hon. Members.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I had the privilege to know the Honourable Robert Andras as a Member of the House. I want his family to know that the Members of my Party-and many of us knew him very well- mourn his passing very deeply.
I recall him, when I was sitting in the Opposition in those days, as having been a man of great civility and kindness. He treated every person appropriately and gently. Because of a particular reponsibility that I have with respect to the Public Services of Canada, I should like to indicate that he always consulted to the fullest degree with Hon. Members of Parliament, including myself, who had an interest in Treasury Board matters and in matters affecting the Public Service. He was a model of consultation within the rules which ought to exist within the House. I share completely the words of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in extolling his virtues.
He met his end with great courage. Knowing that it was coming, he still persevered and carried on in the face of great adversity. The people of Ontario, the people of his old riding and indeed the people of Canada have lost a good servant. All members of the House of Commons indeed mourn his loss.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, as a Member who served in the House for many years at the same time as Mr. Andras, who worked with him and met with him frequently when he was the minister of employment and immigration, I came to realize how hard he worked and how concerned he was about the needs of the people. Among all the ministers with whom 1 have dealt, he was the most likely to listen to suggestions, criticisms and questions from Opposition Members and to give them fair consideration.
I know that Hon. Members of my Party join with me in expressing our regret on this occasion and in extending our best wishes to his family.


Madam Speaker:: Certainly the Honourable Bob Andras was dear to Hon. Members on both sides of the House. As a
colleague of his in Cabinet, 1 was very touched by his gentleness. By gosh, he loved life, but he knew the end had come and he faced it very, very courageously.
Of course I will transmit to his wife, Fran, the sympathies and sentiments expressed in the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60(1), I wish to table in both official languages a notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, and I request the designation of an order of the day for consideration thereof.


PETITION
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by over 100 concerned citizens of Oxford County and the surrounding area who call upon the Government not to implement its proposal to shift the federal sales tax from the manufacturers level to the wholesale trade level.
The retreat of the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) from his predecessor's original proposal is welcome, but there has been only a delay for further consultation. The proposal still exists, and in the view of the petitioners, if implemented, this change will add to the cost of government, to the cost of distribution and to the cost of living.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,744, 3,745, 4,093, 4,340 and 4,346.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Neil Fraser, an employee of the Department of National Revenue in Kingston, Ontario, suspended for three days and, if so (a) what is the name and job designation of the highest official who played a part in the decision (b) on what basis was the decision made (c) what specific grounds justify such a suspension?
November 17, 1982

2.	Is it government policy to prohibit a public servant from expressing an opinion on any subject even if he were not involved in politics, not supporting any particular political party or not criticizing in any way his own Department?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of National Revenue and Treasury Board as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) J. A. Morrison. Assistant Deputy Minister, Ontario Region, (b) Public criticism of a government policy, (c) See (b) above.
2.	There is no explicit government policy to prohibit a public servant from expressing an opinion on any subject, however, it has long been accepted as a condition of employment in the Public Service that public servants should not publicly criticize government programs or policies. This general principle has been sustained in decisions by Public Service adjudicators and has also been upheld by the Federal Court.


Mr. Cossitt: Was Mr. Neil Fraser, an employee of the Department of National Revenue in Kingston, Ontario, suspended and was the suspension a part of a government policy to make examples of certain individuals for the purpose of scaring other public servants into remaining silent on any important subject concerning the country but not connected with their own Department and, if so, what reasons justify such a policy?


Pierre Bussières: See
reply to question No. 3,744 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the name and job designation of the highest-ranking official that took part directly or indirectly in the decision to fire Mr. Neil Fraser, an employee of the Department of National Revenue at the District Taxation Office in Kingston?


Pierre Bussières: See
reply to question No. 3,744 answered this day.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth): Did the appropriate officials from either the Department of National Revenue or the Department of Supply and Services authorize either the destruction or recycling of approximately two tons of Government of Canada Taxation Guides and Information Booklets for the 1981 taxation year at Mills Paper Fibres Co. in Hamilton, Ontario on August 22, 1981 or thereabouts and, if so (a) what were the names of the officials (b) for what reason was the material designated for recycling (c) what was the approximate cost of printing the booklets?


Pierre Bussières: Yes. (a) Mr. L. Donnelly, Director, Tax Forms Division, (b) The material recycled was obsolete. It was necessary to print new source deduction booklets, effective July, 1981, for employers in three Provinces as a result of tax rate changes by those Provinces. The T2 Corporation Guide 1980 became obsolete due to changes in legislation and tax rates and a T2 Corporation Guide 1981 was printed. Form T2S-TC was reprinted because of the changes in corporation tax rates in 1981. Only 1.035 per cent of the total material printed was recycled; the balance had been used by taxpayers before it became obsolete.
Motions for Papers
(c) The cost of printing of the material was $3,008.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total cost of the pamphlet "How The People Of Saskatchewan Can Make More Use Of The Government Of Canada", including all editorial, production and distribution costs?
2.	Which printing firms were used to print the pamphlet?
3.	Which private firms or government personnel were used to provide the editorial content?
4.	(a) Which private firm or government personnel provided the editorial content for pages 13 to 16 of the pamphlet (b) who had the responsibility for and gave final approval for the editorial content of those pages?
5.	Who in the Government sets over-all policy guidelines for determining what is partisan material in government publications?
6.	Do any government statutes, regulations or guidelines guide this activity and, if so, what are they?
7.	Do published guidelines exist and, if so, what are such guidelines?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 


[Stage Direction]
2.	The Smith Publishing Company Limited.
3.	D.J. Sullivan Consultants Inc.
4.	(a) D.J. Sullivan Consultants Inc. (b) The Canadian Unity Information Office in consultation with: Agriculture Canada, DRIE-Industry Trade and Commerce, Health and Welfare Canada, Employment and Immigration Canada, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
5.	6 and 7. While no central review body exists, the "Communications Policy Principles" approved by Cabinet in July, 1981, furnish guideliens as does the "Government Communications Guide" produced by the Privy Council Office in 1982.
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining querstions 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, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 17, 1982
National Housing Act (No. 2)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works) moved: that Bill C-135, to amend the National Housing Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Roméo LeBlanc: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Dick:: Madam Speaker, report stage seemed to go by quite quickly. I was attempting to get Your Honour's attention at that stage to ask the Minister a question.


Madam Speaker:: There is no debate at that particular stage. Perhaps at some other time the Hon. Member might put his question.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I believe the question should be asked of the Minister at report stage.


Madam Speaker:: There is no debate at that stage, and there are no questions permitted.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, in moving third reading of Bill C-135, an Act to amend the National Housing Act, I would like to take a few minutes just to remind Hon. Members of its purpose. The Bill will bring about certain changes in the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan which were announced by the then minister of finance in his budget address of June 29. They are as follows:
First, home owners who find, on renewing their mortgages, that their monthly payments will exceed 30 per cent of their household income will be eligible for grants amounting to as much as $3,000. Guarantees that formerly were offered to help home owners defer interest payments and reduce their monthly expenses no longer apply. Everyone who qualifies now receives the grant.
Second, home owners are entitled to the grant even if their interest is reduced at the time the mortgage is renewed, as long as their payments are still over 30 per cent. Formerly the grants were available only if interest went up. Finally, the plan is extended until the end of 1983. As the legislation now stands without amendment, the plan ended on November 12. I would like to assure Hon. Members, however, that the interest of all qualified applicants is protected. No one will be denied a grant because of the temporary lapse.
Canada Mortgage and Housing officials have continued to receive and approve applications and, as soon as Parliament provides the necessary authority, the cheques will be sent out. I would like once again to express my appreciation of the forebearance which has been shown by lending institutions in
helping borrowers during the unavoidable delays. I would also like to thank Hon. Members on both sides of the House who co-operated in advancing the Bill through its various stages as expeditiously as possible.
I am very gratified that these grants will be available throughout the coming year for those who are in serious difficulty in meeting their mortgage payments. I hope Hon. Members will bring the plan to the attention of those of their constituents who might benefit from it, and urge them to discuss their difficulties with their mortgage lenders who will explain the terms and help them prepare an application. If Hon. Members have any questions about the operation of the plan in particular cases, I know that CMHC officials, either at the national office or in the field, will be glad to help.


Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to assure the Minister that it is our intention to support this Bill and to support its passage through the House. Consequently, we hope that, with the co-operation of the House, and without precluding any Member from the right to participate in this debate, the Bill will receive third reading later this day.
However, having said that, I think it is incumbent upon me as spokesman for the Official Opposition to express a sense of disappointment. Here we have a new Minister who has just assumed responsibilities for housing at a time when the industry is in crisis, in fact, passing through the worst crisis since the Second World War. I do not want to go over old ground and talk about the mistakes of his predecessor. I do not want to refer to the mistakes of the June budget and the November budget, although we have to allude to them, but 1 do want to say to the Minister, knowing him as I do, that I was surprised that he did not avail himself of this opportunity to give a general policy statement on the housing situation as he sees it, and what he sees down the road in the way of solutions to the problems we are facing today. Certainly I think it is fair to say, although these matters are in the hands of the Government, that we will not have another opportunity before this year is out to discuss housing in a meaningful way, because obviously there will be no further amendments to the National Housing Act before the end of this session, or at least before the end of this calendar year.
I am disappointed because I think we had a right to expect some indication from this new Minister as to what direction he intends to take and what steps he intends to take to correct the mistakes of the past, those of his predecessor-albeit they were honest ones, but serious-and, of course, those gross mistakes of the previous two budgets. We are being denied that opportunity and, therefore, we can only try to present to the Government the concerns that we have with respect to this most important industry.
Just a few days ago, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation released the vacancy rates for rental units in this country. While we have noticed some improvement, there is nothing in those statistics to give us any reason to be
November 17, 1982

encouraged, especially when we examine the facts. We still have serious vacancy situations prevailing in some of the major metropolitan areas of the country, including this City of Ottawa. However, if you take a look at the situation, of the
61.000	units that were completed in 1981, as I understand it,
55.000	were started under the MURB Program. Now we do not have the MURB Program, we have the Canada Rental Supply Plan, to which I will refer in just a moment.
We are falling behind in terms of our requirements, and there will be another shortfall this year following the shortfall from last year, which will have a very important impact on the supply situation as well as the cost situation. I realize there are complications regarding the price of rental housing in this country which speaks to the need for some kind of federal-provincial agreement in the whole area of rent controls as they apply to the ten different provincial jurisdictions in the country. Unless we have a unified approach to rent control, I am afraid there is not very much we can do about encouraging investment in rental accommodation, the Canada Rental Supply Plan notwithstanding.
I do believe that a case could be made, and 1 make no apologies for this, for re-introducing the MURB Program as a short-term measure, a quick fix kind of response, because of its ability to generate starts in terms of rental units.
Let us take a look now at the Canada Rental Supply Plan. This plan was introduced by the Government as a means to make up for the phasing out of the MURB Program. The Government made provision for interest-free loans to finance up to 30,000 units. We already know that 53,900 units were started under the MURB Program last year. But under the Canada Rental Supply Plan, provision was made for interest-free loans for up to 30,000 units. The ceiling of $7,500, which was originally applied to the plan, has been lifted. We now know from experience to date that the average loan per rental unit now stands at about $12,000. Up to November 17-and these are the latest figures I could get-under the Canada Rental Supply Plan a total of 7,886 units had been started, are under way or have been approved, each representing an average loan of $12,000. As an interesting side note to the Canada Rental Supply Plan, when it was announced by the Minister's predecessor earlier this year, we find that in a press release dated March 23 the Minister said: "Up to one-third of the units assisted in this way would be made available to low income people under the federal rent supplement program."
That is commendable, given the cutback in the social housing commitment of the Government, but what are the actual facts, Mr. Speaker? When this Bill was going through the Standing Committee of the House, I asked, through the Minister, the Acting President of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation how many units of the 7,800 which had been committed, were under way, or applied, were designated as social units, or would fall into the category of social housing or low income housing. The response was, "Not one single
National Housing Act (No. 2)
unit" under the Canada Rental Supply Plan has been designated as social housing, notwithstanding the commitment made by the Minister in March.
I realize that what the Minister said in March in his press release announcing the Canada Rental Supply Plan and the position taken today are two different positions. What we were told in committee was this: up to a third of the units in a project could be designated as social housing units, not "will be" but "could be", which means, of course, that the Government has advocated the decision in this regard to the provincial authorities. This is something which concerns me greatly, considering what is happening to rental accommodation in this country today, in terms of the shortfall in supply, the increase in rental accommodation, and the increase in cost per unit of building the rental accommodation.
If we take a look at the experience to date, I can give as an example a project approved under the Canada Rental Supply Plan in the City of Toronto. This project contained 450 units. The average loan per unit under the Canada Rental Supply Plan was $15,000, and builders' cost per unit was $67,000. Rent per unit, for one bedroom, was $675 a month, and for two bedrooms was $750 a month. That, of course, by any yardstick, whether it is in Toronto or in the Minister's own constituency, cannot be considered low cost housing. That is expensive accommodation.
Where is the original commitment, made when the Canada Rental Supply Plan was first announced, to provide for social housing within this program to make up for the shortfall of the budget, because we know that last year provision was made for
30,000	units? In this year's budget, depending on which one we are talking about, but at least in the last budget which referred to social housing, provision was made for 25,000 units.
In my opinion, that is one of the more serious weaknesses in the program. This is an area where the Minister has a responsibility to take a look at the experience to date. As well, he has to take a look at the thrust of the program in terms of the impact it is having on starts in so far as it is supposed to replace the MURB Program. I think if the Minister takes a good hard look at that situation, he will find that the program is in fact not living up to expectations.
The experience across the country varies from place to place. Not one single unit has been approved or is under way in the Province of Newfoundland. In the Province of Nova Scotia there are 182 units; New Brunswick, 27 units; Prince Edward Island, no units; Quebec, 1364 units, and Ontario, 3800 units. It is interesting to note the discrepancy between Ontario and Quebec, areas which have the same kind of demographics in terms of metropolitan areas. In Manitoba there are 404 units; Saskatchewan, 352 units; Alberta, no units. I suppose that speaks to a program in place by the Alberta Government and also reflects the vacancy rate, which is interesting in terms of the economic situation in the country. In British Columbia ther are 1740 units. What these figures prove to me is something which we were told by the HUDAC people from the Atlantic Provinces, that this program would not be effective in the Atlantic Provinces because of the up front financing

November 17, 1982
National Housing Act (No. 2)
requirement, and they would not be able to take full advantage of it.
For these and other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe very strongly that the Minister would be well advised to take a look at the Canada Rental Supply Plan to see what it is doing. If it is in fact another MURB program, let us recognize it as such. At the same time, let us also recognize the responsibility which the Government has with regard to social housing, low cost housing. It is my view, shared by my colleagues and many others in this House, that the Government is not fulfilling its obligations with regard to co-op housing, because that is an area where the Government could have an immediate impact on housing starts and would be seriously addressing the problem of low cost housing.
The Minister knows full well, as do his officials in CMHC, that demand is there all across the country for co-op housing. Philosophically, the Minister is sympathetic. Co-op housing is an excellent way of beating the inflationary cycle, which has plagued the industry in the past few years, and of reducing, if not eliminating, the uncertainty in terms of rental accommodation. The experience across the country has shown that co-op housing has been more than a hedge against inflation because not only have these units been profitable in terms of meeting their commitments, their mortgages, and so on, but they have been able at the same time to keep rates well below the prevailing market. It is understandable, then, why there would be such a demand for co-op housing.
I hope that the Minister will not let too much time pass before he takes a long hard look at these proposals, and the obligation and commitment which the Government has with respect to social housing, low cost housing. This commitment is not being discharged by any of the programs which we have in place under the new policies announced in the last two budgets. The Government, indeed, has that responsibility.
Another aspect of the Government's housing policy which we would have liked to have seen addressed by the Minister today in the course of debate on third reading of these particular amendments to the National Housing Act, is the Canada Homeownership Stimulation Plan. We know that this plan was hastily put in place, indeed, without proper guidelines. It created all kinds of administrative problems all across the country. There were no standard criteria, at least none that I could determine, during the early stages of the program. I do not fault anyone for that, because of the lack of guidelines and the haste in which it was put in place, but the fact of the matter is that in many instances the $3,000 grant was a landfall to many people. I think that if the records were examined carefully instances would be found of people who received a $3,000 grant who should not have qualified. All kinds of situations occurred. Single people applied for the grant, then got married and had the advantage of receiving two grants. Houses which were well under way were able to qualify within the terms of the starting date.
However, I do not want to be unduly critical about the program because in terms of the need to provide an immediate
stimulus and a quick reaction to a situation which was growing increasingly critical as a result of low housing starts, the Government had an obligation to do something, and at least it did this. However, the fact is that now the program is to be changed quite drastically because we now know, as a result of the most recent budget brought in by the most recent Minister of Finance, that grants available under the Canada Homeownership Stimulation Plan will apply to new housing only as of January. That is rather interesting because I find that to be inconsistent with the rationale given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in not proceeding with the mortgage reduction program, which was the subject of a study by the Lortie Commission. Lortie recommended, and the Government accepted, that it not proceed with this because it would have a distorting effect on the marketplace in that it only applied to new houses. Now we find the same situation applying to the Canada Homeownership stimulation Plan. As of January, it will only apply to new houses. I can understand the reasoning behind that, the need to try to do something about the disastrous shortfall in housing starts.
What are the facts? We know from the records that up to November 12, 1982, under the Canada Homeownership Stimulation Plan, 83,761 Canadians received grants or were eligible for them. The breakdown of that 83,761 is as follows: 28,835 were for new housing, while 54,900 were for existing housing. In other words, the bulk of the applications which were funded went to existing houses. Now that is to be changed and is to be applied only to new houses as of January.
I would like to hear the Minister, his Parliamentary Secretary or someone speaking on behalf of the Government telling us how this can be reconciled, the distorting effect of this action on the marketplace and the impact it will have on real estate sales with the Government's rationale in not proceeding with the mortgage reduction program, which was promised under the budget. I will have more to say about that in a few moments. However, let us take a look at housing starts, because that is what the Canada home stimulation program is all about. When we take a look at housing starts, we realize the magnitude of the problem. Let us take a look at what would be considered a peak period for housing starts, say, in the year 1981.
In June, 1981, there were 213,800 starts, seasonally adjusted. If we take a look at what happened in June, 1982, we found they were down to 125,000, seasonally adjusted. If we take a look at July, 1981, we see a decline from June. In July, 1981, housing starts were 180,800, and in July, 1982, there was a further decline from the previous months of that year, down to 113,000. In August of 1981 housing starts amounted to
177,000	and, of course, we know that in August, 1982, there was a disastrous drop to 89,000. Continuing on to September, 1981, housing starts took a slight increase, up to 185,000. In September, 1982, housing starts were down again from the previous month, to 86,000. These are annual seasonally adjusted starts. Just a few days ago, when the Bill was before a
November 17, 1982

committee of the House, we were told that housing starts for the year are now targeted at 130,000, which, of course, would mean a very serious situation because CMHC, by its own demographic projections, estimates that we would need
220,000	housing starts for the year. So, what are we looking at? We are looking at a shortfall of 90,000 housing starts. That will drive up, and is in fact having the effect of driving up, the cost of housing in this country. It is having a serious impact on the cost of housing in the country.
Let us consider what is happening to housing costs. The national average price for a three-bedroom bungalow has risen from $37,400 in 1974 to $76,000 in 1981. Whilst there has been a slight decline in housing prices in most of the major markets in the country, we know that as a result of the shortfall, and with economic recovery and increased demand, housing prices will rise once again. If there were ever an argument that I would use to impress upon the Government the absolute necessity of providing additional funding in the area of co-op housing, it would be based on these statistics. We have a shortfall situation which will reduce supply. That will have an impact on housing costs which we will see continuing to escalate in the country, interest rates notwithstanding. That means, of course, that there are people in this country who will not be able to find affordable accommodation. I am not referring to the public housing situation. 1 am referring to coop housing, where people can get together in a co-operative way and build and manage affordable accommodation.
I know that that is a proposition or philosophy which appeals to the Minister, who is a product, of course, of the Coady Institute and of St. Francis Xavier University. I would be the most surprised person in the world if he, as one of his first initiatives, did not make a very quick move in that direction.
I would like to move on to what I consider to be the Government's obligations with regard to the now defunct mortgage reduction program, if that is the proper nomenclature. It has had several different names during the brief course of its existence. There is no question but that the Government has an obligation, if not a legal obligation, a moral one. I will not repeat the statements made by his predecessor because they have already been placed on the record. I will not repeat what was said by the former minister of finance when he introduced this provision in his budget, because that, too, is already a matter of record. 1 will simply paraphrase all the quotes by saying that the Government made it very clear that this was a commitment of the Government of Canada and, indeed, it formed a part of the Government's advertising program. It encouraged people to go out and purchase new housing with the expectation that this program would be in place and they would be able to enjoy the advantages of a reduced mortgage. We know that under that plan, mortgage interest rates would have been reduced anywhere from 4 per cent to 6 per cent. We do not know how many people were sucked in by that as we have no figures, but we do know that there were many thousands of Canadians who took the Government at its word and either purchased homes with the expectation that they would
National Housing Act (No. 2)
be able to take advantage of this program, which they had every reason to expect would be coming down very shortly or, at least, they put off the decision to purchase with the understanding that that program would be in place. I know what the quick and immediate response of the Minister would be. He would say, "Well, interest rate situations have changed. Interest rates have come down substantially". That is true, but what assurance do we have that they will stay down? That is the problem. We have no assurance at all. This may be just an aberration, just another cyclical situation. Certainly if one is facing the prospect of making the most important financial transaction of one's life, and that is what the purchase of a house represents to the average Canadian, one will not be reassured by the experience of the past two years. You are not going to make any long-term commitments. That is what the Minister's predecessor had in mind when he went on national television and talked about insuring your long-term security, that the Government was going to proceed with that program, was committed to that program. It is only a short time ago that the Government withdrew the television advertising that included that particular program as part of the over-all Government package of encouraging people to move in and buy houses now.
Now we have a new scheme, and I am surprised the Minister could not take advantage of this debate to enlarge upon the remarks he made in the House a few days ago when he was replying to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). This is the provision whereby you can use a part of your mortgage payments to buy insurance against fluctuations in mortgage interest rates. It is a good program. It is a program that does not require any blue chip committee. It does not require any great deal of deliberation. Indeed, the Minister himself, when he responded to my colleague in the House, said this: "I want to make it clear that if the proposal is found to be desirable and supportable it is not at all my intention to involve it in a future budget but rather to try to bring it forward as quickly as possible".
I want to say to the Minister right here and now that not only does he have a responsibility to discharge the moral obligation of this Government, as epitomized by statements made by his predecessor and the previous Minister of Finance, but he also has that responsibility in terms of providing something to put in its place, because many people were expecting, and were indeed told, that they had every right to expect that the Government would put such a program in place. It is a good idea. It is an excellent idea. I hope he does not fall into the trap, the luxury of thinking that, because interest rates are now down, we have nothing to worry about.
The fact of the matter is that until the economic situation levels out in terms of the long-term, it is going to have a serious impact upon housing starts in the country and upon people making a decision to enter into any long-term or medium-term contracts with respect to mortgages.

November 17, 1982
National Housing Act (No. 2)
I see no reason why the Minister should hesitate or why the Minister did not take advantage of this opportunity, to reopen the Act to proceed with this, or at least to lay on the Table his views on it. 1 am sure that there are studies now well under way within Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, otherwise this would not have been leaked in the first place. Otherwise the Minister would not have confirmed in his place in the House that these studies were under way, that in fact they were thinking about them. I am sure they have advanced to the point where the Minister could tell the House that the Government is not only committed to it but is in fact prepared to move without any undue haste.
The Government has a serious obligation to get on with discharging the solemn commitment it made to thousands of Canadians, who were taken in by these commitments and who either purchased a home with all of the uncertainty of the marketplace in terms of mortgage interest rates, or who in fact put off making that very important decision.
Finally, I would like to suggest to the Government that their mortgage interest rates insurance program, or whatever they call it, is the least they can do to provide some assurance in terms of security in a very uncertain marketplace, in a very uncertain world.
Let us take a look at our proposals, the proposals contained in the budget of the Clark administration three years ago. We put in place a program whereby mortgage interest rates and property taxes were deductible in the form of a tax credit. We were going to phase that program in over a period of four years, which means of course that the program would be fully operational this year.
Let us take a look at the impact that would have. If you take a situation of a $50,000 mortgage, which is about average if you are talking about $70,000 as the average price for a three bedroom bungalow, if that program were in place today and you had an 18 per cent mortgage rate, the person with a $50,000 mortgage would be eligible for monthly benefits in terms of a tax credit of $125, or $1,500 a year, or a reduction of that 18 per cent mortgage to 14.5 per cent. That is the 18 per cent situation.
Let us take a look at the impact it would have on a 14 per cent mortgage, which is about the situation we are in right now. Again, if you are talking in terms of a $50,000 home, the monthly benefit in terms of a tax credit, if you take out a 14 per cent mortgage under the program which we put in place in our budget, would again provide $125 a month, but it would mean that that 14 per cent mortgage would be reduced to a 10.25 per cent mortgage; but that program would be permanently in place and it would ensure that there would be a buffer against fluctuations in the marketplace.
That to me is the most desirable program. It is one that the Government could proceed with. It could implement it in instalments or phase it in, as we were going to do. But I have no illusions in that score. I have no doubt that the Government would not proceed in that direction because it will be seen to be implementing a program that it in fact voted against when it voted against that budget of the Clark Government in 1979.
Certainly I would hope that the Minister-and I know he is serious about this because his reputation is on the line-will give very earnest consideration to providing the House at the earliest opportunity with some indication of the direction in which he intends to take us in terms of housing policy. I would hope that he would give us some concrete indication of just exactly what he proposes to do with respect to providing some kind of insurance program to protect Canadians against fluctuations in mortgage rates, which of course would have and could have and are having disastrous consequences on the lives of many Canadians. I am not talking about foreclosures and all that that entails in terms of human tragedy. We are talking in terms of affordability, in terms of the total concept of what it costs to provide a shelter in this country today. When we take a look at continuing increases in fuel costs, in hydro costs, all of the costs identified with providing a home, we see the importance of any program that would stabilize mortgage interest rates in this country and provide some medium-term security for those who already own homes and are faced with mortgage renewals. We have about 700,000 mortgage renewals coming up annually. Those Canadians are still hoping that the Government will make it possible for them to be able to find first, affordable rental accommodation and, eventually, as was the custom in this country until the time that this Government brought in programs that changed all that, be able to look forward to the day when they can afford to buy their own homes, and buy them with the knowledge that they are protected by some program which would provide not for their long-term security but at least their medium security, say over a period of five years.
That is a commendable program. It is better than nothing. Ultimately I would prefer to see the mortgage interest deductibility plan we had, but in the face of the Government's determination not to proceed with that, I hope the Government will proceed with this program.
Finally, I say to the Government how important this particular industry is in terms of its impact on the economy. When you talk about housing, you talk about a labour-intensive industry. This industry is capable of creating jobs directly and through the spin-off.
The data indicates that for every housing unit built in this country, 2.5 jobs are generated. When you consider that 1.5 million Canadians are officially unemployed and the fact that we have a 90,000 unit shortfall in housing starts in this country, it would seem to be in the interest of the Government, and certainly in the interest of Canadians, for it to make a real effort to stimulate housing starts because of the impact it would have not only on providing affordable housing to Canadians, but in creating jobs in the process.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some ambivalence about the legislation before us. It is not that it is not supportable. The legislation in itself provides some measure of relief or assistance for certain people who are currently facing and who will undoubtedly face problems in
November 17, 1982

the future. I want to speak about the difficulties that we have seen arise over the course of the last two or three years and why this kind of legislation is really quite inappropriate.
The difficulty in this country has been that the Government has failed to come forward with a comprehensive housing policy. The Government has relegated housing to the level of luxury rather than elevating it to the level of necessity. The Government has not recognized that as one of the basics of life the providing of accommodation at a price that people can afford is a legitimate Government function.
The Government must not be a passive player but an active player in ensuring that all who live in this country are able to find accommodation within their ability to pay. No one should be required to lay out the kind of exorbitant sums that people are currently being asked to lay out, either in terms of rent or in terms of repaying their mortgage as a result of recent interest rate fluctuations.
I cannot help thinking back to when it all started in the late sixties. Those of us who were interested in housing at that time recognized that the move the Government made to phase itself out of regulating interest rates in mortgages was an inappropriate move, one which would work tremendous hardship over a long period of time.
I recall making that statement in 1968, standing in the Ontario Legislature and explaining the problems we were going to have in this country as a result of the removal of interest rate ceilings and the opting out by the Government of the role that had been previously played on holding the line on mortgage interest rates. I well recall the discussion I had as we looked at the potential dangers that would automatically come to many families who were not going to be able to keep pace with the rising interest rates. I must confess that at that point I did not foresee the 20 and 21 per cent interest rates that we achieved. When 1 use the word "achieved" I do not mean it in the sense of pride, but what was hoisted upon us by the banks and other financial institutions of this country over the course of the last 16 to 18 months. I do not think anyone could have foreseen that, not even this Government.
I think the major problem in housing is the lack of commitment by the Government. The Government is a peripheral player in the whole area. No longer is Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation involved in the building of homes. 1 am not talking about putting the bricks and mortar in place. I am talking about the motivating factor that gets homes built in the right areas, at a price people can afford with mortgages available under the National Housing Act, as was the way in the fifties, sixties and early seventies.
It is quite clear that the Government has, for one reason or another, opted out of the field and left it open to private initiative, the free enterprise side of the economic factor. The problem with that has been that people who build houses only for profit tend to stop building when the profit margin ceases to be at a level that they consider appropriate.
When people opt out we see happening what the Hon. Member who preceded me spoke about. He said the reason we are running 90,000 to 100,000 behind our demonstrated need
National Housing Act (No. 2)
is that in large part those homes were built by or under the auspices of one level of Government or another. The Government was very much involved in ensuring, in years gone by, that that percentage of the housing market now being denied the opportunity to have decent accommodation within their ability to pay is given that opportunity. The needs of that percentage were being met, partly if not totally, by a public body's initiative. That program is no longer there. To spend a lot of time speaking about these minor amendments of somewhat short duration is to do a disservice to the whole question of housing.
I am always interested in looking at the various and many housing programs that have gone before us. I listened as my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was speaking. He went through some of the programs that had emerged over the course of the last two and one half years, all of which were piecemeal, all of which were aimed at trying to meet a crisis situation as it arose. None of them addressed the larger, more important problem. We are now going to see yet another attempt by the Government, or those acting on behalf of the Government, to ease the burden without addressing the problem.
We had the celebrated mortgage investment program. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stood in this House and guaranteed me personally that it would be brought in this fall.
I recall that when I asked him this immediately after the June budget of the late and lamented finance minister, there was no question but that the proposal for secure mortgages would come forward. It was just a matter of the committee looking at the way in which it would be brought in. We would then have it, and people would once again be able to get mortgages for accommodation at lower interest rates within their means. That went by the board. Obviously the Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about. That is not unusual.
We now have another program being suggested. Now we are going to get mortgage interest insurance. Now, presumably, you will be able to buy insurance against increases in your mortgage interest rates. Let us examine that for a moment. What will that do? Will that encourage financial institutions to hold mortgage interest rates down to a reasonable level? Of course not. All that will do is to encourage those who are in high finance to push mortgage interest rates up again, because they will be able to claim that those people who owe them money can take out insurance against any increase in excess of what they consider reasonable, therefore, there will be no hardship. Well, that kind of program serves no useful purpose and is unacceptable. It does not begin to speak to the problems faced by a young family, single parent or retired person trying to find affordable accommodation. It does not do anything to ensure that there will in fact be accommodation built for those people. It does not guarantee in any way that those on pensions, fixed incomes, those whose incomes have been indexed by the Government at 6 per cent and 5 per cent increases over the course of the next two years, will be protected against exorbitant increases in their rents or mortgage interest rates. I

November 17, 1982
National Housing Act (No. 2)
cannot help but feel that the approach this Government is taking, once again, is attractive for a few people and therefore we will pass it, but overall it serves no particularly useful social purpose. Therefore, I want to address my comments to what should be done.
If ever there was a time for the Government to decide to build houses, this must be surely be the time. The need is obvious. By every single commentator's analysis there is a requirement to build about 100,000 more units than we are currently building. Those units will have to be of a wide variety of type and size in order to guarantee that they will meet the needs of society. The only way that can be done is if the Government of Canada recognizes that it has an obligation to make sure that those needed housing units are in fact built. The Government may say to me: we can't afford it, Ian. There is no way we can undertake that kind of expenditure at this time. But, Mr. Speaker, that is just not true.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that a year ago this month-I think you were in the chair on the day I raised it- we were speaking about the need to build houses, at that point it was 100,000 units, and we pointed out that if we were to start the process now we would create something in the order of 250,000 jobs. If the Government did not feel the urge to build the houses for the sake of the people who needed them, it surely must have recognized that, as an economic initiative, it might not be a bad idea to create 250,000 jobs, jobs of all types, not only building the homes themselves, laying the bricks and mortar in place or digging out the foundations, all the on-site work which takes place, but also making the bathtubs and the copper piping and shingles, flooring, all the things that are done in small factories all across the country, which would have helped to develop a new initiative in the economy. When we suggested that, the then Minister responsible for housing-since removed, thank God-was amused by it, to say the least. He was puzzled, I think in some ways, and obviously did not understand it. I was not surprised by that. But he rejected it because we could not afford it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what would it have cost us to build those
100.000	housing units and create 250,000 jobs? It would have cost us about $5 billion. By George, that is a lot of money, I said to myself. There is no point in pretending that it is not a sizeable sum. But what do you get for $5 billion? Well, you get
100.000	houses and 250,000 jobs. You reduce UIC payments by between one and a half to $2 billion because you put those people to work. That does not sound so bad. In fact it is beginning to sound reasonable.
What else do you do? You generate perhaps around $800 million in federal, provincial and municipal taxes. On top of that, of course, you broaden the tax base in a number of municipalities. But the really interesting fact about it is that you get all the money back, every penny of it. You put in $5 billion, you get all of those benefits, and then people pay their mortgages or rent and pay the money back to you over time. I thought, how could they possibly reject that? I looked at the advisers sitting in the corner, and I asked them how could they reject that. It seems to me to be such a sensible, intelligent and
reasonable thing to do. I mean, how could a housing minister, any housing minister worth his salt, sit there and say that they would rather have these piecemeal sort of programs-adhock-ery, as my colleague says-a sort of patchwork approach to meeting the emergency, without any overview of how to meet the real problem? I can tell, Mr. Speaker, that you, together with other Members, are just sitting on the edge of your seat, thinking: my God, if only that is brought forward we will vote for it and get on with it.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when I made that suggestion one year ago this month unemployment was 9.3 per cent. We had about 960,000 people unemployed at that point. We had a deficit of less than $12 billion. But the Government said it could not take on that additional expenditure because of the size of the current deficit. Well, 12 months have passed and we do not have the houses, but we do have a deficit of $24 billion or $25 billion; we now have close to two million people unemployed, and we still need those housing units. There is no single thing that we could do in this country, there is no single initiative that we could undertake, not one, that would create the same kind of return as doing just that one thing would create. We could have had co-operative housing, we could have had homes for the aged, we could have had rental accommodation for senior citizens, we could have had single family dwellings in many centres right across this country, and we would have reduced the number of people on unemployment by about 250,000, I predict. We would have shown initiative and created momentum. The Canadian public would have seen the benefit, they would have felt better about the Government and its approach, and we would have derived significant additional spin-off benefits. But what happened? What happened was that we got a $3,000 grant instead. We got a $3,000 grant in its place. It did not generate houses in any significant numbers. The number of housing starts continued to decline, so it is with a sense of absolute frustration that I approach consideration of this legislation.
Is the situation beyond the understanding of the Government? Is there some mental block that keeps the Government from understanding its responsibility to the nation? Dammit, we have poured money down the drain in the last year. We had to go to the aid of Dome, to the aid of Chrysler and to the aid of Massey. We had to dig into our collective pockets week after week, and month after month, but what did we get in return? Not a single job.
What I am trying to get through to the Minister, who has just taken over responsibility for this portfolio, is that this should be the last time the Government comes forward with this kind of inadequate legislative proposal. Let us begin to deal with the problem as and where it exists. For the first time, let us begin to recognize the potential there is in meeting the obvious need. Let us begin to put in place the structure necessary to guarantee that on an ongoing basis, year by year, we will make sure, by whatever means necessary, including direct
November 17, 1982

involvement, that there is the direction, the stimulus, the money, the planning needed to ensure that we meet our responsibility of providing accommodation to the public, while, at the same time, deriving the economic spin-off benefits.
It has been claimed that this would be inflationary. That is absolute nonsense; nothing could be further from the truth. How can building a house that will last for 50 years be inflationary? I do not believe that. It is incredible, but that is what the former Minister in this portfolio said to me. He said, "It is inflationary to spend the money". But it is not inflationary to run a deficit of $24 billion, of which $10.5 billion or $12 billion is above what we ran last year, at 20 per cent.
Let me make a prediction, Mr. Speaker, just as I predicted a year ago that unemployment would rise to 1.5 million, it has now passed that figure. Just as I predicted interest rates would continue to rise until the mid-term elections in the United States and then would start to decline, let me predict that they will go up again. They will go up again because this Government has made it quite clear that it has no responsibility for interest rates. It has said quite clearly in the House that it can do nothing about interest rates because they are controlled in Washington. If interest rates are controlled in Washington, then I urge the Minister to look at conditions south of the border. He will see with interest and alarm that as of today, interest rates are going back up in the United States. The midterm elections are over, all of the political consequence has passed, and banking interests in the United States are attempting to recover that high level of interest that they were charging until the last three months.
If it is true that the Government will not-it is not that it cannot-exercise control over matters fiscal and financial, and if it is true that the Government is determined to allow those things to be dictated by Washington, then as certain as 1 stand here, interest rates in Canada will begin to rise again.
We can stop that, Mr. Speaker. We do not need this kind of program to do it. Interest rates in Canada are managed by the Bank of Canada, which sets the formula to be used to determine how the interest rate structure will be pieced together and how it will operate in the country. If it is the will of Parliament and the Government to hold interest rates down, it can be done.
I suggest to the Minister responsible for Housing that as the first step toward a rational housing policy, he should begin the process of ensuring that every single financial institution in the country makes substantial sums from its investment portfolio available for the creation of a mortgage pool at interest rates people can afford, set through Parliament by the Government. That is where he should start.
Next, if it is found there is a need beyond that to recover larger amounts of interest for distribution to shareholders through dividends and other means, that should be seen as a matter quite apart from providing money for mortgages. That is the way things used to be. That is the way things were done until 1968. That is the way the country met its obligation to provide accommodation for people until the late 1960s when the Government, under pressure from the Senate Banking
National Housing Act [No. 2)
Committee, made the appropriate and necessary changes to eliminate the ceiling on mortgage interest rates.
We must go back to that stage now, while interest rates are coming down. This is the time to move in that direction. I put it to the Minister that this is where he must start.
The next thing he must do is to establish the right of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to get back into the business of building and creating accommodation for people in this country. It should be involved in ensuring that accommodation of various types, funded in a variety of ways, is available in communities all across the country, and that people can get the accommodation they can afford.
If the Government does those two things and then meets with the agencies of the Provinces and municipalities to work out some sensible bylaws to govern the building of accommodation, then we will be able to assure people that houses will be available for them. This accommodation can be of the single family type, co-operative housing, accommodation in an apartment, or whatever, but there would be a sufficient stock of housing. This would hold the price within reason.
Not so many years ago when you bought a house, although its value rarely came down, equally, it did not rise by leaps and bounds, month by month. We have reached the point where investment in housing is more lucrative in terms of the realization of immediate capital gain than is investment in almost any other thing, except last year's issue of Canada Savings Bonds.
Those are the three steps that should be taken, Mr. Speaker. The Minister should begin with the money lenders and require that they make the necessary money available so that building can begin. He should establish a Crown agency capable of contracting out to all and sundry who are competent to build, the work that has to be done to erect the 100,000 units that are needed now and whatever units are required for the future. He should sit down with the municipalities to straighten out the bylaws that in many ways infringe on the ability of people to build within the price range they can afford.
If the Government did these three things, then it would have a housing policy which would last. In that event the Government would not have to constantly run back to the House of Commons asking for adjustments, amendments, minor changes, tinkering, playing around, handing out grants, taking grants away, reducing interest rates by little bits and raising them later. It would not have to go through all this because there would be a stable housing policy that builders and lenders would understand, that municipalities would be able to use and plan by, that would put people to work, that would create places for people to stay, and best of all would be within the ability of Canadians to pay. This is ultimately where the bottom line has to be drawn. People in Canada, families or singles, must be able to find accommodations within their income capabilities.
If the Minister really wants to leave his mark in his present portfolio, he should never again come forward with such legislation. It is almost offensive, considering the magnitude of

November 17, 1982
National Housing Act (No. 2)
the problem. Ele should begin now to develop a proper policy to deal with one of the three essentials of life.
This is not the deep south. People cannot sleep outdoors 12 months of the year. We must have decent accommodation in Canada; the climate demands it if nothing else. It is time the Government made a commitment. I suggest to the Minister that right now would not be too soon to start.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to spend much time on the consideration of Bill C-135. First I should like to congratulate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) on his appointment to a new portfolio. I should like to draw his attention to a problem which is experienced particularly in high growth areas in northeastern Alberta, such as my home riding.
There are a large number of young families who purchase mobile homes which are located in mobile home parks. Indeed, in Fort McMurray I estimate that at least 20 per cent of the population is housed in these homes, but the nature of the homes has resulted in CMHC, through regulation, denying such home owners the programs which the Minister has brought forward. I am referring to mortgage assistance programs and the $3,000 home ownership grant, for example. They are not available to these people because their homes are not pegged into the ground or they have not been erected upon solid foundations.
I should like to make the case that indeed these homes are permanent. In my experience with the largest mobile home park in Fort McMurray, some of the homes have been there ten years and will never be moved. These are homes just as one may have a house built on a lot. They move their homes on to fully-serviced lots. The roadways are paved, the curbs and gutters have been installed. By their nature these homes must be kept off the ground in order to protect the services; there must be crawl spaces. Thus it is very difficult to erect foundations on which to set these homes.
Another point I should like to make is that a number of young families, again in high growth areas, are moving onto farms or acreages. Again for ease of construction and indeed for reasons of cost, they opt for mobile homes. It could be a double-width or a single-width model. These people are denied any assistance through these programs.
It is unfortunate that we were not able to propose an amendment to the Bill, but being a money bill, I am sure the Minister is aware that we cannot do so. I would suggest that by definition or by regulation through CMFIC this injustice to many mobile home owners across the country could be rectified. I plead with the Minister to have his officials look into the matter because I think it is an injustice.
Those are the remarks which I wanted to direct to the Minister. I hope to hear from him soon on a positive note. I thank him for giving me his attention.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today. At the outset I want to take the opportunity to extend my best wishes to the Minister in his
new job, and not in any way to chide the Minister by saying that I hope his introduction of Bill C-135 today, as a fisherman, is the low water mark in his housing ministry.
I hope we come to understand housing with a much different importance and perspective than Parliament has traditionally looked at the entire question. I want to reflect upon two aspects. One is the enormous potential for job creation within the housing industry. I believe this is something which is readily recognized and acknowledged throughout the country. The other aspect for which I believe there is not nearly enough recognition is what is, by scientific study, the correlation between adequate housing and the negative social factors in place in society today. I will dwell on that point at greater length in a few moments.
I am disappointed to know that with the enormous importance we must assign to housing in Canada, a country of a northern climate where housing is not an option but a requirement, the Minister took approximately two minutes to introduce the Bill. I subscribe to the opinions expressed earlier this day that the very essence of a house, its necessity and relationship to family and a home, and the requirement to meet the needs of Canadians, are such that a Minister, in establishing himself in a new portfolio, ought to have taken the time to outline for Canadians the broad perspective of a housing policy which they could view with some confidence for a long time into the future.
Essentially the Bill before us gives us a grant. On the other hand, we have a set of conditions where interest rates, though lower, are unusually high by historical standards. Also we have an unusually high unemployment situation and what has been referred to as a depressed or recessed economy. Given this set of conditions, grants are not the answer to stimulate housing. If the economy is downpressed and if there are unusually high interest rates, holding out a carrot of a $3,000 grant to persons to build $50,000 to $100,000 homes will help people who already have available capital with which to build homes. It will not help those people who are marginally able to exist in society. They will not find a $3,000 grant to be the difference between being able to own a home or not. It is not only the cost of homes but the cost of servicing the money which stops people from building houses today. I submit to the Minister that in large measure while there is some good in this legislation, it is unfortunately biased toward helping those who need help the least.
If we look at what we are facing with regard to our housing situation in Canada today, we note that the shortfall in housing is extreme and excessive. In each year over the past four years we have had a shortfall in housing. In 1979 there was a shortfall of 25,000 houses, according to the projected needs. In 1980 there was a shortfall of 63,000 houses, and in 1981 there was a shortfall of 44,000 houses. This year there will be another shortfall of 87,000, for a total shortfall in the four-
November 17, 1982

year period of 219,000 houses. We have had a shortfall of approximately one-quarter of a million individual houses in a four-year period.
During 1979 to 1982, though not as severe, a similar trend of numbers appears for apartment units. In 1979 we had a shortfall of 19,000 apartment units. In 1980 there was an additional shortfall of another 30,000 units, followed in 1981 by an additional shortfall of 16,000 units. This year there is a projected shortfall of 37,000 apartment units. This makes a shortfall total for that four-year period of 102,000 apartment units in Canada. It is fair to add the house and apartment shortfall together and see that over the last four years we had a shortfall total of 321,000 housing or apartment units.
That background, I believe, outlines what is a very, very serious social concern that we Parliamentarians must address. There is researched evidence to establish a correlation between adequate housing and social problems, and not just between housing and jobs. The problem trickles down to such industries as the caterpillar tractor that comes to dig the basement, the construction people who mix the cement and haul it so the basement can be constructed, all the way through to the people who do the final drapery and carpeting of the home.
The very existence of the independent detached house is a very different social environment in which to raise a family than that where a husband, a wife, two children, a parakeet and a poodle reside on the twenty-second floor of a highrise apartment. The data obtained in much of the social research done today establish that there is strong, significant correlation between the negative social behaviour that is running rampant in our society today and inadequate housing. All we have to do is take a look at the number of suicides, the number of broken homes, the health problems and the learning problems of children. Recent studies were done in Chicago and New York. A correlation was established between those people who lived in communities with higher noise levels, measured in decibels, those who live in the quieter suburban regions, and learning ability. There is also evidence that shows that causes of marriage breakdown, divorce rates, suicide and all of the rest are related to whether or not one has adequate housing.
I suggest to the Minister that he take a look at the culture of North America, the nature of detached housing, the kind of John Wayne syndrome in which we live, to see that the value of a house is simply more than just dollars and cents. It is not just the cost of the house; there is a much larger cost to society when that society is inadequately housed. While I submit that it is far more difficult to put an actual dollars and cents value on research in psychology and sociology, it is extensive enough that it requires an approach by Government to ensure adequate housing and that we should be able to guarantee to Canadians of varying income levels at least adequate housing so the family tradition can continue. As a result there will be much less demand on Government for social services.
My own Province, the Province of Alberta, has had a migration rate from the rest of Canada of more than 2,500 people per day for a period of at least four of the last five to six years. This was a tremendous boom for the Province, but the Province of Alberta today is suffering the worst of all the
National Housing Act (No. 2)
social problems with respect to rates of divorce and suicide, and much of this relates back to the fact that Alberta is also the area where one finds the tightest of housing markets in Canada today.
I would like to refer to another approach that I believe the Government might have been able to take that would have been more equitable and I think there is a significant public demand for the Government to undertake it. In Canada today we still have an 11 per cent building materials tax at a time when we have a 321,000 shortfall in housing and apartment units. That a Government can still afford to tax building materials at 11 per cent while at the same time claim that it is trying to stimulate housing is simply nonsense. This would not befuddle any grade three student, who would know that it is absolutely essential to do the opposite. Moreover, the fact should be underlined that the Government is collecting a building materials tax of 11 per cent; that works out to just short of $3,000 on the average Canadian home. In other words, $2,800 or $2,900 could be saved by the average home owner.
This Government is saying that it will give a grant of $3,000 to certain people while leaving in place the building materials tax for everyone else. In short, the Government has put in place an expensive additional tax, which means that when a person goes to his local hardware store to buy things needed to build a dog house or to fix up a fence, he is paying an 11 per cent tax. That tax should be removed. It would be a much more fair and equitable stimulus for the industry. It would also give a stimulus to the broadest sector of Canadian society and would not be limited to those people who spend only 30 per cent of their incomes on housing.
With that in mind, I suggest to the Government that is one of the approaches it ought to take, because it would have a broader perspective of fairness and would probably do more to stimulate housing than the present policy does.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that one of the policies brought in under the Clark Government in 1979, in the budget of the Finance Minister at that time which was defeated by the Liberals and the NDP, was to allow Canadians to write off their mortgage cost for income tax purposes. To illustrate what that formula would have meant today in terms of housing, Canadians would have been much better off as far as housing affordability is concerned than they are today under the present grant of $3,000 from the Liberal Government. What it would have meant is that for the person today who buys a $50,000 house or remortgages at approximately 14 per cent at today's rate, there would have been a rebate equivalent to $125 per month, meaning that the real interest rate on the mortgage would have been in fact reduced to ten and one-quarter per cent. If a person bought a house worth $70,000 and applied their maximum rebate, again it would be $125 a month, which would have meant an 11.5 per cent interest rate for their mortgage under that Conservative formula.

November 17, 1982
National Housing Act (No. 2)
That kind of policy was one that the Liberals and the NDP decided to defeat. The fact of the matter is that Canadians would have been better off, housing would have been more affordable and, therefore, more houses would have been constructed.
I would like to expand on that last statement with respect to employment, unemployment and the housing industry. The housing industry is the proper place for the Government to give encouragement because it has a filtering down effect that touches the largest portion of our society. When you build a house, trees start coming down, sawmills start working, cement plants start grinding, trucks start moving, caterpillar tractors start digging, copper mines start to provide wiring, carpet manufacturers begin to sell curtains and rugs, and appliance people go into operation-the whole scenario, right through to paints and chemicals. Not only is it a stimulus that affects such a broad sector of society, but it reaches into virtually every region of the economy. That is the proper way for Government to say it will make housing affordable, by making sure the people of Canada are not hit by interest payments at the high rate at which they are now, which affects everyone's quality of living. Stimulus to housing has an enormous effect on the economy of the country.
In 1982 700,000 Canadian families had to renew their mortgages. With more and more Canadians out of work, the need for assistance from the Government of Canada becomes even greater. In October of 1982 there were 1,450,000 Canadians unemployed. I need not tell a wise person such as yourself, Mr. Speaker, that this figure does not reflect all the unemployed people. That figure is the "official" unemployed. The statistical data do not include the over 80 per cent of our native people who are unemployed, or the people who have quit looking to Canada Manpower after six or eight months of finding no work. It would not surprise me or, I am sure, most Members of Parliament, that the real figure of unemployed in Canada, with a population of some 24 million, is more probably in the neighbourhood of two million.
By way of conclusion, may I say that housing is the largest single component in our consumer price index. Any stimulus such as inflation which causes housing costs to increase has the biggest effect on our consumer price index. In the face of that important fact, this Government tells us repeatedly that their principal concern is the reduction of inflation in Canada, a goal for which I applaud them; but it makes absolutely zero sense that it would continue with the 11 per cent building tax which affects everyone, not just some groups of Canadians who find themselves in a situation where more than 30 per cent of their income goes for housing. In effect, all Canadians must pay tax on every piece of building material they purchase. Remove the tax and the economy will receive more stimulus than any grants given out to limited numbers of Canadians.
As an economic sector, residential construction is a major industry and accounts for 6 per cent of our gross national product. That, again, should signal to us the importance of stimulating the housing industry. Six per cent is no small
portion of the large volume of money which in fact would equal the gross national product. There should be an appropriate stimulus in that area. We must realize that if, as has been recognized by economists, we are in a very serious economic downturn and our gross national product is not being stimulated adequately, surely housing is one of the stimulative areas which is most important.
Finally, I would like to deal with one further fact, which is the migration patterns of Canadians today from rural to urban centres. More and more Canadians are gravitating to urban centres, to the point where the ratio is virtually reversed from the early days of our country. At that time approximately 87 per cent of the people lived in rural areas. Today it is almost that identical amount of people who live in urban centres. Most of the rural Canadians are really rural, non-farm, because actually only 5 per cent of Canadians live on farms today.
What I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker, is that there needs to be a new approach to the question of housing. There should be an approach with respect to urban centres which gets away from more and more apartments to houses which are affordable. 1 am not suggesting for a moment that the Government stop any of its activities in terms of encouraging the building of more affordable apartments, but rather that that is not in itself the answer. As long as the house is the largest single expenditure that the average Canadian family will ever incur, that house, in a North American clime, must be made affordable and accessible.
What we are looking at is a two-pronged concern. The desire of Canadians in general to own their own homes, at least some day, versus an economic set of conditions, an employment set of conditions and an interest rate set of conditions, is making it such that there must be some stimulus in our system.
The actions of the Government today amount to this. The Minister in charge of housing introduces a housing Bill, speaks for approximately two minutes, outlines no broad strategy for housing, addresses no broad concerns of housing, but simply makes some amendment with respect to a previous inequity. He leaves the Bill before us without addressing the long-term concern of housing itself.
A fundamental and root evaluation needs to take place, not just of houses, costs and dollars, but of the concept of families, the concept of family in play, the concept of family and association, the concept of the home as it relates to the structure of our society, and of all the extraneous costs attached thereto. The fact is that we live in a country which, by the standards of virtually every Canadian, provides inadequate housing at the present time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to see the Minister of Public Works and the Minister responsible for housing (Mr. LeBlanc) in the House today. I do not intend to occupy the time of the
November 17, 1982

House for long with respect to the matter, but I am pleased to see him here. I think it is an important part of the parliamentary process that when a Minister's Bill is being addressed by the House of Commons, the Minister responsible be here as much as possible.
I am also pleased to be able, on my first intervention in the debate, to extend my good wishes to the Minister as he undertakes the work in his portfolio. I note that he has sitting beside him the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), and I am sure he is instructing him in the vagaries of fish and seals and other things. However, his portfolio is a very important one with respect to housing because it is a difficult problem facing the country. 1 think in terms of public works that his portfolio is historically significant in the development of the country and that with respect to the National Capital Commission his responsibilities have a great deal to do with the prosperity and development of a capital which reflects all of Canada.
That is the spirit in which I want to address the Minister. I want to tell him, as he already knows, that it is our intention to support the Bill because it will be of some assistance, but perhaps not enough assistance in view of the size of the problem facing housing. However, it will give some assistance and it is a piece of legislation that is worthy of support and we intend to support it.
I hope it is helpful in one problem which I would like to address through Your Honour to the Minister. It relates to the really startling evidence that Ottawa and the National Capital Region in general now has the lowest vacancy rates in the country, according to statistics released by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In Ottawa-Hull, as it is described, the vacancy rate is 0.3 per cent, with Ottawa at 0.2 per cent and Hull at 0.5 per cent. I think that if one translates those figures, spreading them out into the Cities of Nepean and Gloucester, one will perhaps find that the figures are about the same.
It is the lowest vacancy rate, and what that means to the people in the area is that there is the gradual development, in the rental housing area in particular, of very little choice. I hope that the Bill will advance the cause of construction and will somehow entice people to invest in owner-occupied homes, which would relieve, to an extent, the very low vacancy rate with all of its ramifications. Then it would be a very healthy move.
I do not have to tell the Minister that tenants and renters in the area are caught in a bit of a squeeze. The Government has enacted the six and five program, limiting the wages of a large group of people who work in the Public Service in Canada. The extent of their income has been limited. The economy, as poor as it is, has limited the incomes of others not within the Public Service. So there is a squeeze here. Granted, we are more fortunate than other parts of Canada in many ways, but there is still a squeeze.
However, with respect to apartment rentals in the centre of Ottawa, the outskirts of Ottawa and in Nepean, people are living with limited choices of accommodation while the rents in the area have grown. It has been brought to my attention that
National Housing Act (No. 2)
increases of 18 per cent, 25 per cent and 45 per cent have been approved by rent review tribunals. I must tell the Minister that there is a dreadful uncertainty among people who rent, some who rent by choice and others by necessity. Their concern is whether or not they will be able to enjoy the standards of living accommodation to which they have been accustomed.
I take it that this is a very real problem, one which Members of Parliament from this area meet every day, and I want to address it in the following terms. I know that rent review and control in the sense it is practised, at least in the Province of Ontario, is not within federal jurisdiction but, rather, is within provincial jurisdiction. In one particular case the provincial Government has moved, although some say not adequately. The Government of Ontario has moved with respect to the City of Toronto, but the problem remains. It is endemic to the system and we hear about it every day.
I want to repeat a request which I made to the Minister some time ago that he look at the situation within the National Capital Region so that he may understand that the vast number of rental units are owned by landlords, benevolent or not, in an almost monopolistic set of circumstances which leaves little room for competition. Many people feel that they have been taken advantage of as a result of high interest rates and the monopolistic conditions which exist.
The Minister himself cannot lower the rent and I am not suggesting that he can do that. I am not suggesting that he can control the rents, either. However, as a federal Minister he has some responsibilities, as had his predecessor, to take some leadership in recognizing the problem. I am now asking the hon. gentleman, who is known for his leadership with respect to fish, to take leadership with respect to tenants. I would like to suggest to the hon. gentleman, for his consideration, that he, as the Minister in charge of housing policy for the whole of Canada, should recognize that that situation exists here in the National Capital Region but that it also exists in other cities. He should get together as quickly as possible with all his provincial counterparts to see whether or not some concerted action can be taken by all the Governments. The provincial Governments should be encouraged to take action with respect to the situation, which is getting worse.
I tell Your Honour that many people have come to me and said that not only are their choices limited with respect to housing but that they do not see any light at the end of the tunnel either. I mentioned this to him during the course of a speech I made a little earlier and I would like to take these few brief moments to bring it to his attention again. I believe he could be doing a great public service. With his reputation as a conciliator, which is a reputation that has been earned-there are many in this House who would disagree with that, but I would like to say that he has that reputation-he could bring whatever powers he has, whatever influence he has, to bear on the provincial Ministers of Housing to see whether or not there is some way that there can be a joint Government effort, or a conference at least, to explore the problems to see whether both levels of Government could work together in this area.

November 17, 1982
National Housing Act (No. 2)
I want to conclude by saying this. Canadians generally are not organizers, they are not marchers, they are not demonstrators. What has happened in the rental communities in the country is that the Canadian people are organizing, they are demonstrating, they are marching. They are marching because of the limited choice of housing, the high cost of housing, and a sense of despair as to what the future is.
1 think that should be a signal, not just to provincial Governments, although certainly it should be a signal to them, but as well to the federal Government. I ask for that kind of intervention by the Minister. A federal-provincial conference with respect to the problems of rental housing would be something that would be welcome in the national capital and across the country.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the Minister of Housing for being here today for this debate on his Bill, and 1 wish him well in his very important portfolio.
If 1 may, I would like in the time available to me to break down the subject by the problems as they appear to be, and then deal with some of the solutions that I believe should be considered by the new Minister.
The Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has indicated that the Party intends to vote for the Bill as it constitutes something positive in a very important area.
Let me for a moment give some indication of the housing problem as it appears across the country. I have in the Toronto Star of October 12 the heading: "Housing Collapse Feared If Help Stops". The article states:
Builders and constructions unions fear a collapse of the multi-billion-dollar housing industry this winter if Ottawa and Queen's Park don't give more help to new home buyers.
A little further down:
The industry, which has been hurting for almost two years, provides jobs directly or indirectly for one in every ten of Canada's workers, according to industry estimates.
From The Globe and Mail for October 29, 1982:
"Developers Warn Housing Industry Key To Recovery''
That is a sentiment I share profoundly. In western Canada it is the energy industry, but for the rest of the country it surely must be the housing industry. Continuing:
Governments are going to have to find ways to push mortgage interest rales down if the housing industry is to play its increasingly crucial role in pulling the country out of recession, a spokesman for a national organization . . . said yesterday.
Further down:
"Considering the state of the auto industry, housing will have to carry a lot of the burden of recovery," Mr. Galway said.
Thirdly, a quote from the Montreal Gazette of October 8, 1982 under the heading: "Housing Starts Reach 22-year Low". I quote:
The recession tightened its grip on the residential construction industry last month, as Canadian housing starts fell to their lowest level in 22 years-from a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 89,000 in August to 86,000 in September,
according to statistics compiled by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. (CMHC).
That's the lowest level of activity recorded since March, 1960, and appears to be further confirmation the current construction slump is longer and deeper than predicted by most experts.
Another quote from a newspaper under the heading: "Ottawa Urged to Develop National Policy on Housing".
One other short quote, datelined Winnipeg:
The federal Government must stabilize Canadian real estate markets by developing a national housing policy and indexing mortgage rates-
That was said by the President of the Canadian Real Estate Association.
A quote from the October 18, 1982 Globe and Mail, headed: "Housing Sector Banks on Cheaper Money", reads:
Ewen Ferguson, president of Construction Forecasts Co. of Toronto, describes people as being "gun-shy" because of high unemployment. And he argues that mortgage rates are going to have to come down more-to the 12 to 14 per cent range for about six months-before normal activity will resume.
A quote from The Financial Times of August 23, 1982 under the heading: "Home Ownership on a Downward Track":
For the first time since the 1960s, when baby boom families distorted housing patterns, home ownership rates in most parts of Canada are declining.
Another quote from the Calgary Herald of October 15, 1982. This is just one paragraph:
The interim report by the Task Force on Affordable Housing says home ownership-long a goal for most Canadians-is now beyond the reach of a growing number of Calgarians.
You may be wondering, Mr. Speaker, why I am telling you there is a problem in housing when everybody knows there is a problem in housing. The question, of course, is: What is the Government going to do about it?
I would respectfully suggest that the real problems of housing, at least at the moment, involve interest rates. It is true that mortgage rates have dropped drastically, from a high, 1 see in this chart, of about 21.5 per cent to 22 per cent in April of 198! to about 14 per cent today and, you may say, they may go down even more. They seem to be going down, and I hope they do by the end of the year.
1 would respectfully submit to the Minister that what is holding back the young couple or the middle-aged couple now is not the current level of interest rates, but the fear that if they go out now and buy a home, pay $20,000 to $25,000 as a downpayment, in one year or two years from now when their term runs out on their mortgage they will lose their downpayment because they think-and a number of people have confirmed this to me-that interest rates will be back up to 21 per cent or 22 per cent.
Has the Minister considered trying to encourage lenders to provide, if not a seven, a five-year term mortgage as their service to a desperately debilitated economy? Has the Minister considered trying to persuade the larger lenders to provide at least a five-year fixed interest rate mortgage? 1 was sorry I was not here to hear his speech. Perhaps he spoke about that, because 1 think at the moment that is the crucial problem facing the housing industry. It goes without saying that a 21 per cent or 22 per cent interest rate destroys the hope of
November 17, 1982

anybody of buying a home. The Minister may say the rates are down, but I think the point is that people have to be reasonably guaranteed that they will stay down for a three or five-year period.
I can think of all manner of people who have come to me in my riding, such as one young couple who bought a home and were paying about $600 a month principal, interest and taxes. They had to renegotiate their mortgage and it went to either $900 or $950 a month. They have a child, the wife cannot work, and they were literally in the position four or five months ago where they were asking how could they get out of their mortgage.
I am certain there are people in your riding, Mr. Speaker, and in that of the Minister who complain about this problem. They are concerned about losing their homes. If they buy a house today, will they lose it in three years when the mortgage runs out?
Another issue is the spread in what the various financial institutions pay their depositors and the rate at which they loan the money, for example, the prime rate. I recently saw an article in the Edmonton Journal published some time in October which indicated that the spread in all of the banks in 1972 was about two points. In 1982 the average spread is 4.2 per cent. The Royal Bank on October 6, 1982 had a spread of five and a quarter, the Toronto-Dominion five and a quarter, the Continental four and three quarters and the Bank of British Columbia five. It would not be unreasonable for the Government to approach these financial institutions and ask them to reduce their spread back two points in the national interest. We are all bleeding at this time. Therefore, it would not be too much to ask the banks to reduce their spread. How many couples might buy a new home at 12 per cent who would not buy a home at 14 per cent? If the banks would bring the spread down by two points as their contribution to the national crisis, it would help the housing industry across the country.
There are many other issues; I will just mention a couple. Everyone in this House knows that the capital flight last year was about $10.2 billion in direct investment and $8 billion disappeared from our national accounts. A soured investment entrepreneurial atmosphere drives up interest rates. It is a vicious circle. More money leaves Canada. Obviously some of that is mortgage money. With the exchange rate on the dollar we need more incentives to keep money in this country. A soured investment climate is our problem.
I wish to refer to a proposal made by a small builder in my riding. He has been building homes in the Edmonton area for 20 years. He points out that the unemployment rate is officially 12 per cent. In Alberta it is 8.5 per cent, which seems to surprise some people.
Let us look at housing starts. I realize I am not supposed to refer to charts. However, let us follow housing starts from 1976, when they were running at about twice what they are now, through to the present rate of about 76,000 units a year.
National Housing Act (No. 2)
In addition, let us look at the growth in unemployment from the beginning of 1981 to the present.
There is a definite causal relationship. The Minister may say the reason there are not more housing starts is unemployment. However, as my constituent points out, virtually everything in housing is labour-intensive. The copper is in the ground, the trees are in the forest. In fact, most products used to build houses come from the ground or our forests. It is simply a matter of taking them out of the ground and the forests and bringing them to the site of the new homes.
This contractor points out that more than two jobs are created with every housing start. I will not go through the details of his formula. However, he points out that if 200,000 homes more than are expected to be started this year were built, it would create 400,000 jobs. That is 400,000 men and women who are now drawing unemployment insurance or social assistance. Think of the saving to the Government if these people came off unemployment insurance or social assistance. The ballpark figure that a construction worker earns is $20,000 a year. An unemployed construction worker now receives about $800 maximum in unemployment insurance. If these 400,000 were taken off unemployment insurance, they would again have self-respect and there would be reduced social problems. In addition, they would be paying taxes and we would have the necessary homes provided.
I have an aunt who lives in a major city in this country. She is the widow of an artist. In fact, her husband painted the portrait of Sir Wilfrid Laurier which is in the lobby. She lives in very modest circumstances. However, she has had an indication that her rent will be increased 15 per cent next March. Unfortunately, because her husband was an artist, she docs not receive a pension. I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of people in similar circumstances in this country.
To get back to the proposal by this contractor, if an additional 200,000 homes were started, this would get Canadians back to work. It would get our suppliers, lumbermen, architects and engineers back to work. People who come to western Canada from other parts of the country find they are the last to be hired and the first to be laid off because of the construction collapse.
It may be said that this is all very well in theory, but can it be done in practice? I understand that in 1948 West Germany decided that the best motor for its economy was the housing industry. Ludwig Erhardt and others in West Germany decided that they must get the construction industry going. They decided that if Helmut Schmidt, for example, would donate a portion of his wages to a government-sponsored housing bank, a certain amount of that would not be taxed. It was similar to our RRSP. As a result of that proposal, all kind of money went into the pool. This money was loaned to builders at reduced interest rates. The number of homes under construction went from 200,000 a year to in excess of 400,000. I believe it stayed at that level up to the present time.
There are many men and women in this country who would like to apply their skills and trades. At the moment a great number of them cannot do that. The Government should

November 17, 1982
National Housing Act (No. 2)
consider something imaginative, such as the West Germany plan. For that matter, what about something like our proposal to make mortgage interest and property taxes deductible? Possibly even shelters should be deductible up to a certain point. France does it. That country has a very imaginative scheme which provides subsidies to couples, depending on their income, number of children and that sort of thing.
Aside from the problems I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the problem is volatile interest rates, interest rates which are too high, and mortgages of too short a term. 1 respectfully ask the Minister, because he is starting a new area, why will he not look at some of these imaginative programs which have worked elsewhere and consider putting them in place in Canada?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, 1 ask which one of us in this House would deny that housing is the most readily available motor which can get our people back to work right across the country? 1 think everybody accepts the truth of that. Why, then, in a situation like this, do we have a Bill which, in my respectful submission, is a positive step, yes, but one which does not get at the basic problems?
Perhaps someone on the other side will speak to some of these matters I have raised because they are the major problems right now, and the fastest way of dealing with the problem of housing would be to deal with each of the issues I have mentioned. I hope the Government will bring forward something dealing with those matters; if it does, we can get our housing industry back to work.
When 1 was speaking about my constituent's proposal, Mr. Speaker, 1 did not mention that he maintained that by getting 200,000 homes going, the federal and provincial Governments could gain a net amount of as much as $10 billion a year. If the Minister wants to know how my constituent arrives at that, 1 would be happy to give him the figures. My constituent mentioned that more than two full-time jobs are created for every home begun because almost all the money which goes into housing, apart from land, is for labour. In short, it is the most labour-intensive industry of all. I put it to Hon. Members that the almost Siamese-twin relationship between unemployment and housing starts is striking, and housing really does appear to be the best available domestic motor to get our entire economy going again. I would urge the Government to make some significant innovations in that area as quickly as possible.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today with a great deal of concern and without any great deal of pleasure to speak on the subject matter of this debate. I would like to reflect on the position of someone who wanted to buy a home at the time I was first married and needed a home. At that time the expectation was-it was almost a promise-that any individual who was frugal and ambitious could look forward to owning their own home in a reasonable period of time. That home would cost them roughly 20 per cent of their income. I feel that my generation and this
Government have now put the would-be home owner in a position where he has to spend not less than 30 per cent of his income, and probably 35 per cent of his income, to own a home of comparable quality to that of the home which I was virtually promised by the economy of my country when I bought it.
What pleasure then, Mr. Speaker, can I get in addressing the subject of home ownership when we as a country, and the people on your right as a Government, have allowed the value of one's earnings to deteriorate to that point?
Now, one may say that yes, you can still get by at 20 per cent or 25 per cent. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you spend in that range as a percentage of your income, you are going far below the standards of those people who were buying their homes when I was buying mine. We have, Mr. Speaker, by our policies put home ownership virtually out of reach of even the most frugal and most ambitious of people today. When I compare that with what I inherited from my country, it is obvious that we have been very, very sloppy in our management of the economy, particularly as it relates to housing.
The Minister and I both come from communities in which, when we were young men, it was the expectation, usually realized by 90 per cent of the people, that we would be in our own homes. Certainly it approached that percentage in the smaller towns and rural areas of the country in the 1950s or 1960s. But we have denied that opportunity to Canadians, Mr. Speaker. We have changed the ball game at various levels of Government. When I purchased my home, the street on which it sits was in and paid for by the municipality or the Province. But today, Government at the municipal level has changed that to the point where you build your own streets and supply your own services, all at the highest possible cost, which in turn has inflated the cost of home ownership. Surely we have served succeeding generations very, very poorly.
I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this housing crisis which exists in Canada today is a black mark on the escutcheon of the Government of this country, which is approaching the criminal in its negligence, lack of leadership and forthrightness with the people of Canada as to whither are we going. It is not that long ago that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in seeking re-election, was able to say that this country is strong. Well, I want to say it must have suffered from malnutrition or something because it is very, very weak today.
There is no more stark and realistic example of that than the lack of attention to those who follow us and their right to own a home. And is it not reflected in our economy? We have a declining level of house construction in spite of all the incentives provided by the federal and provincial Governments in the form of non-taxable grants, interest-free loans or other incentives.
According to an article in The Globe and Mail, as late as October statistics indicated that we still did not have the
November 17, 1982

upsurge in house building that would make a major contribution to the improvement of the economy. No one is confident that they will be able to sell their house and get their money out of it if they are transferred. As a matter of fact, those who bought houses in the last ten years-except in Ottawa or half a dozen or so other prosperous communities-may have had to suffer a capital loss if they were transferred. In some cases this loss was absorbed by the employer. It is an economic tragedy that we find ourselves in this position, Mr. Speaker.
I do not plan to belabour the subject or to bore the Chair or other Members of the House about this. As participants in Government, while we on this side do not have any influence on policies, I feel that we will have acted as traitors to the generation to come if we compare what we inherited from the country to what we will pass on to the young people who hope to buy a home today. What a tragedy it is.
I should like to deal now with some of the difficulties that I have with the housing program. For one thing, apparently by regulation a church cannot build a home and enjoy the benefits of this program. By virtue of some regulation, this category is excluded. A couple of congregations in my constituency have approached me about this. It is rare that such a house would be vacant or for rent. I appeal to the Minister to examine the regulations to see if church congregations cannot be made eligible for the tax-free grant if they wish to build a parsonage.
1 think the regulations that apply to tenants who wish to buy the home they occupy should be amended to recognize the tenant's status, without splitting hairs. I know of a case where, by the grace of the parents, a young couple live in a home in which they have absolutely no investment. They have maintained and heated it but have not contributed to the purchase price. If they qualified for the grant they could buy the home. It was easy for me and all of my generation to do that, and I think these young people should be given some consideration so that they could buy this home. Let the churches build a home and let anyone who has no equity in a home buy it under whatever terms may apply.
It has already been stated that people living in mobile homes on rented or community lots have difficulty getting the grant. The specification that the home must sit on a basement cannot be met if one is leasing from the community or from a private entrepreneur. The regulations should take the needs of all people into consideration. 1 do not think we have any right to put constraints upon anyone occupying a mobile home. Many people have been stung in the sale of their property when they had to move from one community to another. Someone who owns a mobile home could at least take it along at little cost and not get stuck with a capital loss.
My own sons and daughters have experienced serious capital loss in purchasing homes and selling them in one community after another as their jobs necessitated. I rather admire those who are willing to start out in a mobile home and I do not think the regulations should preclude this type of shelter for those who want to buy it, regardless of location.
National Housing Act (No. 2)
I hope the Minister will address some of the inequities that result from the classifications set out in the program. I hope the regulations will be released quickly. If they do not comply with the needs of the parsonage, the mobile home and others, I hope they are not so fixed in stone that they cannot be adjusted so as to be equitable to all who want to buy a home under the program.
With that plea to the Minister I say, let us get on with this. The Bill was introduced on June 29 but the regulations are not available as yet. That is not the fault of the Minister, of course; his predecessor was extremely lax in his duty. I hope that the present Minister is more cognizant of the needs of the people than was his predecessor, who neglected these things. I suppose the secondary role that he now occupies in Cabinet shows that this was recognized by the Government.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that I hope to finish my remarks a few minutes before six so that the legislation can be passed.
Like other Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, but it is still just a band-aid solution to a very difficult problem.
Before I go further, I want to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to this portfolio. I do not envy him, as it is a very difficult portfolio. Nothing he may do will be enough for the people of Canada. In the second half of the 1970s I spent several years as a Minister of Housing in a provincial Government so I know that the problems never disappear; they are always there.
The real problem today is not one of supply of housing but of affordability. Since World War II there has been no greater success story than that of the manner in which Canadians are housed. I say that with all the honesty at my disposal. At the present time we are the best housed people in the world. Indeed, the percentage of total income that goes to housing in this country is one of the lowest in the world.
In this country we have what is perhaps the greatest ratio of single family housing to multiple housing of any country in the world. We have built tremendously expensive communities which have a very low population density and extensive facilities. At some point we are going to have to pay the price for all this, and I feel that time is close upon us. A whole new policy on housing is needed. Some of us who were provincial Ministers or federal Ministers in 1978 recognized how desperate the need was.
There are basically five areas of the total housing picture that must be addressed. The first is global capital financing. Plenty of that is available in Canada today as savings have never been higher. The money is there but the cost of that money is too high when it is required for housing.
The second matter is the delivery process. The third matter is the approval process, and the fourth is the servicing process, which involves various utilities over expansive land areas upon

November 17, 1982
National Housing Act (No. 2)
which housing is built. The fifth matter is affordability, which is a critical matter in the area of housing.
How many people can afford housing today? 1 would ask the Minister whether this particular program of a $3,000 grant per housing unit is to help affordability, or is it an attempt to stimulate the housing industry and to create jobs? If it is both, as he gestures, that is fine; it will not do very much, anyway. What the Minister has in terms of a good program is the housing repair program.
The housing stock in the nation is such that the present occupancy rate in Canada is three persons per housing unit, and in some areas it is lower. By itself that is the lowest in the world in terms of numbers of people per housing unit, but there is some doubling up and tripling up taking place at present because of costs, particularly operating costs.
I should like to deal with the idea of a shelter allowance directly to the person, but time does not permit me to do so. I am not referring to a one-time housing grant, but to a shelter allowance directly to the person or indeed through the income tax system to provide rental rebates, as is being done in the Province of Alberta. There are many systems to assist people directly with respect to affordability of housing; many have been tried in Canada.
Again I put before the Minister the report of the provincial Housing Ministers and the then federal Minister as a result of a conference which was held between January 31 and February 1, 1978. It was literally the first sectorial conference sponsored that year and was initiated by the provincial Governments rather than the federal Government. Yesterday 1 heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) dwell on the fact that provincial Ministers never put meat on their programs when they come before the federal Government at a federal-provincial conference. There has never been more meat or thought given to the entire housing picture or the new direction of housing in Canada as it should evolve with respect to affordability, delivery, servicing and every other aspect of housing, than was put forth by the provincial Ministers unanimously in 1978. To a large degree they were approved by the then Minister, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).
What happened? Even the projections put forth at that time are very relevant in today's picture. They knew what was happening in terms of supply and in terms of interest rates. They outlined the situation eminently well. Their first projection was that upward pressure on interest rates would develop as a result of national and international economic influences which would affect housing affordability. We knew that in 1978 without equivocation.
Also they came forth unanimously with policies on global funding and on the extension of the capital cost allowance. There were unanimous suggestions or directions with respect to funding mechanisms for federal grants to municipalities, which is an area upon which I want to touch very briefly. There was a unanimous recommendation, not for mortgage interest rate deductibility, which was a subsequent Progressive
Conservative policy, but for deductibility of property taxes from income to reduce the federal income tax and, therefore, provide some taxation breathing room to municipalities. Today the municipalities are strapped for funds and strapped in their ability to raise property taxes. They have risen by a factor of four or five over the last several years.
In regard to the entire area of infrastructure and the tremendous load of high interest rates on the capital cost of housing, I suggest that the Minister should permit the municipalities to issue tax-free bonds so that they could instal infrastructure, purchase land for social housing and become involved to a much greater degree in that area. What is wrong with municipal tax-free bonds directly associated with financing of housing and community development? I do not mean tax-free bonds for municipalities on all their other expenditures; only tax-free bonds for supplying accommodation and services to the housing they build within their respective jurisdictions.
Tax-free bonds are not a new idea. They worked in the United States remarkably well. They serve to reduce the price of housing, to provide proper utilities and proper community development. Indeed, municipalities can therefore borrow at significantly below the market level of interest rates; under today's interest rate climate, some four percentage points below the going interest rates for money.
The federal Government will have to address itself to the borrowing capabilities of Canadian municipalities in relation to having ability to provide municipal services.
I want the Bill to pass this evening, so I will not hold it up beyond six o'clock. It is an important Bill even though it is only a band-aid solution. The role of the federal Government in assisting municipalities on a selective basis across the nation will indeed have to be increased. The load on home owners because of energy price increases will have to be reduced. For example, my energy costs have risen by five times, even in Alberta, in the last four years. The cost of maintaining a home is now very high because property taxes, energy costs, utility costs and interest rates are very high. Even if interest rates come down, the cost of servicing a home, because of high energy costs, high property taxes and other ancillary cost items, will be very high. Therefore the repeated demand for housing from here on will drop significantly, and the 278,000 housing units built each year in the latter half of the 1970s will never occur again, unless our population rises explosively. This will not occur. Our population has stabilized. The average age has risen to 28 years. Indeed, the extent of immigration allowed into Canada is being curtailed.
I would have liked to speak for 30 to 40 minutes on this matter, but in the interest of passing the Bill and getting these moneys out to home owners, I will conclude my remarks at this point.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
November 17, 1982


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since we have reached this stage in the business of the week, I am wondering whether the Government House Leader would be able to tell us what will be the business of the House for tomorrow and Friday.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-95, followed by Bill C-131, followed by Bill C-85. That is the business of the House for tomorrow, so there is a slight change. Rather than the second Bill being Bill C-85, it will be Bill C-131, and Bill C-85 will be the third item tomorrow.
Business of the House
In any case, on Friday the business will be Bill C-91 and then Bill C-98. I hope before the end of tomorrow to have a meeting with House leaders in order to clarify the business for next week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.01 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 18, 1982