1982-02-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas, when valuation day, December 31, 1971, was set, land in western Canada was selling at prices four, five and six times lower than it is today-consequently a farmer who wishes to retire now must pay capital gains on the inflation of the past 11 years, and whereas lawyers, doctors, cabinet ministers, or MPs will not accept 1971 values for their fees or remuneration, but farmers are penalized by this outdated law in spite of the fact that their costs have increased and their income has declined, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House urges the government to be fair to the farmers who have spent their lifetime on a farm by changing the valuation day to December 31, 1981.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It comes as no surprise that once again a provision of the MacEachen budget has been exposed for its unthinkingly negative impact on small business. The federal sales tax will now have to be calculated, collected, and remitted by more than 100,000 wholesalers, who are primarily small businesses that have not the staff nor experience to deal with yet more government paper burden. This extra work will inevitably lead to higher costs to consumers, and therefore more inflation. I would move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That this House urge the Minister of Finance to withdraw this regrettable provision or, better still, withdraw the whole sorry shambles his budget has been revealed to be.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the subcommittee on the Northern Canada Power Commission, under a reference from this House, conducted public studies into the commission during the summer of 1981; and whereas the affairs of the commission seem to be going from bad to worse as witnessed, for example, by the Field, British Columbia, affair and the imposition of low water surcharges in the Northwest Territories; and whereas the government has failed to call a meeting of the subcommittee-with one exception-since October last; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the subcommittee on the NCPC be required to meet forthwith in order to finalize its report and recommendations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ARMS RACE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas, on this Monday past, President Reagan set the stage for the resumption of production of new chemical weapons, stating in a letter to Congress that new lethal nerve gas munitions are

February 11, 1982
"essential to the national interest"; and whereas the production of chemical and biological weapons is abhorrent to mankind and, furthermore, banned by international treaty in 1925; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House direct the Government of Canada to protest to President Reagan this latest destabilizing move in the arms race and call upon both the U.S. and the Soviet Union to cease immediately production of and destroy all stockpiles of any such weapons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because members of this House cannot allow remarks by one of its members to go unchallenged when to do so could in any way appear to ignore or condone the evils of racism and discrimination, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly):
That this House expresses its shock, dismay and condemnation of the views stated and reiterated by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine to the effect that blacks in South Africa lack morals, breed at an irresponsible rate, can't keep up with whites intellectually and are still too primitive for self-rule, and that this House reaffirms our commitment to call for the abolition of racist laws and censorship in South Africa, and our determination to combat the dangers of prejudice and racism at home and abroad.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SALE OF CANDU REACTORS TO SOUTH KOREA-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That a major effort be mounted to negotiate in a serious way with our ally. South Korea, to establish a mutually satisfactory route for two-way trade which will ultimately lead to an agreement for the South Koreans to purchase additional Candu reactors, greatly boosting our ailing nuclear sector, and further pave the way for Canada's promotion as a leader in the field of exportable high technology.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, the performance of federal cabinet ministers on national television is important to the credibility of all hon. members of this House. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That if he ever appears on "Canada AM" again to debate the Ontario minister of education, the Secretary of State be better prepared, better rested, and have better figures in order to avoid the complete annihilation he suffered this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wilson:: Stick to hockey!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Liberal colleagues pressured the RCMP to get involved in probing separatism in Quebec by either legal or illegal means, even though the RCMP wanted nothing to do with it, and whereas it is becoming apparent that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is refusing to release documentation, simply to cover up this Liberal government's illegal activities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House instruct the Solicitor General to release immediately the 33 documents the RCMP defence counsel has requested, which are essential for a fair trial of the 17 officers charged.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 11, 1982


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that partial lay-offs hit younger, low-seniority employees first; in view of the fact that these employees often face heavy mortgages and other payments and are unable to get by on unemployment insurance; and in view of the fact that some older employees with higher seniority could better afford a lay-off and would be willing to take a lay-off if they did not thereby forfeit their rights under unemployment insurance and their seniority rights, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That the government amend UIC regulations to permit higher seniority employees the option of being laid off in place of lower seniority employees during a partial and temporary lay-off.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that medical research has compiled overwhelming evidence that smoking marijuana is extremely dangerous, often damaging the lungs, brain, reproductive tissues and cellular metabolism, and given the fact that relaxing penalties for marijuana has been proven beyond a doubt to lead directly to dramatic increases in the amount consumed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff):
That the government give its assurances not to soften the present legislation on marijuana which could easily be misconstrued as condoning or encouraging the use of this very dangerous drug.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS CUTBACKS IN TRANSFER OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO PROVINCES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, on February 3 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) indicated to this House that she would be
increasing the $4.6 billion she transfers to provincial governments for health concerns by 13.4 per cent. Yesterday the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) indicated he would be increasing the transfers of $1,825 billion to the provinces for postsecondary education by at least 12 per cent. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the Minister of Finance on motions today explain to this House from what appropriations he is cutting transfers to the provinces, by his own admission in the amount of $3.2 billion over the next five years, and, by the provinces' calculations, $4.5 billion, with respect to the financing of the established programs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and important business today. In view of the fact that a coalition hockey team comprised of the Conservatives and the NDP fell last night before the overwhelming talent of the Liberals, I move- '


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Gilbert Parent: -seconded by the hon. member for Restigou-che (Mr. Harquail):
That this House formally congratulate the victorious Liberals who were able to give as good an account of themselves on the hockey rink as they do right here in the House.


Mr. Regan:: Nine-nothing!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Before we get into question period, I would ask hon. members to remove those beautiful apples from their desks.


Mr. Clark:: I would not do anything, Madam Speaker, to draw attention to Apple Month in Canada, and I appreciate your injunction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 11, 1982
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. He will know that his colleague, the Minister of State for Quebec, noting that there had been a significant deterioration in economic conditions in Canada since the budget was prepared has said, and I quote:

-it becomes necessary to take concrete steps to curb inflation.

May I ask the Minister of Finance if the Minister of State was speaking for the government when he expressed that position?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I believe the comments of the Minister of State were quite in line with comments I made myself to the effect that we are committed not simply to minimizing the consequences of unemployment for those looking for work, but to training the labour force which we will need for major resource development and high technology projects in the next few years. These and other innovative measures to strengthen the economy can and will be promoted within the current framework. Therefore, when the Minister of State speaks about concrete measures he is quite in accordance with the statement I made, which was an effort to relate what it might be possible to do within the over-all framework of restraint. Certainly that is the policy, and will continue to be the policy.


QUERY RESPECTING PROPOSALS TO INCREASE DEFICIT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has succeeded in compounding the continuing mystery as to just what is the real version of the budget that he brought down, changed once, and now indicates he will change significantly more. He talked about the current framework. He said yesterday in relation to what that framework is, and I quote from The Globe and Mail:
"I have talked about major fiscal stimulus, and I am not in favour of that.. .. When I talk about major stimulus, I'm talking about very big sums-five to ten billion dollars".
That clearly leaves the implication that the minister regards his current framework of restraint as involving increasing the deficit by up to $5 billion. May I ask the Prime Minister if the Minister of Finance is expressing the position of the government when he proposes to increase the deficit by up to $5 billion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, that would be an
unfortunate implication, because I can state quite categorically that it is not my intention to accept any proposals that would increase the deficit by $5 billion. I stated in reply to the earlier question that any measures that I would support or that could be taken by the government would be in the over-all framework of restraint. That means the underlying objective to control the deficit would have to be observed. It could not be abandoned. Certainly an expenditure of $5 billion would, in my view, abandon entirely the fiscal restraints which I am supporting.


MINISTER'S VIEWS ON EXPENDITURE LEVELS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can we have today's version of the limits which the minister is prepared to contemplate? Yesterday he indicated it might be $5 billion. Today he says it is not. What is the limit?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I say again that in no way did I say yesterday that I was contemplating an expenditure of $5 billion. I was attempting to indicate what I considered to be a sum which might be regarded as a major stimulus to the economy either through the tax system or some other means. To make the conclusion that I was prepared to expend $5 billion is quite unwarranted.
The fiscal framework must be observed, and the cost of any particular proposal would have to be measured in terms of the over-all objective of the government. I will not put a particular figure on that today or tomorrow.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE CHANGES IN BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance says that the fiscal framework must be respected, but he will not tell the House what it is. We have the Minister of Employment and Immigration proposing an expensive program, the Minister of State proposing an expensive new program, the now absent-perhaps permanently absent-Minister of National Health and Welfare-here she is now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I apologize for being premature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of National Health and Welfare is proposing an expensive new program.
Individual Canadians have to make their plans based upon some certainty as to what is in the budget. We keep getting new versions every day of how deep the deficit will be, and about what new programs will be involved. Will the minister give us an undertaking that he will come to the House, either this week or very early next week, and spell out publicly those
February 11, 1982

changes which he is contemplating so that Canadians will know just what budget we are dealing with?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, Canadians are dealing with a budget which was approved twice by the House of Commons on non-confidence votes which were moved by the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: It was revised since.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the budget, and that is the fiscal framework. If any particular measures are adopted by cabinet, they will then be announced to the House of Commons-


Mr. Crosbie:: By whom?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to decide to what extent they will have affected the underlying restraint theme of the budget.


PLANS UNDER REVIEW BY DEPARTMENT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance. We have the unseemly charade of a number of ministers proposing plans in an attempt to be seen as doing something. Yesterday, the minister said that he did not have any other plans under review in his department. Would he confirm that to the House today? Is he saying that there are no other plans under review in his department?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, during question period yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me if I would reply to his concern about a specific program related to job creation which was under consideration by the ministry.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I said no to that question. The answer is correct. 1 would remind the hon. member that it is not the practice for ministers either to discuss or disclose in the House the proceedings of cabinet or decisions made by cabinet.


Miss MacDonald:: You are doing it every day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is well understood. I do not intend to respond by telling the hon. member that a specific program or a number of programs are under review, because these are matters which are the business of cabinet and therefore secret. In a general way I will tell the hon. member that we are constantly monitoring various proposals that have been brought forward. We introduced a number of specific programs in the budget, and we are continuing to monitor programs. When the cabinet reaches decisions they will be announced in the House in the usual manner.
Oral Questions CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, what we are trying to do here today is to avoid another debacle similar to what we had on November 12. If we can learn from the minister what proposals are under review in the ivory tower of his department so they can be discussed in the open with the people whom they will affect in Canada, then we can have a proper understanding of what might happen.
Specifically, is the minister considering any change in the capital cost allowance to make it applicable in a different way so that job creation can take place in the first half of the year? The proposal in place now will leave investment to later in the year and push off the creation of jobs to the last part of this year, but we need them right now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is not under consideration at all to remove or eliminate the proposed changes to the capital cost allowance. If the hon. member wishes a specific answer, that is the answer to that question.
There have been a number of representations made by various groups with respect to the application of the capital cost allowance to their situations. Obviously these matters will be under consideration. I hope they will be under consideration by members of the House of Commons as they consider tax measures. We have spent considerable time in the standing committee in the course of this session considering various tax proposals and, indeed, there was a number of changes adopted.
I expect that process will continue because it is a good and healthy process.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Virtually everyone in Canada has now asked that interest rates be lowered. This includes the premiers, members of this House and, in fact, members of the Prime Minister's own party.
The Prime Minister will admit that he is responsible for the policies of this government and how they are carried out. I think the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday revealed that he has lost touch with what is happening. He said that the difference between the bank rate and the rate of inflation has traditionally been the same as it is now. That is not so. In 1976 the rates were about even. The bank rate of 14.87 per cent announced today is almost three percentage points higher than the rate of inflation. If the Prime Minister really believes that the margin should be the traditional margin and still is, will he then lower the bank rate to 12.1 per cent, and stop stick handling with the future of the Canadian
14890

February 11, 1982
Oral Questions
people? Will he lock that rate in at 12 per cent for the next year so that Canadians can at least plan their future with some certainty?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, that was an unfortunate metaphor about stick handling. I think members of the hon. member's party showed last night that they were not very adept at that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: Too many left wingers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member suggests that everyone in Canada wants interest rates to come down. He is perhaps right. That certainly includes people on this side of the House. We would like to see interest rates come down. The question is how to go about that. Do we do it by ordering the banks to bring interest rates down, or by attacking the cause of inflation? In so far as the position of the various parties is concerned, I merely remind the hon. member that he is now publicly disagreeing with the position put forward by several premiers last week. One of them specifically advocated that Canadian interest rates should be one point higher than American interest rates.


John Edward Broadbent: Tell us which one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That was a position put forward publicly and supported by several premiers. Obviously there is a desire on the part of everyone to see interest rates come down, with the exception of those who have money to lend, whether they be private individuals, governments, or money markets. As I said yesterday, when inflation is running at about 12 per cent, people want to lend their money at a few percentage points above 12 per cent so that when they get their money back, it will be worth the money put in. That is the problem.
The way to bring interest rates down is to bring inflation down. Therefore, if inflation is brought down to 8 per cent or 6 per cent, I could guarantee the hon. member that Canadians could see lower interest rates-unless they prefer to have a higher dollar, which would be a choice they could then express. That is the reality of the situation.


REQUEST THAT INTEREST RATE SPREAD BE FIXED
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, stick handling is a problem with the government across the floor because it is that policy that got us into so much trouble over the past few years. I think it is up to the government to state some policy. The other thing that really concerns Canadians is the point spread between which deposit-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The question requires no such type of explanation. The hon. member's first question was very
long, and we have all agreed we should shorten our questions. 1 should like the hon. member to co-operate.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, the point spread had traditionally been about 2 per cent until 1979. Now we are being robbed, almost, with a point spread of 4 per cent or greater, which means hundreds of millions of dollars. Will the Prime Minister enact or give the banks guidance on how to lock in their point spread, which is a position with which the Canadian Bankers' Association has stated it would agree. If it were locked in at 2 per cent then Canadians could better analyse what is happening in banking circles.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 do recognize that the government has jurisdiction over the banks but, as I pointed out to the premiers, and to the House a few days ago, and several times in a row, general authority over prices, wages, salaries, and profits comes under provincial jurisdiction. I want to put it to the hon. member that if he really wants interest rates to come down, we should all be co-operating to bring inflation down. One way of bringing inflation down and making the country a better place in which to invest dollars and to create jobs, would be to bring inflation down. One way of doing it is to get co-operation from the provinces-an agreement that we all restrain our expenditures in so far as they concern wages to the public sector. It would only be effective, of course, if the private sector were prepared to follow that example. There again, that is under provincial jurisdiction.
I am very happy to reopen talks with the hon. member, with his party, or with the premiers, if they want to co-operate in giving leadership to this economy in areas of their jurisdiction to bring inflation down. That would then bring interest rates down.


PROFITS OF CHARTERED BANKS
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, one way to get a grip on inflation is to control some of the profits, and I think when the chartered banks make 37.7 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. The hon. member knows he is arguing the point rather than asking a question.


Douglas Keith Anguish: My question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, Madam Speaker, is on whether he would think it more just to have a higher taxation rate on the banks. The taxation rate this year for the two banks we have figures available for, is 17 per cent. That is a rate lower than that which bank tellers have to pay. I think that is unreasonable. Those are things that he should be looking at in order to get inflation under control.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting that one way of doing it is by controlling some of the profits. I would put it to him that the way of doing it is perhaps by controlling not only the
February 11, 1982

profits but also the prices, including prices for money. Most of that, I repeat, except in the latter example, is in the area of provincial jurisdiction. The provinces do not want to delegate that authority to us. We do not have it under the Constitution. We cannot control wages, prices and profits in the private sector. I wish the hon. member and his party would get that into their heads, and then perhaps put pressure on the provincial governments where they have some influence, so that there would be co-operation to keep prices down. They can do that in co-operation with each other.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HERR LOTHOR SPAETH, PREMIER OF BADEN-WURTTEMBERG
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery today of Herr Lothor Spaeth, Premier of Baden-Wiirttemberg in the Federal Republic of Germany.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, two days ago the Canadian automotive industry held an emergency meeting in Toronto at which the keynote speaker was to have been the Hon. Herb Gray but he backed out just hours before the meeting. I suggest to the minister that he hang his head in shame.
In view of the fact that one out of seven jobs in Canada, not just Ontario but in Canada, is associated with the automotive industry, and because the meeting in Toronto concluded, as stated by the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada, that the present arrangement of Japanese voluntary restraints or any similar new one that Ottawa may negotiate will not create a single job in Canada, will the minister now take the one crucial and necessary step that may save the auto industry and the thousands of job associated with it in this country? Will he negotiate, demand, or, if need be, legislate a fair Canadian parts content in Japanese cars sold in Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to say that my hon. friend is quite inaccurate when he says that I backed out of giving a speech at the auto parts meeting. I had to take part in a very important cabinet committee meeting. The speech I would have given was delivered on my behalf by my very capable parliamentary secretary. He put before the meeting exactly
Oral Questions
the same message that I would have presented had I been there.
I think my hon. friend is unjustly denigrating and running down the capacities of Canadian workers and Canadian automotive and auto parts manufacturers. He is suggesting that there is nothing they can do, beyond narrow protectionist measures, to become more competitive and efficient and to win back the support of Canadian and North American consumers.
I happen to have more confidence in the ability of Canadian workers and Canadian manufacturers than he does. At the same time, we have already begun discussing with the Japanese what they should be doing with respect to a further period of restraint of exports. The kinds of concerns that I have mentioned, and that he has just now begun to echo, have been brought very forcefully to the attention of the Japanese.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACT TO INCREASE CANADIAN CONTENT
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, may I say that the minister is not giving the Canadian worker the opportunity to have their fair share of the marketplace because of the inability or inaction of this government regarding the auto parts sector. There are 600,000 jobs still left in the auto industry in Canada. The auto industry concluded at its meeting two days ago that the only way to save these jobs is to increase the number of parts in Japanese imports.
I repeat my question. Why does the minister not take the necessary action, by legislation if need be, to require the Japanese to increase substantially from the present one half of 1 per cent the Canadian content in Japanese cars sold in this country, perhaps in return for lower tariffs which then would create jobs in Canada and not increase the price of Japanese cars sold here? Why is the minister not doing this? Can he explain that?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is in his usual dream world. He completely overlooks the grave weakness in the major market for Canadian made vehicles and parts, the weakness in the United States market which takes some 80 per cent of our production. That is a major factor which affects the wellbeing of our workers and companies, over which we obviously, and unfortunately, cannot have any control.
At the same time I repeat what I have said before, and that is that, as far as I am concerned, I should like to think that the agreement we negotiated with the Volkswagen company, whereby in return for duty-free entry they committed themselves to Canadian content of some 85 per cent, a Canadian content much higher than is required from automotive assemblers here and which involves substantial purchases from independent Canadian companies, and which will result in the creation of some 1,500 jobs, will serve as a harbinger and example for other companies, including Japanese companies. We are actively pursuing efforts in that direction.

February 11, 1982
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport will know that, as a result of the VIA Rail cutbacks last year, a number of CN employees were laid off. Those CN employees have not yet received their severance pay or any of the benefits that were due to them as of last August. Could the minister tell me when these employees might get their pay?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I could not give an exact date. I did not have time to check since my return from the west but I will do so this afternoon. The last time I inquired, which was three or four days ago, procedures were in motion. A decision had to be made by the pension board and that has not taken place yet. The workers knew about the delays that would normally take place, so there is no substantial problem as far as 1 am informed.


PUBLIC SERVICE
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, I have a brief supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. He will know that the general service workers of the Public Service settled their agreement with the government last December for two years, and yet they have not seen that increase in their regular pay. I am not talking about the back pay. I am talking only about the regular increases for 1981 and 1982. They have seen none of it yet. Could the minister tell us when that will happen?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that they have not seen their increases yet, but I will certainly look into the matter.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the government's commitment to Canadianization of the Canadian petroleum industry by 1990, and our strong objection in the past to American law applying to Canadian subsidiaries of American companies doing business in Canada, what action is the government taking to respond to press reports that a new American law, which has already been passed in the House of Representatives, would
block the takeover of American oil companies not only in the United States but also of subsidiaries doing business in Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, indeed this bill has passed the House of Representatives. The Government of Canada, through its embassy in Washington, made representations by drawing to the attention of the United States administration that the bill, asdrafted, would imply extraterritorial application of United States legislation, a matter to which Canada and other countries have always very strongly objected. We were advised that many people in the administration believe that the bill was rather poorly drafted. We will see whether the bill will make any progress at all in the United States Senate. We are monitoring the situation very carefully, and we have already drawn our objections to the attention of the United States government.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the manpower minister's announcement yesterday that he would take another $100 million out of the unemployment insurance fund to put into job creation, when in fact job creation should have come directly out of the budget. With over a million Canadians out of work and desperately needing unemployment insurance benefits, how does the minister rationalize this theft of funds from the insurance program when it is government economic policy which caused the loss of jobs in the first place?
[ Translation]
Mr.Jtemi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration): Madam Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member that the minister's announcement that money would be drawn from the unemployment insurance fund was simply meant as an explanation of the department's internal policy which is to distribute money to offset unemployment throughout the country. Of course, those payments will in no way reduce the funds available to compensate unemployment insurance claimants, nor will they otherwise affect those funds.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member had to say about it, but I will check the "blues".
February 11, 1982


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON PREMIUM RATES AND WORKERS' BENEFITS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. By taking this money from the workers' insurance fund instead of out of government revenues, and at the same time following an economic policy which puts 3,000 Canadian workers on the street every day, the insurance fund will be quickly eaten up and the workers will be asked to pay for the shortage in the fund by an increase in premiums. Does the Minister of Finance dispute this fact, or will he now assure the House that as long as the government pursues a monetarist policy there will be no increase in premium rates and no reduction in workers' benefits?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member will recall, in the budget 1 announced a decrease in the contribution rates for Canadian workers. I think the hon. member may misunderstand the use which is being made of the provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act to which the Minister of Employment and Immigration referred yesterday. As I understand the program recently announced by the minister, it was to employ several thousand forestry workers in northern Ontario. It was under the provision of this particular act by which unemployed workers would be given jobs. Surely that is the type of activity all of us want to encourage.
I hope the Minister of Employment and Immigration will continue to explore with provinces and with employers how the provision of the act could be used to take unemployed workers now receiving benefits and put them into gainful employment. That is really a good objective.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns a new terminal and control tower for the Charlottetown airport which was approved in 1977 and postponed many times since. The minister was to meet with the provincial premier on January 22, 1982, to confirm the details of this expansion to start in the summer or fall of 1982. However, the minister suddenly cancelled this meeting. Could he inform the House whether this was because he is shelving the airport expansion and, if not, when does he intend to call tenders and get on with the job?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am really not aware of the meeting I was supposed to have with the Premier of Prince Edward Island. I have had numerous meetings with the ministers of transport of that province, both the former and the new one. On the subject of the Charlottetown airport, everybody agrees that there have been uncalled-for delays, if one wants to put it this way. But
Oral Questions
the reasons are simply that under a new Treasury Board system, before one builds an airport one must be sure that the carriers, for example, will accept the plans and pay the necessary rentals. 1 regret very much that it took such a long time to conclude, but I will send a letter to my friend giving him the agenda for coming developments.


CUSTOMS INSPECTION FACILITIES
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, the carriers agreed to the payments last August. At a time when the Prince Edward Island construction industry is flat on its back and badly needs this project, I am wondering when the minister will get on with the job. In a letter to me on August 12, 1981, the minister committed himself to include customs inspection facilities in the new terminal. Are the customs inspection facilities still in the plans?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Charlottetown airport is on my mind all the time, with the Crow at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: But I have not really been able to memorize the work agenda for each of Canada's one thousand airports, so I beg permission to send my friend a detailed analysis of every step in the coming hours.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: When?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Immediately, this afternoon at four o'clock!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Could the minister explain why the Department of National Defence is purchasing two executive jets at a cost of $27 million, to add to its current fleet, when it is unable to find sufficient funds to pay reserve forces for the training they want to do?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the Department of National Defence is not buying what has been referred to as uniquely VIP aircraft. We are buying two new Challenger aircraft.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lamontagne:: They will be delivered next year. They will be appropriated for the 412 Communications Squadron which is involved in the training of our crews and is an element of the over-all transportation responsibility of the Department of National Defence in case of emergency or in case of war. They

February 11, 1982
Oral Questions
will be part of the 412 Squadron; they will not be uniquely for the transport of VIPs.


COST OF CANCELLED CHALLENGER AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I understood the Minister of Transport had already bought two Challengers, and I thought they might serve the same purpose. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could he inform the House how much research and development money and other funds went into the stretched version of the Challenger jet before the project was cancelled with a loss of some $500 million worth of orders?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to obtain that information and provide it to my hon. friend as soon as possible.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. How much is it costing the country through the Export Development Corporation to expedite the construction of a monument in Algeria, which is reported to cost over $100 million, in time for the anniversary of the country's revolution in July? Could he tell us something about the terms and what the real cost to Canadians will be for this rather unusual utilization of this agency to help a Third World country, which 1 thought would better have been for agricultural and humanitarian purposes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, this is not at all unusual. It is an ordinary export financing operation of the EDC.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: The purpose of it is to help Canadian exporters to compete in the world, as the hon. gentleman well knows. The original arrangement was for the EDC to loan 85 per cent of the amount in question, I believe, some $47 million.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It has escalated.


An hon. Member:: At 6 per cent?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The increases projected are now under reconsideration. I want to emphasize that the purpose of this financing is to provide jobs in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


USE OF CORPORATION RESOURCES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, it appears that Algeria has an edifice complex.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I ask my question in all seriousness Madam Speaker. I wonder if this is a responsible way for our Export Development Corporation to use the resources provided to help a Third World country. It is not for agriculture, not for medical purposes, but simply to glorify a revolution.


An hon. Member:: It is not CIDA.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Is this something to do with the fact the Prime Minister had to return there twice when he missed the boat at Austria?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The boat at Austria? That is the best. There is no sea at Austria.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the complexes revealed by the hon. member are much worse than any others I know of. I repeat, this is not aid, it is an ordinary form of export financing.


An hon. Member:: What is the interest rate?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I have a quotation from the Hatch report, which resulted from hearing from, among others, 17 private sector representatives:
If government subsidy of EDC is necessary to achieve and maintain international competitiveness in financing services, such subsidy should be given.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I believe, Madam Speaker, that the Hatch report met with approval from the opposition benches as well as from this side of the House.


FINANCE
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. A northern nightmare lasting longer than the proverbial six months' northern night will descend upon Canada's remote resource communities and mining industry as certainly as night follows day if the minister does not act soon to extend the tax moratorium on northern benefit allowances. In recent months at least one
February 11, 1982

finance department official plus a senior direct political representative of the minister himself have told Steelworkers' Union officials to make up the miners' tax losses by getting the additional money at the bargaining table. To paraphrase their advice, they said: "The mining companies get lots of help-"


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please get to his question?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: There are just three words to go, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 did ask the hon. member to go straight to his question. That means he must not finish his paragraph.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Considering that some of these miners will now have to pay up to $7,000 more in taxes and will have to demand and obtain an extra $14,000 per year in wages, which is a $7 per hour increase, will the minister inform the House whether or not he stands by his staff and the advice given by them to the USWA? If the minister does not, what advice does he have for the isolated workers from whom he is grabbing up to $7,000 a year each in additional taxes?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: If the minister does, how can he square suggestions of immediate wage increases of $7 per hour with his appeals for restraint and the threat of wage controls?


Mr. Lawrence:: Yes or no.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You will have to reread the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in the budget 1 extended the remission for another year and said that it was my intention to develop within that period an expenditure program that would deal with the problem we have up to the present time dealt with through the tax system. All the dire comments made by the hon. member are quite unjustified in view of the forthcoming attitude which 1 took on this subject in the budget.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The decision made last week by Canadian National Railways to lay off 1,800 employees comes after the minister himself approved drastic reductions in VIA Rail passenger service and also drastic reductions in CN Express offices across the country. Will the minister inform the House whether he has received a mandate from the Prime Minister to preside over the dissolution of
Oral Questions
Canadian National, especially in eastern Canada, or is the minister dismantling Canadian National on his own initiative?


Mr. McKnight:: It's a make-work program.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I think that most people in Canada realize that the needs of transportation in this country are so great that there is not enough of what we call new money around to take care of it all. Most people agree that the recycling of old money, as I call it, is a necessary exercise. I think most Canadians will want the government to make the best use of their taxes. That is what we are doing in the case of CN Express and in the case of VIA Rail.
While I am on my feet, Madam Speaker, I now have my note about the airport in Charlottetown. Agreement has been reached with the carriers, a Treasury Board submission is being prepared, design work is being done, tenders will be called in 1982, and construction will begin in 1983.


TIMING OF LAY-OFFS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. He talks about the need for more money to make possible railway expansion. Can the minister explain why the 1,800 lay-offs which have come at the same time as Canadian National has reported a net profit of $400 million over the last two years? These lay-offs also come at a time when the private carrier, Canadian Pacific, has made no such plans for lay-offs. Will the minister explain that anomaly? How does the minister justify that anomaly in light of the fact that Canadian National's own advertising claims that CN is more than a business, that it is also a public responsibility? Where is the public responsibility in that equation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this debate has been going on for a great number of years as to the responsibilities of Crown corporations. 1 think, generally speaking, that members of the House and the public accept the idea that Crown companies are not created for the purposes of losing money or for the purposes of keeping employees whom they do not need. I think this is accepted as a general proposition. If it were not so, CN would not have the profits to which my hon. friend refers.


VIA RAIL
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, can the minister explain why, on the day CN was laying off 1,800 workers across the country, the vice-president of VIA Rail West was saying that VIA Rail in Winnipeg was short of workers? Trains were running as much as eight hours behind arriving in Winnipeg. Why is it that 1,800 people are being

February 11, 1982
Oral Questions
laid off and yet on the same day it is being said that we do not have enough workers in the same operation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am intrigued by the hon. member's statement. If my hon. friend does not mind, I will check to see whether it is correct. This is the obvious thing to do, because I would not pass comment on something that I have not heard myself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the general proposition of activities in railway transportation in the west, I have to report that there is a good atmosphere of enthusiasm in the west now in view of the announcement that we made in Winnipeg last Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's a lot of Crow.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The decision of the Minister of Finance to grant a special allocation of $1.35 billion in the next four years to western rail transportation will mean a great boost to the economy of the west.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The people in Saskatchewan do not believe that.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As stated yesterday in my motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that Ontario municipalities cannot impose a mandatory retirement age of 60 on their firefighters even though that had been negotiated into their collective agreement. In view of the fact that this case is almost identical to the case of my constituent, Captain Ross Stevenson, an Air Canada pilot, who was forced to retire because of the collective agreement between the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association and Air Canada, would the minister introduce an order in council ordering Air Canada to reinstate Captain Ross Stevenson to his original position of airline pilot and, if not, on what grounds does the minister refuse to bring in such an order in council?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I want to say that I have the greatest respect for my hon. friend's campaign on this subject.


An hon. Member:: Write a letter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I really think that he is entitled to uphold his
case.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It will be the last one.


Jean-Luc Pepin: With respect to the particular point, the Stevenson case is now before the appeals court and the Human Rights Commission, so it would not be right for me to comment at this time. Consequently I have to hold to the law as it is now, and the question of deciding at what age a pilot retires from a Canadian air carrier is a decision to be made by the union and the companies, not by the Minister of Transport.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by some hon. members on Wednesday, February 10, 1982, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nielsen:: May I ask the government House leader the usual Thursday question. He has already indicated what the business this week is going to be; will he tell us as far as he can into next week what the business of the House will be?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, next Monday the House of Commons will study Bill C-78, an act to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code. On Tuesday we will start debating Bill C-93 to amend the statute law relating to certain taxes and to provide other authority for the raising of funds. Today, I hope we will be able to refer to committee Bill C-89 to amend the National Housing Act and, considering the urgency of Bill C-78, we will debate it tomorrow. The opposition day which was scheduled for tomorrow will be postponed until Friday next week.
What prompts me to postpone the opposition day scheduled for tomorrow and to serve notice of that now is the fact that there was to be a meeting of House leaders this morning. That had been confirmed last night but at the last minute this morning-I appreciate that my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party may have had excellent reasons-one of my assistants was advised that unfortunately the meeting could not be held. Under the circumstances, I was unable to review this matter this morning with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Considering the urgency, we have decided to proceed with the report stage of Bill C-78 tomor-
February 11, 1982

row. The opposition day slated for tomorrow is postponed until Friday next week.
In any event, that should enable the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to reach agreement as to which party will move the motion on the next allotted day. I raised that question earlier with my colleague the hon. member for Yukon in the presence of the NDP House leader, but neither was in a position to tell us the subject or the mover of the next opposition motion. I trust we will be able to agree next week so that we may dispose in an orderly manner of the questions of public interest.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am absolutely astounded by this move by the government House leader. He knows very well that under the Standing Orders there is no necessity for Her Majesty's loyal opposition to reach agreement with anyone with respect to the opposition day. He knows full well that under Standing Order 58 the notice of an allotted day need not be given until six o'clock on this day-24 hours' notice. He knows full well he is not entitled to knowledge of the subject matter of that motion until six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: That is right.


Erik Nielsen: So the reasons he gives are entirely irrelevant. Had he asked me today, 1 would have told him that notice of the allotted day has already been filed, and he would have had knowledge of the contents at six o'clock in the usual course.
My colleague, the House leader for the New Democratic Party, was fully aware of that action; indeed, we had been discussing the matter right up until about quarter to three. For the government House leader to now withdraw from the opposition an allotted day which he told us last Thursday we would have, which he reconfirmed last Friday, last Tuesday and, I believe Monday, displays a deplorable cowardice and a deplorable lack of courage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Having said that, Madam Speaker, I put it to the Chair that the Chair has an obligation to protect the rights of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If you want a fight, you are going to get it.


Erik Nielsen: A very brief examination of the record will show the three or four times since last Thursday the government House leader confirmed that tomorrow would be our opposition day. Now, I would point out to the Chair that on today's order paper, at page XI there appears this item:
Notices of Supply Proceedings Pursuant to Standing Order 58(4)(a)
Note: Friday, February 12, 1982-Third allotted day for the Supply period ending March 26, 1982.
It is on the Order Paper.


Walter David Baker: It has been ordered.
Business of the House


Erik Nielsen: And for him to now try to take it off the Order Paper, I submit, is not possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Contempt of Parliament.


Erik Nielsen: We are calling upon the Chair to protect our rights by insisting that we proceed with that item tomorrow.
However, our case need not rest there. It is further supported by the fact that I filed notice of that allotted day, pursuant to that item on the Order Paper, at 12 minutes past one today, anticipating the sneaky move-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -that the government House leader is trying to pull.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Who do you think you are?


Erik Nielsen: That notice, Madam Speaker, was filed with the Clerk, and I am sure he has informed you of that, at 12 minutes past one today. My submission is that the filing of that notice, if it was not perfected by the mere appearance on the Order Paper of the designation of tomorrow as the third allotted day, perfects that order, and the government is now bound to proceed tomorrow as they themselves, on four different occasions, said they would; as the Order Paper said they would; as the notice which was filed today insists they should.
I call upon you once again, Madam Speaker, to protect the rights of the opposition and insist that that be the order tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted by the deplorable outburst of the hon. member for Yukon. I think that he is losing his self-control over a completely indefensible case. He will recall that before 1968, every evening at ten o'clock the House Leader would announce in the House the order of business for the next day. As a gesture of courtesy, we have made it a practice to hold weekly meetings of the House leaders to inform the opposition of coming business. I extended this courtesy further to my colleague this morning. Yesterday I invited him to a meeting in my office this morning, and he agreed to come as did the House leader for the NDP. A few minutes before the meeting which had been scheduled for 9.30 this morning, as I said earlier, one of his assistants called a member of my staff to explain that neither the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the hon. member for Yukon, nor the deputy House leader of his party nor any other member of his party could attend the weekly meeting of House leaders.
As I mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, 1 intended at that meeting to inform the hon. member for Yukon about the intentions of the government concerning the schedule of busi-

February 11, 1982
Business of the House
ness, as the government is responsible for determining the order of business, including allotted days, under Standing Order 18(2). I wanted to discuss the matter with him at that time, but I learned too late that he could not come, probably for very valid reasons. He cannot therefore blame me for that. I had the courtesy to invite him to discuss this matter long before that. This was not possible since he had other meetings to attend, but he could have told me so earlier. Madam Speaker, the determination of the order of business is the responsibility of the government. An allotted day is a day when the opposition introduces a motion, but as for the rest, it still comes under government orders as provided by our Standing Orders and parliamentary practice, and the determination of the order of business is our responsibility.
The hon. member for Yukon is now saying that he filed notice with the Clerk at a few minutes past one o'clock of the motion which he intended to introduce tomorrow. Yet, Madam Speaker, when I asked him at 2.15 or 2.10 in the presence of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, whether tomorrow would be an opposition day for his party or the NDP, he did not have the courage or the courtesy to give me an answer and he told me that the matter had not yet been decided and that he was still discussing it with his colleague. If he had really wanted to act in good faith, he would not have taken it upon himself to play hide and seek and he would have told me: Mr. Pinard, I have filed notice with the Speaker and you will learn the substance of this notice at six o'clock; it will be our allotted day. Instead of giving me a frank answer, he missed the meeting of House leaders this morning, which the House leader of the NDP attended, and he refused to indicate whether the motion to be introduced tomorrow would be a Progressive Conservative or an NDP motion. I did not want to know the substance of this motion before six o'clock, but for reasons of courtesy, I wanted to know who would move the motion on the next allotted day.
Moreover, when I learned from the New Democratic Party that they had also filed notice concerning a different subject for the same allotted day tomorrow, I concluded that the Progressive Conservatives had not been able to come to an agreement with the NDP and that Your Honour would have to decide which of these motions should be heard tomorrow, and if one of these motions calls for a non-confidence vote, we should have to wait until you decided which motion should be heard to know where we are, and we have no indication that you will make a decision later today or tomorrow at noon. Under the circumstances, in view of such uncertainty and lack of planning on the part of hon. members opposite and since we are faced with so many intrigues and so little good faith, the government has no other alternative than to take its responsibilities and try to respect the rights of the opposition. I can assure the opposition members that they will have all the allotted days to which they are entitled under the Standing Orders between now and March 26, but the next allotted day
will not be tomorrow. It will probably be Friday of next week and tomorrow we shall call Bill C-78.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the government House leader knows that when I put the question to him at the beginning of this session as to whether or not we would hold regular weekly House leaders' meetings, he said that it had not been the practice in the past. He said it would be done only if necessary. He was not going to commit himself to regular House leaders' meetings. Also, on several occasions in the past he has agreed to House leaders' meetings which he himself has cancelled. There is nothing strange in cancelling attendance at House leaders' meetings if something important arises.
When government members start criticizing us, I would ask them: when they were in opposition, how many House leaders' meetings did their House leader go to when we called him? How many House leaders' meetings did the present Minister of Finance go to when we called him? Talk about co-operation! Nil! Zilch!
This is the first House leaders' meeting which he has called that I have unavoidably missed. The House leader for the New Democratic Party knows full well that the option was open to him to have the motion, which is now filed, standing in the name of his leader, if they so chose. They did not choose to do that. I learned that at about 1.30 p.m., although I knew the leaning of his leader well before that time. He also knows the subject matter of that motion. We on this side are not obliged to advise the government of the subject matter of an opposition day! We have no such obligation.


An hon. Member:: Nobody asked you.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He did!


Erik Nielsen: The real reason is that they have a yellow streak down their backs! They are afraid of this motion!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You've got the yellow head!


Erik Nielsen: I am surprised, and I would ask Your Honour to check with the Table, because if I heard him correctly, and I may have misheard him on this point, he seemed to imply that he knew that if the NDP were to have the day, they would raise another subject matter. I would be surprised if anyone in the NDP informed the government of any intended subject matter that they would raise if it were their motion. There is no obligation to do that, either.
The other point I want to make concerns ordering the business of the House. The government informed us last Thursday what the order would be today. The government reiterated that on Friday, again on Monday and again on Tuesday, if my recollection serves me correctly. Now, all of a sudden, the government withdraws the day. The government House leader could have called me on the telephone yesterday
February 11, 1982

if he thought that Bill C-78, or whatever other bill he plans to raise Friday, was so danged urgent that he was going to take our allotted day away from us! I received no such phone call. I do not think anyone in the New Democratic Party received any such phone call. I received no such phone call from him today. The first we learned of it was this announcement, based on the assertion that we somehow have some obligation under the Standing Orders to bare our souls to the government concerning the subject matter of the debate. I do not believe another notice has been Filed, if that was the implication which was being left by the government House leader. If another such notice has been filed, then I suggest that Your Honour has a decision to make under Standing Order 58(4)(b), I believe it is. Certainly-


An hon. Member:: Take your time.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, I will take my time, indeed, Standing Order 58(4)(b) is the citation, Madam Speaker.
I do not know whether two notices have been filed, but perhaps the government House leader does. However, if there have been two notices filed, then the Speaker has an obligation under that Standing Order to make a decision as to which motion to accept. If there has been another notice filed, I want to speak to it before Your Honour exercises that discretion. However, in the meantime, I submit to your Honour that if there ever was a time when Your Honour had an obligation to protect the rights of the opposition, that time is now, and you must!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: In my view, if Your Honour is to exercise that protection of the rights of the opposition, you must be compelled to the overwhelming viewpoint that Friday will be an allotted day, as the notice paper says it will be, as perfected by the filing of our notice at 12 minutes past one o'clock today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: What I do want to say at this particular point-and I hope hon. members will allow me to say something definite on this particular point which is being discussed-is that I think these kinds of discussions would be best held in meetings between the House leaders.


Mr. Beatty:: Exactly.


An hon. Member:: They were not.


Madam Speaker:: Government business should be discussed at those meetings and not on the floor of the House because the Speaker could obviously be drawn into the debate and could be asked to try to determine which point of view concerning which government business should be put forward or should prevail.
I am afraid that too many hon. members have asked me to do just that, and they know, of course, that in accordance with the Standing Order, the Speaker does not get involved in deciding what the government business will be. This has been
Business of the House
traditionally, and in our Standing Orders, the responsibility of the government. I do not suppose I need quote the Standing Order which very clearly states that government orders shall be called and considered in sequence as the government determines. That is clear to everyone. The Standing Order is there. The government is entitled to call government business, and usually does.
Some government business has been called and withdrawn by the government. I submit to hon. members that this is done very often. It is not contrary to the way in which the government has the responsibility to call the government orders. The opposition day which had been called for Friday is not cancelled; it is simply postponed. 1 wish hon. members would not put it in terms that I should be protecting the right of the opposition to have opposition days. I would like to protect that right, and I would protect that right if it had been suppressed or challenged in any way.
The opposition day is not cancelled. It is simply postponed. The President of the Privy Council did say it would take place, until further notice, next Friday. Therefore, it is quite clear to me that I cannot intervene. I can understand the indignation and the frustration of hon. members, but I cannot take it upon myself to determine that government business will be-


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order-


Walter David Baker: Before you rule-


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, before you rule-


Erik Nielsen: Before you rule, Madam Speaker, I have another point I have not yet brought up.


Mr. McGrath:: Why don't you hear argument?


Madam Speaker:: I have heard argument.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Madam Speaker:: Would the right hon. Leader of the Opposition please resume his seat?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: There is a point that has not been made.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Madam Speaker:: I do want to extend to hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: We want to be heard.


Erik Nielsen: There is a point that has not been made.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We want to be heard.

February 11, 1982
Business of the House


Madam Speaker:: I must explain to hon. members that while the Speaker is speaking, I do not think a point of order can be brought up. I will hear hon. members when I finish saying what I have begun to say.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you going to rule?


Madam Speaker:: I have not ruled yet. I think at this point I have heard sufficient argument and the Standing Orders are sufficiently-


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: There is a point that has not been made. We have a right.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is precisely the point I wish to address.


Madam Speaker:: I am very sorry, but hon. members should understand that at any rate this whole debate should not have taken place in the House. I have heard arguments, twice on this side and once on the other side, and the Standing Orders are quite clear.


Erik Nielsen: Twice on the other side.


Madam Speaker:: I did not hear the minister twice, I only heard him once. At any rate, it is clear to me that I cannot be brought in to determine what is going to be the order of the
day for next Friday. The government House leader has now determined what the order of the day will be for Friday, and that simply has to stand.
The notice on the Order Paper is just simply a notice. It is not an order. I heard shouts from the floor that this was an order. It was not an order, but simply a notice. Therefore, it is with regret-


An hon. Member:: But you are.


Madam Speaker:: If there had been two motions-


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, before you rule. Before you rule. Before you rule I have the right to be heard. Before you rule. 1 have the right to make an argument and be heard before you rule.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I will be grateful if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will let me finish what I have to say.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is it a ruling? Is it a ruling?


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I would like to finish what I have to say.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have the right to be heard before you rule. Before you rule.


Madam Speaker:: I have started my ruling. I cannot retreat on that. It is quite clear to me that I cannot intervene in
determining what the order of the day will be for next Friday. I recognize the right of the House leader of the government to determine the order of business for next Friday.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I sought your attention. I sought it in my capacity as the Leader of the Opposition and as an officer of this House of Commons to present to Your Honour a most relevant argument prior to Your Honour coming to a judgment. I regret that you chose not to allow the Leader of the Opposition, an officer of the House of Commons, to present an argument that had not been heard by the Chair prior to the Chair coming to the ruling. I am prepared to regard that as inadvertent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am consequently prepared to assume that Madam Speaker will consider the relevant point that 1 want to make before she treats with finality the statement that she has just made from the Chair.
The point I wish to make is the following. There was a guarantee given-frequently, repeatedly-by the government House leader.


Yvon Pinard: Order. He is questioning your ruling, Madam Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: That undertaking led to the publishing in the orders of the day of the order of business for tomorrow as being an allotted day. Acting on that understanding, the House leader of the official opposition filed a notice which perfected and completed the action set in train by the statements of the government House leader and by the publication in Hansard today. That was done, Madam Speaker. That action was completed, that consummation of the ordinance of tomorrow as an opposition day. That was done before the government House leader rose in the House of Commons to indicate that he had changed his mind.
The simple fact for Your Honour to consider is that the government House leader rose to indicate he had changed his mind too late because the notice was filed by the opposition House leader at 1.12 p.m. today, nearly two hours before the government House leader rose. That was a consummation of the act which he set in place by his guarantees, and which he cannot now unilaterally change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He gave us an undertaking. That undertaking was confirmed by the publication in Hansard. On the basis of that undertaking, we acted. We acted before he changed his mind. I submit to you, Your Honour, that you have no alternative but to protect the rights of the official opposition, which indeed are the rights of Parliament and of the people of Canada themselves.
February 11, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: To accept what the government House leader is asking the Chair to do is to undo an act which had already been carried through to completion by the filing of the notice well in advance of the change of view, for whatever reason, of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I would just like to correct one thing for the record. 1 had already risen and was certainly at least three quarters through what I had to say when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition rose to ask for the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sorry, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was rising and I decided at that point that I would rule on this particular question for the reason which I gave, that these debates should take place among the House leaders of the different parties.
As hon. members can see, there is a danger in dragging the Speaker into those discussions.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has brought forth some arguments-of course, I cannot go back on my own ruling or comment on my own ruling-but they do not change the situation in any way-


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course they do.


Madam Speaker:: I do maintain what I have said.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would not want it to remain on the record that I was raising this very serious matter on the basis of what should have been taking place in meetings of House leaders. I raised a valid point of order based on the Order Paper itself, based on the appearance of the notice-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Erik Nielsen: -based on the timing of the filing and, indeed, I quoted the Standing Orders. That was one of the most serious points of order that has been raised so far in this session.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Erik Nielsen: It is not the subject matter of meetings of House leaders. The subject matter here is the protection of the rights of the opposition to which it is entitled under the Standing Orders. That was the question.


Madam Speaker:: That is quite clear. The hon. member raised a point with regard to Standing Orders and that is why 1 ruled on it. Otherwise, I would not have ruled on what might have taken place among the House leaders.
Business of the House


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what the government House leader said and, I think, more important, to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the rights of the opposition in Parliament. Before 1 continue with a few observations about the point of order, all 1 want to say is that there are not only the rights of the opposition in the Parliament of Canada, there are also the rights of the minority in opposition in the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I notice some members of the Conservative party agreeing with that.
It was my hope that your ruling, Madam Speaker, would be accepted because you are the Speaker of the House. You have interpreted the rules strictly, as I certainly understand them, but I want to speak to the point of order in question which was raised since your ruling.


An hon. Member:: It has already been ruled on.


John Edward Broadbent: I would say very clearly that it is indeed the right of the official opposition to decide on the allocation of opposition days. However, the House leader of the Conservative party knows very well that throughout the existence of opposition days, the tradition has been that when days are allotted to the NDP-and this was the clear understanding of the New Democratic Party-there is no attempt by the official opposition subsequently to change that.
I will not elaborate on that in great detail, Madam Speaker, but I had direct conversations with the Leader of the Official Opposition and he knows that as of last night my clear understanding was that the name of the New Democratic Party would be on the opposition motion moved on Friday. Subsequent to that time, the official opposition has talked nobly about the rights of the opposition. I can only say that it has tried to deny the right of the minority by withdrawing, for the first time in Parliamentary history, the minority's right to have a motion in its name.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: Why do you not cross the floor?


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the House leader has made much of the news that they filed a motion at 1.12 p.m. I can say that they were informed before then that we were going ahead as an opposition party to file an important motion on the Crow rate in Canada. They knew that would be the subject matter. They knew we were going to do it, but they went ahead and proceeded with their own motion, trying to deny us our rights, and are now raising what I regard as a highly spurious battle in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Otto John Jelinek: Cross the floor.

February 11, 1982
Business of the House


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if those braying donkeys, as the Prime Minister is wont to call members in the back benches of the Liberal party, would stop their braying, I might answer two or three points which were raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
His House leader knows that last Friday 1 informed him that the allotted day scheduled for this Friday would be the New Democratic Party's day, subject to the approval of my caucus.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: 1 see the House leader of the New Democratic Party nodding his head in agreement. It was very clear. The matter was taken to my caucus yesterday and, because of intervening events, I did not get that approval. I conveyed that message to the House leader of the New Democratic Party, and I am sure he will agree with that. That is the fact. I was not privy to any conversation which took place between the leader of the New Democratic Party and my own leader.


An hon. Member:: Talk to Joe.


John Edward Broadbent: Ask him.


Erik Nielsen: There may have been a breakdown in communication between the leader of the New Democratic Party and his House leader, and similarly here, but certainly the understanding between myself and his House leader was very clear.


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There is no Chair.


Erik Nielsen: There are still four allotted days, and now five by virtue of the Chair's ruling, left in this semester. Ordinarily, the fair share of those days would provide two to the New Democratic Party. I can assure the leader of the New Democratic Party, as I did assure his House leader just before three o'clock, that it was our intention that they should have that fair share of those days remaining. It is fully our intention to supply them with those days, as they are entitled to a fair share of the 13 allotted days between March 27 and June 30. I can assure the leader of the New Democratic Party that his party will get the fair share of those days. However, for him to suggest that there has been a usurpation of the rights of the minority party in opposition is not fair at all. There has been no usurpation.


An hon. Member:: You try to dictate what they are.


Erik Nielsen: I hear an interjection from a member of the NDP that he does not like to be dictated to with respect to allotted days. The fact of the matter is that the Standing Orders placed the obligation for the utilization of those allotted days in each of the semesters to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Under the Standing Orders, there is no obligation to allot either allotted days or votes attached to the New Democratic Party, and indeed it was the practice of previous
House leaders for the opposition not to allow any votes to the NDP. But as the NDP grew in number, we thought it fair that they should have a fair share, and that is now the practice. That will continue to be the practice. There is no point in complaining they are not getting their fair share, because they are. Those are the facts of the matter.
There is one other point to which the Leader of the New Democratic Party alluded. He suggested I somehow had knowledge that his party intended to file a motion. I had no such knowledge from his House leader or from any other member of the New Democratic Party that there was such an intention. I had been advised that the leader of the New Democratic Party was very strongly of the view that we should go to a particular subject matter. I will not mention the subject matter. I do not think that would be proper. But 1 was informed that he felt very strongly that on behalf of his party he wanted to go to a subject matter which was different. However, I was informed of that by his House leader just before we came to the end of the question period between two and three o'clock. I had no such foreknowledge, as he suggests, and I hope he will accept that because I know it would be confirmed by his own House leader.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I hope we can conclude this debate. This is the first time I have chaired-despite my wish to do so-a meeting of House leaders. I can only reflect on how wise it is that the Chair does not preside at House leaders' meetings. I have never understood so well the meaning of that custom. If the Chair were presiding at such meetings, there would be no possibility for negotiations, and I think we all understand that it is necessary to negotiate these things. If the Chair were to preside at those meetings and have the final word, the only thing that could happen would be that there would be a strict application of rules. Sometimes negotiations are beneficial before we go to the strict application of rules.
I allowed this discussion because I felt the House needed to air this problem at this particular time. I hope now that negotiations can go on-that we can proceed to the business of the House.


Erik Nielsen: There will be none. There can't be.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on two questions. One might well be a question of privilege relating to my rights as the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The other is a question to the Chair.
I wonder if the Chair would advise the House whether the attention of the Chair had been drawn either to the filing of the notice at 1.12 p.m. this afternoon by the opposition House leader or to the contents of the motion filed.
My second question, which may well have to do with the rights of the Leader of the Opposition, has to do with the fact that I rose while you were speaking at the first mention you made of delivering a ruling. Until that time it had been my
February 11, 1982

impression that you were going to make some other comments which would fall short of a ruling, because you had heard interventions by representatives of only two parties and not of the three parties in the House and because you knew that there were others, including the former House leader of this party, the House leader when this party was in government, who wished to make a point. I assumed when you began to speak that you were not going to rule, but I rose at that time only because I would not have wanted you to make a ruling before you heard all the evidence.
The question that arises has to do with the rights of the Leader of the Opposition as an officer of the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: You are not a leader.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have attempted to exercise my responsibilities to this Parliament both as prime minister and as Leader of the Opposition with the utmost of respect for the institution of Parliament and also with restraint. I cannot recall a time in the nearly ten years I have been a member of the House when the Chair has declined to hear an argument by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I cannot recall that having occurred in my relatively brief time here, and colleagues of mine who have been here longer tell me it has never occurred before, until today.
The question on which I am seeking clarification-and I suppose in relation to which I am giving the Chair notice that I may well want to file a subsequent question of privilege-has to do with my right, as an officer of this House and as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to rise and be heard on procedural questions. That is a matter 1 regret I have to raise, but I believe that in the circumstances I have no alternative.
I should draw the attention of the Chair again to the earlier question I asked. We would naturally be interested in knowing whether the content and the timing of the filing of that notice had been drawn to the attention of the Chair prior to the statement by the government House leader, but the other matter, in view of the long-standing practices of Parliament, is perhaps of more importance.


Yvon Pinard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I should like to reply to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition because-

-I think the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition deserves an answer and deserves to understand what I was doing. 1 was applying the rule whereby no member of the House-and, 1 regret to say, not even the Leader of the Opposition-may rise when the Speaker of the House is on her feet and speaking. That is the only rule I was applying when I did not want to cede the floor to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. That is strictly what I was doing, and nothing more than that. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will understand that I have to do what Speakers are supposed to do in those
Business of the House
circumstances. It was no reflection on the role of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in the House, his numerous qualities and all the rights he has, along with other members, to intervene in debate.


Erik Nielsen: There is a distinction.


Madam Speaker:: Of course. I said the Leader of the Opposition and all the others. I was simply applying that simple rule, and I just stood and asked to be allowed to finish what I was about to say. I was ruling, and no one from the New Democratic Party had asked for the floor at that time. If someone from the New Democratic Party had risen at that time, I probably would have heard him in order to hear at least one representative from each of the various parties. However, no one rose at that time. I had already heard two interventions from the opposition side and one from the other side. I think that will clarify that question.
As to whether I knew a motion had been filed, I learned during the question period that two motions had been filed, one by the New Democratic Party and one by the Conservative Party, but I did not know what the subject matters of those two motions were. I was informed then that I might be called upon at some later time to determine which of those two motions-since the parties did not agree between themselves- would be debated on Friday. 1 was informed that I might be called upon to determine which one of the two should have priority.
Those are exactly the facts as I know them.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are two matters I want to place before you. One pertains to the explanation you have just completed. 1 did, in fact, rise. It may be that you did not see me, and I accept that, but there are people who will acknowledge that I did. However, that is neither here nor there. That is not really important in this argument.
I want to clear up a matter which may well be important for the purposes of future relationships. The matter of the notification to the official opposition of the intention of the New Democratic Party to file a motion is not in dispute. The leader of the New Democratic Party called the office of the Leader of the Official Opposition at 11.42 a.m. this morning and informed that office that it was his intention and the intention of this party to file a notice for a discussion similar, if not identical, to the notice we subsequently filed. As the House leader for the official opposition indicates, sometimes there are communication problems. I suspect they exist everywhere much of the time.
While I am on my feet, I want to make one further point. With regard to the dispute before the Chair-and I think Your Honour put it rather well-it would have been much better could we have resolved it at a meeting. I recognize that. In fact, I think it was the House leader of the official opposition who, not long after I was appointed to serve in the capacity of acting House leader of the New Democratic Party, rose in his place and made it clear that he found it abhorrent

February 11, 1982
Business of the House
that we should conduct negotiations on the floor of the House. I agree with that, and I think it is unfortunate that we are conducting negotiations on the floor of the House today. However, the ruling that you made with regard to the appropriateness of the government House leader calling the business of the House in whatever order he sees fit is quite clearly set out in the rules. Much though I would like to argue that, I cannot find an argument that would be sustainable.
The other side of the question is that in a dispute such as this it is always very difficult to determine just how much of what one hears is absolutely correct in the minds of all the parties taking part in the discussion. I would concede to the House leader of the official opposition that he did indeed indicate to me that the Friday next-that being tomorrow- would be an opposition day for the NDP, subject to caucus approval. That has always been the case. In fact, any time I have had dealings with either of the House leaders there has been, from time to time, the necessity to make an agreement, subject to it being checked out with either the leader of a party or with the caucus of the member that is represented. That is not out of the ordinary.
The reason we came to the conclusion, however, that tomorrow was to be our opposition day was a conversation between my leader and the Leader of the Official Opposition yesterday afternoon after the Conservative caucus had met. At that point, if I understand the gist of the conversation correctly, what was said was that we had examined the possibility of a particular motion and had decided we were not disposed to commit ourselves to dealing with it. We had looked at another motion and suggested that we felt better about that one, given that we felt on balance that it was more substantive. We were therefore prepared to go ahead with the opposition day on one of the two motions.
My understanding of the conversation as it was related to me was that no objection was made at that time, so we assumed and I think correctly, that we were going to proceed.
I am sure the dispute is one that we will resolve at House leaders' meetings; it is not a dispute that I think can be resolved by the Chair. I think it is unfortunate, but probably necessary, that we have further meetings, and I hope we will be able to deal with our motion when this particular matter is called again next week.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, are we still on House business?


Madam Speaker:: Yes, we are.


Walter David Baker: 1 have a question for the government House leader. On December 8, 1981 I put a question to the President of the Treasury Board which dealt with House business. I asked whether it was his intention to introduce for consideration of the House a bill that has the unanimous approval of members of the public accounts committee. It is a bill permitting the Auditor General to present his reports more frequently and on other than an emergency
basis. His colleague indicated at that time that the government would be consulting, I presume with the government House leader, who would then advise the House. Has that consultation taken place, and does the government intend to introduce that bill?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we are not in a position to introduce this bill now. I suggest that my hon. colleague put his question to the President of the Treasury Board who is in a better position than I to give more detail on this.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council, in view of what has happened today, if we can ever believe a word he says from now on?


Charles Joseph Clark: I guess the answer is no.


PETITION
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and the responsibility to table today for the second time in this session, a petition signed by many citizens of the city of St. Thomas in the county of Elgin.
This petition reflects the strong protest of Elgin constituents regarding the changes in the taxation of life insurance policies as stated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in the November 12 budget. This petition reflects the disappointment and the hostility of life insurance companies, sales representatives and thousands of policyholders across Canada.
I sincerely hope that the Minister of Finance will recognize this blunder and have the courage to withdraw these provisions immediately.


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. 2,682, 3,248, 3,249, 3,311 and 3,521.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What individual or which bodies within the government currently have responsibility for making recommendations to the government relating to privacy and, in each case (a) who is the individual or member of the body involved and for which department or agency does he/she work (b) to whom are reports made (c) on what date was the responsibility for privacy first given to that individual or body and on what date does his/her mandate expire (d) what reports or recommendations have been made to date and on what date were they made?
February 11, 1982

2.	Was action taken as a result of the recommendations and, if so, what action and on what date?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: The Department of Justice
advises:
1.	(a) The Information Law and Privacy Section of the Department of Justice is responsible for advising the Minister of Justice on matters relating to privacy. The Minister of Justice is responsible for making recommendations to the government on this subject.
(b)	The Minister of Justice.
(c)	The section was established in March, 1981. No date has been set for this mandate to expire.
(d)	No reports or recommendations have been made to date.
2.	Not applicable.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission advises:
1.	(a) Inger Hansen, QC, Privacy Commissioner appointed in accordance with the Canadian Human Rights Act, is responsible for making recommendations to government departments and institutions subject to Part IV of the act.
(b)	To the responsible minister for the department or institution concerned.
(c)	The Privacy Commissioner was appointed on October 1, 1977. She was reappointed on October 1, 1981 for a four-year term.
(d)	See the annual reports of the Privacy Commissioner submitted to Parliament pursuant to Section 60 of the Canadian Human Rights Act for the years 1978, 1979 and 1980.
2.	The actions taken by government departments and institutions as a result of the recommendations are reported in the annual reports of the Privacy Commissioner.
The Privacy Commissioner appeared as a witness before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in respect of their study of Bill C-43, an act to enact the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, to amend the Federal Court Act and the Canada Evidence Act, and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof, on March 10, 1981.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the government have an estimate of the inflow of foreign capital as a result of the applications approved by the Foreign Investment Review Agency since its establishment and, if so, what is the amount?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
The Foreign Investment Review Agency does not approve or disapprove applications received under the Foreign Investment Review Act. This is a function of the governor in council. Investments are financed in diverse ways, only some of which may have an impact on capital flows. For example, in cases of indirect acquisitions, there may be no separate consideration
Order Paper Questions
paid for the Canadian business. In addition, many acquisition and new business proposals are financed through the Canadian banking system. However, the value of assets acquired in the 1,504 allowed acquisition applications (from April 9, 1974 to September 30, 1981) was $8.4 billion, and the value of planned investment in the 1,461 allowed new business applications (from October 15, 1975 to September 30, 1981) was $2.4 billion.


Mr. Cossitt: What are all the criteria used by the Foreign Investment Review Agency when making decisions on applications?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
The Foreign Investment Review Agency does not make decisions on whether to allow or disallow applications received under the Foreign Investment Review Act. This is a function of the governor in council. The criteria taken into account in the decision by the governor in council, to the extent they are relevant, are set out in subsection 2(2) of the act as follows:
(a)	the effect of the acquisition or establishment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the effect on employment, on resource processing, on the utilization of parts, components and services produced in Canada, and on exports from Canada;
(b)	the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the business enterprise or new business and in any industry or industries in Canada of which the business enterprise or new business forms or would form a part;
(c)	the effect of the acquisition or establishment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada;
(d)	the effect of the acquisition or establishment on competition within any industry or industries in Canada; and
(e)	the compatibility of the acquisition or establishment with national industrial and economic policies, taking into consideration industrial and economic policy objectives enunciated by the government or legislature of any province likely to be significantly affected by the acquisition or establishment.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Foreign Investment Review Agency approve an application by the Gannett Company Incorporated of the United States only after two refusals and only after the American company was forced to make certain commitments to the government and, if so, did such commitments include a pledge by the company to use Canadian newsprint for an American national newspaper and does the government have the right to insist on certain things being done in another country?

February 11, 1982
Order Paper Questions
2.	Is it government policy to impose commitments on foreign companies seeking to invest in Canada before applications will be approved by the agency?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so
far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned:
1.	The Foreign Investment Review Agency does not approve or disapprove applications under the Foreign Investment Review Act. This is a function of the governor in council. A third application by Gannett Co. Inc. to acquire Mediacom Industries Inc., Mediacom Inc. and C.D. Maintenance Services Ltd. was allowed on October 30, 1981. Two previous proposals had been disallowed. Among the various improvements and additional undertakings submitted in the third, successful, application by Gannett was a commitment to purchase from Canadian suppliers for a period of three years the bulk of the newsprint required by a new U.S. national newspaper, assuming that its development proves feasible and successful. This, as is the case with all of the other undertakings, was offered by Gannett in support of its proposal. They were, in turn, accepted by the government as a condition of allowance.
2.	It is government policy to allow all applications which offer significant benefit to Canada according to the factors set out in Subsection 2(2) of the Foreign Investment Review Act. Prior to an assessment of whether or not their proposals offer significant benefit to Canada, foreign investors are asked to identify any plans they may have with respect to employment, resource processing, sourcing, exports, Canadian participation, productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation, product variety and any other relevant matters. However, it is entirely up to foreign investors to choose their own means to demonstrate that their proposals will be of significant benefit to Canada. In this regard, foreign investors frequently offer undertakings in support of their proposals. The undertakings, in turn, are accepted by the government as a condition of allowance.


Mr. Ellis: 1.	Which company was awarded the contract to maintain and manage the Schefferville airport?
2.	What is the fee paid to the company for their services and is the amount paid on a cost plus basis or is it a simple contract agreement at a fixed amount?
3.	Will tenders again be called for managing the airport and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Quebecair, Montreal International Airport.
2. The contract is based on tendered hourly rates for actual hours of work plus a fixed tendered amount for other expenses associated with fringe benefits, overtime and travel, etc.
Fees are paid to the contractor as follows:
1980/81	1981/82	1982/83 (option year)Salaries	$ 96,053 (est.)	$ 96,053 (est.)	$ 96,053 (est.)Other Expenses	$ 56,691 (fixed)	$ 56,691 (fixed)	$ 56,691 (fixed)$152,744 (est.)	$152,744 (est.)	$152,744 (est.)3. The contract was awarded to Quebecair from June, 1977 to June, 1980. TB 771922 gave authority to amend the contract with Quebecair for a two-year period, plus an optional one-year period. Depending on whether both parties agree to	
extend the contract for the option year, public tenders may be called in May, 1982, or May, 1983.

(English \


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,808 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 2808 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Text]


Mr. Thacker: 1.	Did Unity Canada produce publications during 1979 and, if so, how many?
2.	What were the titles of the information publications published in 1979?
3.	Since its inception, how many publications did Unity Canada produce?
4.	Since its inception, what were the titles of information publications printed by Unity Canada?
5.	What was the total cost expended on information publications by Unity Canada (a) in 1979 (b) since its inception?
6.	Under what legislation and under what provisions is the financing of Unity Canada publications handled?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 11, 1982



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-89, to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, on February 3, an extraordinary letter was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and was also released to the press gallery. It came from ten Liberal members of Parliament, including two Liberal cabinet ministers from Quebec. In that letter it was brought to the attention of the Prime Minister that there is a very serious and growing economic crisis in this country which needs to be addressed at the earliest opportunity by the government.
The letter made two recommendations. The first was for urgent action to stimulate the housing industry in Canada. The writers recognized that if we are to do something about unemployment in Canada, perhaps the most direct way is to ensure that Canadians can again see stimulation in the housing industry, that more housing is built, that the shortfall in housing units does not continue and that housing again becomes affordable.
The second action that was recommended was a special program to provide some assistance, particularly to young Canadians who find themselves unemployed today.
That letter was extraordinary for a couple of reasons, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it was extraordinary that ten members of the government caucus would have so lost confidence in the government's policies that they felt it necessary to lobby the government by issuing a public letter to the Prime Minister, calling upon him to reject the policies outlined in the federal budget.
The second thing, and it was even more extraordinary, was the fact that two members of cabinet chose to make a public break with their Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and dissociate themselves from the policies he had enunciated. They called upon the minister to bring in new policies to correct problems he had caused.
If members of the Liberal caucus were concerned on February 3 about the effect of government policies upon unemployment and housing in Canada, those fears were borne out two days later when, last Friday, Statistics Canada issued new statistics which showed that well over one million Canadians cannot find jobs. Statistics Canada told Canadians on February 5 that in January of this year some 1,096,000 Canadians found themselves without jobs. There were fully 117,000 fewer
Housing
Canadians working in January, 1982, than had been working in the previous January. This indicates that the crisis caused by the budget of the Minister of Finance is deepening dramatically and that the fears expressed by ten Liberal Members of Parliament were dramatically borne out when Statistics Canada released those figures on Friday.
The crisis in Canada today, which is being deepened so remarkably by the failure of leadership on the part of the Minister of Finance and his obstinate refusal to recognize the damage being done by his budget, has placed all Members of Parliament in a very difficult situation. But no Member of Parliament finds himself in a more difficult spot than members of the Liberal caucus. As they are confronted with this legislation before them today, the choice is very simple. Are they representatives of their constituencies in Ottawa, or are they representatives of Ottawa in their constituencies? Is it their job to go to Ottawa and express the concerns of their constituents who are suffering at the hand of the government's scorched-earth economic policies, or is it their job to sit mute and be silently complacent when government policies are wreaking so much havoc upon Canadians today?
Ten Liberal members of caucus felt that it was their job to express the points of view of their constituents, but many others have remained silent. When budgetary bills such as the one before us today have been called, many of them have said one thing to their constituents about how concerned they were, but when they stood in the House of Commons to vote, they made it clear that they put their party before their constituents. If there is to be any hope of redressing the serious economic crisis of today, Liberal Members of Parliament should be prepared to show the courage to put the country first and to recognize that they are here to do a job on behalf of their constituents.
The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) and some other ministers have recognized the fact that there is a serious housing crisis. Between 1980 and 1982 government projections show that there will likely be a shortfall of 143,000 housing units. We have a situation where housing is increasingly becoming unaffordable and in many centres is becoming totally unavailable.
The government's figures were last published in October, 1981. 1 should like to take a look at what they show in terms of vacancy rates faced by Canadian families who need accommodation in urban centres. In the Kitchener area the Liberal Member of Parliament is being called upon by his constituents to speak out. In October of last year the vacancy rate in Kitchener was 0.7 per cent. Most experts believe that the vacancy rate should be at least 3 per cent. This is why the constituents of the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) are calling upon him to show some leadership. Liberal Members of Parliament from Toronto should be aware of the fact that their community had a vacancy rate of 0.3 per cent. In Oshawa, the constituency of the leader of the NDP, the vacancy rate in October was zero. In Vancouver and in Victoria the vacancy

February 11, 1982
Housing
rates were running at 0.1 per cent last October. We have a growing crisis in the affordability and availability of accommodation in Canada. It is essential that the government recognize this fact today and be prepared to bring new measures before Parliament which will address the problem and begin to correct the difficulties which were caused by its misguided budget.
Even where there is available housing, there is a second concern that housing is rapidly becoming unaffordable. In the Liberal constituency of Kitchener, an average house sold for $58,746 last year. In the Liberal constituency of Guelph, an average house sold for $57,402 last year. In Toronto, an average house sold for $100,373. We are finding that affordable housing is being taken away from Canadians, and that the dream of many Canadian families of owning their own homes is becoming a forgotten dream because of government policy.
No one who looks at the bill which was put before us by the minister responsible for housing could make a claim in any honesty that it will address the problem. It presents a band-aid or a palliative which mitigates against some of the worst effects of the policies of the Minister of Finance, but it does not give the dramatic stimulus that is necessary if we are to make housing affordable and available to all Canadians.


Mr. Kelly:: That is not so.


Henry Perrin Beatty: This fact was recognized by the ten Liberal Members of Parliament who sent that open letter to the Prime Minister. They knew what was in the bill. It is striking that the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly), who just spoke out, did not have the courage to speak out on behalf of his constituents. The members from Montreal were left to do so by themselves.


Norman Kelly: Are you going to vote against it?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member is asking whether we will vote against band-aids. No, we will not vote against band-aids, but what we will do-and what the constituents of the hon. member asked him to do-is to speak up for people by saying that it is time for housing to be made affordable and that the policies of the government which are directly designed to cost ordinary Canadians their homes must be stopped and changed. His constituents are calling upon him to say that ordinary Canadians are finding their businesses are being taken away from them because of the policies of the Minister of Finance. They are calling upon him to speak up and represent them. Also they are saying that an unprecedented number of working Canadians are having their jobs taken away from them, with tremendous economic and social consequences for all Canada. It is time that the hon. member for Scarborough Centre spoke up instead of remaining silently complicit in the government's scorched-earth economic policies. Also they are saying that it is essential, when ordinary Canadians find their farms being taken away from them by the policies supported by the minister for housing and the hon. member for Scarborough Centre for new policies to be designed so that farming in
Canada be made possible in the future and that family farms do not cease to exist.
What is in the budget or in the bill before us today that offers hope to Canadians? The answer is, very little. 1 should like to take a look at the specific provisions in the bill. On budget night the Minister of Finance gave an estimate to the House of the number of Canadians whose mortgages would be coming up for renewal over the course of one year. He pointed out that there were appoximately five million home owners in Canada. According to the Minister of Finance and his budget papers, over the course of the last half of last year and this year, which is essentially the period covered by the budget, some 920,000 Canadians will be put in the position of renegotiating their mortgages. Anyone who has had the experience of renegotiating a mortgage under the present economic conditions set by the high interest rate policy of the government knows the serious problem it poses for many ordinary Canadian families. How many of them will be helped? How many families whose mortgages are coming up for renewal will be helped by the proposition before us today?
I ask the hon. member for Scarborough Centre and the minister for housing for their attention. When the minister spoke the other day, I followed his remarks very carefully. He did not mention how many Canadian families would be helped by the band-aids he put forward.


Mr. Cosgrove:: All those with over 30 per cent.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong, that the number of Canadians who will be helped by this provision, in terms of assistance for them with their mortgages, will amount to approximately 50,000 of the 920,000 Canadians whose mortgages are coming up for renewal this year. It will amount to 12,500 Canadian families who will receive up to a maximum of $3,000 in assistance, and it will amount to another 37,500 Canadian families who will be allowed to defer interest. Let us make very clear what the minister is proposing. Is he proposing direct assistance to 37,500 Canadians? Is he proposing some relief which will subsidize interest rates? No, he is not. He is proposing that their indebtedness should increase, and next year they will find themselves with higher debt loads than they had this year. This is what the minister is proposing, and this is his idea of assistance for people in dire straits.
The minister has the responsibility, when he is proposing this legislation, to be honest with Canadians and to indicate that he recognizes it is simply a band-aid and will not address the serious problem which the ten Liberal members from Montreal felt the government needed to deal with urgently, without any further delay. Yet the government presents palliatives as a means of distracting the attention of Canadians and as a means of trying to convince them that the government takes the problem seriously and is prepared to show some leadership in this serious economic crisis of today.
Over the course of the Christmas recess I had a chance to talk with my constituents. There was one message which they gave me time and time again. It was the same message I heard
February 11, 1982

when 1 was in the Liberal constituencies of Guelph and Kitchener, that the government's policies are taking us on a road to economic disaster, and that increasing numbers of small businesses, family farmers and home owners are being forced to suffer as a result of government policy. When members of the Liberal caucus come forward with measures such as the one before us today and say that it is satisfactory to deal with the housing crisis, then they are guilty of complicity as Canadians have their homes taken away from them. When Liberal members of caucus vote to support the Minister of Finance on his budget, they are complicitous. As farming Canadians find that a family farm can be taken away from them, Liberal members are complicitous. As ordinary Canadians have their jobs taken away from them by the policies of the Minister of Finance, Liberal members are complicitous. As more small-business men in record numbers find themselves being forced out of business, Liberal members are complicitous.
The crisis which is facing Canadians today is a crisis which confronts the members of the Liberal caucus directly because the choice is theirs. They can use their majority to prop up and sustain policies that are wreaking havoc in their own constituencies, or they can exercise courage and independence and they can do the job they were sent down here to do, that is, to speak out on behalf of their constituents, to call upon the Minister of Finance to change that disastrous budget and to recognize the serious crisis in Canada today.
I do not think anyone who has had the opportunity of looking at the state of Canada's economy today can be anything but concerned. Certainly members on this side of the House are deeply concerned. We are today in the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression. Every sign that we get from the government is that it has no answer. The government has no plans. What the Minister of Finance has done in his budget is to plan for higher unemployment, to plan for continuing high interest rates and to plan for continuing high inflation. He has not shown any leadership in coming to grips with the serious problems facing Canadians. This is why there is such an economic malaise in our country today. This is why business is increasingly saying to each of us that if they are expected to make investment in the future, they have to have some long-term assurance as to what the government's plans will be. Business has to have some assurance that if it invests in this country, the economy will be soundly managed and that business will get a fair return on its investment. Business does not have that assurance today. Growing numbers of Canadian businessmen are voting with their dollar and saying they have a lack of confidence in this government's management of the economy.
This is a concern to me because 1 am worried about the future of young Canadians in Canada. What will the prospects be for them with unemployment running this year over one million? What will be the prospects for young families who want to have a home of their own? The prospect is very bleak indeed at the present time. One of the reasons that since prior
Housing
to confederation millions of people left their homes in other countries to come to Canada is that they felt there was an opportunity in this country to own their own home and to build a future for themselves and their families. It was for that reason that 1 proposed at this time last year that the government's constitutional resolution be amended to recognize the rights of Canadians to own property. Initially, the government indicated it was prepared to support that. But under pressure from the NDP, the government withdrew that support and broke the promise it had made.
What we are finding today is that the government is going a step further. Not only is it not prepared to guarantee the right of Canadians to own property, but because of the government's policies, increasing numbers of Canadians, ordinary working families, are having their hopes and their dreams dashed. They are having their homes and their dreams taken away from them. What more cruel policy could there be on the part of any government to inflict that sort of consequence upon every Canadian?
Not every Canadian is in jeopardy today of losing his home. Some Canadians will be able to manage even in spite of the government's management of the economy and the new policies being brought down in the budget. But an ominous note was sounded in some of the material which was tabled with the budget. The minister responsible for housing again did not address this particular issue when he made his speech a couple of days ago in support of this bill. When the Minister of Finance made his budget speech, he decided that he would take a look at tax expenditures. He decided to take a look at what potential revenues could be gained for the government if the government closed what he keeps referring to as loopholes, which ordinary Canadians consider essential to their survival. One of those loopholes which he identified was that by charging an imputed rent to ordinary Canadians who live in their own homes and own their own homes, the government will be able to achieve a saving of a further $4.5 billion for its tax revenue. That was based on the fiscal year 1979. According to the Minister of Finance, if the government chose to charge that imputed rent, that $4.5 billion would have resulted in a tax increase of an average of $458 per tax filer in Canada.
Liberal members opposite say that the minister talked about it, he had it in his discussion paper. He did computations to see how much revenue he could gain if he chose to charge that imputed rent and tax it, but he decided not to do it this year. On the strength of this government's track record, Canadian home owners and families have good cause for concern that the trial balloon that was floated by the Minister of Finance in November, 1981, may very well turn out to be the reality in the coming budget.
What we found in this budget was a massive tax grab which hits the ordinary Canadian and taxes benefits that he receives at his place of work. For example, dental plans will be taxed under the budget of the Minister of Finance. How much further is there to go if he wants more revenue than for him to seek that further $458 per tax filer in Canada and to charge that imputed rent that he was talking about in the budget

February 11, 1982
Housing
papers that were tabled in the House of Commons on budget night?
Can ordinary Canadians feel that their investment in their houses are safe, and that the Minister of Finance will not see this as an opportunity to attack them? 1 invite them to read the document and to see the words of the Minister of Finance as he talked about the inequities that were caused by the tax expenditures. Canadians should ask themselves where the logic of the Minister of Finance will lead the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party come next budget.
What the government has done by its policies is to strike directly against the middle class in Canada. The government has struck directly against the dream of Canadian families to own a home of their own. In so doing, what it has done is to destroy the viability of our whole economic and political system in many instances. The government has created a feeling of unrest and uncertainty in the country. The government has seriously damaged the national unity on which the Prime Minsiter said in 1968 that he would run to protect it. The government has created feelings of bitterness throughout the country and feelings of alienation on the part of ordinary Canadians who want very much to work for this country and to build a future for themselves and their families.
What could be done by the government if it were prepared to show some leadership? The most obvious thing that could have been done if the party opposite had not obstructed the proposal which my party made in government for a tax credit for ordinary Canadian families in 1979.
A family who is paying some $5,000 interest this year, if the Liberal caucus had not filibustered that measure and refused to allow the bill to go through, would have had some $1,250 benefit as a result of the plan. That is this year.
The ordinary families in my constituency are facing this massive tax grab by the Liberal government today.


Paul James Cosgrove: What about renters?


Henry Perrin Beatty: I hear the minister responsible for housing shouting out "What about renters?" I might ask the minister responsible for housing what he has done for renters. What has the minister done when there is a vacancy rate throughout the country that is so low that it is often impossible for ordinary Canadians to find accommodation for themselves that is affordable? What has the minister done for renters? What has the minister done for ordinary Canadians who are home owners? What has the minister done to act on the promise that was made by the Liberal Party when it was in opposition and opposed the mortgage interest and property tax credit? The Liberals said they opposed it because they wanted something which they felt would be better, and that was assistance for all housing in the way of a shelter grant which would apply to apartment dwellers as well. What has the minister responsible for housing done to keep his word on that shelter grant? Has he done anything? He has done nothing. It is yet another broken promise.


Mr. Evans:: Do you have a spare $3 billion lying around?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) asks whether we have a spare billion lying around.


John Leslie Evans: Three billion dollars.


Henry Perrin Beatty: He says $3 billion. There we are. The parliamentary secretary asks whether we have a further $3 billion lying around. Maybe if it would cost $3 billion, you should not have made the commitment for the shelter grant in the first place. If you could not afford it, you should not have been deluding Canadians and making false promises to them at election time.
This is the sort of cynicism we get from the Liberal Party. The present Prime Minister said "Say anything, do anything, as long as you can get and maintain power." That is the Liberal Party's principle. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance flees the House because he recognizes that that is the case. Yet in instance after instance what we have found is that promises made by the Liberal Party during the election campaign are broken. What about cheap gas? I remember that one, and so do the people in my constituency. What about promises for a shelter grant? I remember that one. Those promises have been broken, and ordinary Canadians know it.
What we have had instead is a massive tax grab on the part of the Minister of Finance, unprecedented in the history of Canada. We have had policies being put in place which penalize ordinary working Canadians, cost them their jobs, their homes, businesses and farms. And the members opposite sit silently complicitous. They go back to their constituents, shake their heads and say, "We are concerned too because we recognize your problems and we will go and talk quietly behind closed doors to the minister, try to get him to listen to reason and to change his policies."
Ten Liberal members, Mr. Speaker, within the past week have said they cannot do it behind closed doors any more; the only hope they have to get the government to change its disastrous policies is by putting pressure directly and publicly on the Prime Minister through this letter they released to the press. They recognize that quiet persuasion will not work; it is impossible to persuade the Minister of Finance to listen to reason.
Well, if the minister is confident his policies are serving Canadians well and they support them, 1 invite him to come to my constituency. Or, if he prefers, let him come to two Liberal constituencies. Let him come with me to Guelph and talk to ordinary working people there and explain his policies. Let him come to Kitchener and explain the effect of his policies on the life insurance industry, which is so important to the economy of Kitchener. Let him explain whether or not his policies were justified, and let him try to convince Canadians who are suffering at his hands that he understands their problems and is providing the sort of leadership so desperately needed by Canadians today.
February 11, 1982


Norman Kelly: What are your policies?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I started by pointing out the fact that there is a serious crisis confronting every Liberal member today. Will they remain silently complicitous like the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, or will they have the courage to speak out on behalf of their constituents? Will they, for example, propose the mortgage interest tax credit we proposed and they opposed, or will they sit quietly while their constituents have their homes taken away from them? Will they do anything about the energy tax credit?
You will remember complaints by government members about the 18 cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline which they said was punitive. The Liberal candidate in my constituency stood on Highway 10 every morning with a sign saying, "Vote against 18 cents a gallon more". What has happened, Mr. Speaker, to gas prices since the Liberal Party returned to office?


Mr. Mayer:: Eighty cents a gallon, that is what happened to it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What happened to the energy tax credit which was going to give relief under the Crosbie budget? Again, they are quietly complicitous on the government's policy. Did they speak out when the government imposed a tax upon heating oil which was exempt under the Crosbie budget? Did they speak out when my constituents were hit by that?


Norman Kelly: We are not subsidizing oil.


Henry Perrin Beatty: They remained silently complicitous again.


Charles James Mayer: Duplicity, not complicity.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre again shrugs it off and says, well, this is not his concern. He is not prepared to subsidize that. Well, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that ordinary Canadians are concerned. They find the policies of this government are hitting them in their home, their place of work, and they are threatening to challenge the Canadian dream: The ability of Canadian families to own a home of their own.


Charles James Mayer: That is right, Liberals have no principles.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the choice confronting the hon. member for Scarborough Centre today, the choice confronting all members of the Liberal side, is: Are they Canadians first? Are they prepared to put the interests of their constituents first, or are they members of the Liberal Party first? Will they speak out on behalf of their constituents, or will they serve only as the government's representatives to their constituencies, to try to apologize for what the Minister of Finance has done and to try to explain the inexplicable, to try to explain that it is in the national interest that jobs should be lost, that Canadians should give up their homes, businesses and farms? Which will they do?
The member who spoke before asked whether we were going to vote against the bill. The answer is no, we are not opposed
Housing
to band-aids but we say they are not adequate. The hon. member knows that this bill provides a perfect opportunity for him to speak out on behalf of his constituents because there is no threat. At other times they say, "I cannot speak out because if I do it will threaten the survival of the government. If I speak out on the effects of this government's policies, that could be considered a vote of non-confidence and the government could be defeated." They know this bill will be passed, and it will be passed relatively expeditiously. Do they have the courage to stand up and say on behalf of their constituents, "This is not enough. What the government is doing is offering palliatives instead of solutions to the pressing problems of Canadians." Or will they again sell their constituents short? Will they again refuse to speak on their behalf?
That is the choice which confronts the members of the Liberal caucus today, Mr. Speaker. We will see over the course of this day and this debate whether they are prepared to speak up on behalf of their constituents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, like other members I am pleased to participate in debate on Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, but I hasten to add that my pleasure is not derived in any way from any sense that this is a quality bill. If the government has, in some fashion, come up with this as a piece of legislation which will answer the serious question of the dire straits in which Canadians everywhere find themselves in regard to housing, then this bill is a pathetic one. It is a pathetic response to a housing crisis by a pathetic minister in a do-nothing government.
The bill sets out to do a number of things. First, it purports to provide legislative authority for a mortgage interest deferral plan as outlined in the budget. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the plan allows individuals faced with higher mortgage payments to borrow money from financial institutions to meet those higher payments. It is not an innovative program, it is nothing new, bold or imaginative. It is nothing less than a poor cousin to, or variation of plans, already operated by the major banks such as the Royal Bank or the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. The government has stolen an idea from the banks, and in some respects the banks are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
This provision in Bill C-89 is wholly inadequate in a crisis which is causing hundreds and thousands of Canadians great hardship. In the case of the government's proposal, Mr. Speaker, as distinct from the bank's parallel program, an individual now faced with mortgage payments in excess of 30 per cent of his gross income can defer the excess amount for a time. The difference between the 35 per cent or 45 per cent of gross income he is paying on his mortgage and the 30 per cent which the government defines as the appropriate amount can be deferred with some government help. However, it is not a handout, a gift or a subvention from the treasury to help these people. It is, rather, a way of simply adding to the principal of

February 11, 1982
Housing
the mortgage at the end of its term. It postpones the day of reckoning and causes Canadians, already over their heads because of this government's policies, to go deeper and deeper into debt. When the final hurt comes, it will be much worse than it would have been had this government done nothing.
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Mr. Speaker, is going to provide the necessary insurance or security for the loan. It is simply a loan to be piled on top of the other loans these mortgage holders have. What a sham. What a stingy and miserly and inadequate measure at a time when Canadians from all walks of life are expecting leadership from the minister responsible for housing in particular, and from the government as a whole. The minister should hang his head in shame. He should be so embarrassed at the inadequacy of his program, which he heralds as the great avenue in solving people's problems, that he should not show his face in the House. Rather than give much needed help to home owners, the minister offers home owners more debt. The minister, in his fancy news release on February 8, here in the nation's capital, said the government's policy was "to help achieve a smooth transition to a more normal state of affairs and to see that no one suffers unduly in the process".
Can anyone imagine any minister of the Crown saying that this proposal will provide a smooth transition to higher interest rates for Canadians burdened by mortgage payments they cannot afford and that no one will suffer because of the government's lack of response to the crisis? He talks about a smooth transition. He says that no one will suffer and that assistance will be provided. Instead, we have a slippery pathway to more suffering, more debt and more hardship for Canadians who are already overburdened.
The government's idea of housing policy and rental policy is to encourage people to set back the date of their own executions, but they will be executed anyway. The government is simply saying that instead of doing it on March 15, we will do it on April 15.


Norman Kelly: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the hon. member seeking the floor on a point of order?


Norman Kelly: Yes. The hon. gentleman has addressed himself to one half of the program, and I am wondering whether he would address himself to the other half of the program if he knows it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Oh, come on! He has been speaking for seven minutes, Kelly. That is cheap!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I am seven minutes into my speech, and whether the hon. member had risen or not, I fully intended to deal with all of the inadequacies of this program. I am grateful for the invitation to deal with the other inadequacies, of which there are many.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The biggest inadequacy is him!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for housing has come into the House with a program which is embarrassingly inadequate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: All Scarborough is embarrassed for you.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Through his stinginess and his parsimony, this minister responsible for housing makes Ebenezer Scrooge look like Santa Claus.


Mr. Waddell:: That is an original line!


Thomas Michael McMillan: The hon. member who just interrupted me invited me to deal with other inadequacies.


Norman Kelly: The other half is-


Thomas Michael McMillan: May I be allowed to continue without the rude interruptions of the hon. member?
The bill also provides legislative authority for interest free loans of up to $7,500 per unit to landlords constructing new buildings as outlined, however poorly, in the budget. This measure will supposedly encourage construction of rental accommodation. It is supposedly the government's response to the rental crisis. It would seem that the government's response to the residential home ownership crisis, if anything, is even worse. Once again the minister has taken out his change purse and has thrown a brass farthing in the wishing well. That is what it is, a brass farthing in the wishing well in comparison with the real need for a vigorous, imaginative, involved and well-financed response to the rental crisis.
Canada needs 220,000 new housing units each year to meet demand. For example, as young married couples come into the market, new housing must be available so they can have homes. CMHC and other experts estimate that to meet national requirements every year, we need something like 220,000 new units in the market. In 1980, under this government and largely under this minister, only 159,000 units were built. In 1981, 178,000 units were built, which was again much lower than the required 220,000. Experts, such as CMHC and the Conference Board of Canada, are projecting that only 180,000 units will be constructed in 1982.
In the last three years, 143,000 fewer homes than required have been produced in Canada. The government's high interest rate policy has virtually brought construction to a halt. Let us not make any bones about the fact that this has been the result of the callous, insensitive and brutal policy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), his colleague, the minister responsible for housing, this whole cabinet, and the trained seals behind them. They are responsible for the high interest rate policy in this country which is crippling the construction industry and is denying Canadians the homes they require. Worse still, it is denying most Canadians their precious dream of ever owning a home.
The government itself and others have demonstrated that investors, landlords and other people in the industry cannot turn a profit on rental accommodation because of the government's high interest rate policy. In Ontario, investors and
February 11, 1982

landlords must charge an average of $800 a month for a typical one bedroom apartment. I come from a part of the country outside of Ontario. I come from Prince Edward Island, which is one of the Atlantic provinces. At first, one can see that a corresponding apartment in Prince Edward Island would cost somewhat less than the $800 figure, but incomes are lower as well. Certainly, investors in my home city of Charlottetown have told me that they must charge somewhere in the neighbourhood of $800 per month for new rental accommodation in order to break even, without even considering profit.
People are being dissuaded from investing in the rental accommodation industry because of high interest rates. They cannot turn the honest and legitimate profit required to justify this sort of investment. Therefore, what do we have? We have a situation where rental accommodation is not being built. We have a situation where young families and other individuals are looking for rental accommodation which is not being built, and existing accommodation is already full.
It is almost impossible to find an adequate apartment in Toronto or in Ottawa. It is difficult to find good, decent, liveable accommodation in the city of Charlottetown. In Vancouver, the situation is critical. In Canada, the average vacancy rate was 1.2 per cent in 1981. That figure fell from 2.8 per cent in 1980. In the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, which is pretty close to my home, the vacancy rate is 0.5 per cent, well below the national average of 1.2 per cent. Under such circumstances, young couples find that the odds are against them when looking for rental accommodation. There are no apartments to rent, no homes, no townhouses. People cannot afford to own a home because of this government's tight money policy. In the absence of owning a home, they cannot rent accommodation.
The government's policies are literally throwing people onto the streets. That fact should be on the conscience of every Liberal Member of Parliament in the House. It should weigh very heavily on their conscience. It is they, especially the trained seals behind the cabinet, who are endorsing and clapping for every inane justification and rationale for those measures from the Minister of Finance and the minister in charge of housing. It should be on the conscience of the trained seals, the Liberal backbenchers. You see them every day in question period flapping their flippers at every inane justification provided by the cabinet for this callous policy, every answer given in this House in response to our queries, every answer provided by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance, the minister of housing, no matter who. You can always count on the trained seals on the Liberal backbenches to clap wildly and endorse what they say.
Economists say that a vacancy rate below 3 per cent constitutes a crisis in the rental accommodation area. As I said, in Halifax it is 0.5 per cent. If 3 per cent is a crisis, what is 0.5 per cent? It is a catastrophe. The minister of housing comes into the House all smiles, promising $7,500 in the form of a
Housing
loan to lower, marginally I would argue, the $800 that has to be charged by investors in rent every month just to break even.
That $7,500 loan per unit up to a maximum that is stipulated in the bill will not do more than pay for the toilets in most of those units. The minister promises a housing policy. Instead he comes up with a toilet policy. The minister's policy should be flushed down the toilet. I would argue that most Canadians would not regret it if the minister followed very closely behind.
It is bad enough that Canadians are being given a stingy, parsimonious rental policy and a stingy housing policy. The government is also going to take away one of the few genuinely sound problems in place to stimulate rental accommodation. I refer to the fact that we have in place, and have had for some time, the multiple unit residential buildings plan, MURBs. It is a tax incentive to encourage investors to construct rental accommodation. In its wisdom, the government realized in the past that investors need a certain amount of encouragement to invest in rental accommodation rather than in safe debentures or financial returns of a different sort. Rather than have their money in banks drawing high interest, the government introduced MURBs to encourage them to make that money work for Canadians, creating jobs in the construction industry and providing much needed accommodation for Canadians from all walks of life right across the country.
Under MURBs, building owners, landlords if you will, were allowed to deduct from their personnal income for tax purposes so-called soft costs of construction. I refer to legal fees, architect fees and designer fees. Those kinds of soft costs were allowed to be deducted from their income for income tax purposes in the first year of construction. I am told by people in the industry who know a lot more about the details than I do that these soft costs constitute approximately 10 per cent of the total cost of construction of most buildings.
In addition to that provision to which I have made reference, owners could also deduct 5 per cent of the cost of the building every year as depreciation up to a maximum of 20 years. The first year they could deduct 5 per cent of the cost of the building, the next year they could deduct 5 per cent of the remaining amount, and so on for a maximum of 20 years. It was a tax break, an incentive if you will. It recognized that buildings do in fact depreciate just as any product or property does. Of course, operating costs could be deducted. That goes without saying.
MURBs were not perfect. Nobody suggested they were. In some respects they were inadequate. Public policy rarely is perfect. However, it was an effort, a fairly imaginative and helpful response to the housing situation as it then was. Now what do we have? We have the federal government introducing a wholly inadequate new policy on the one hand and on the other hand removing what little there was in place to help create jobs, stimulate the construction industry and provided rental accommodation for Canadians.
The government estimates-and this is their estimate and not mine-that the $7,500 policy will stimulate construction of
15,000	new units at most. It is giving 15,000 units and taking away 25,000. Experts have established that MURBs stimulate

February 11, 1982
Housing
construction of approximately 25,000 new units a year. The government is introducing a policy that will at most create
15,000	new units and take away 25,000 a year. That is not robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is robbing everyone to pay nobody. The minister is Merlin the magician. Now you see a housing policy, now you don't. With one stroke of the legislative pen, the minister makes 10,000 rental accommodations vanish.
The hon. member who preceded me described the housing situation in Canada as a crisis. That language is not too strong. The housing situation in Canada is critical. It is a national emergency. The minister gets into his ambulance and emerges with a finger band-aid. That is the response of the minister of housing to an emergency. It is a most inadequate rental and home ownership policy. Johnson and Johnson band-aids never looked more inadequate to the task.
At this time we do not have a Johnson and Johnson, policy; we have a Cosgrove and Cosgrove policy, band-aids for housing and band-aids for rental accommodation. This is a national emergency, no doubt about it. Mine is not hollow rhetoric. The average price of a home in Canada in 1981 was $77,900. If we assume, as we must, that the average family which is buying a home today makes a down payment of approximately 10 per cent and that the average property taxes are $1,000-this may vary and be higher in Toronto and Vancouver and lower in other parts of the country-the total payments on principal, interest and taxes should not exceed 30 per cent of gross income. That is the rule of thumb that the government uses. Therefore, an average family income of $44,500 is now needed to afford an average-priced home in Canada. If you take the average price of a home in Canada today at $77,900, the average income required to afford that home would be $44,500. How many Canadians can afford the average home? I am not talking about a Taj Mahal, a palace or a 16-room mansion. I am talking about a simple bungalow in Etobicoke or a simple three-bedroom house in Sherwood, Prince Edward Island. The average income required to buy such a home is in excess of $44,000.
1 would be the first to admit that the average price of a home in my province of Prince Edward Island is not $77,900. It is more in the area of $60,000, according to the Prince Edward Island Corporation. But that still is a lot of money, especially considering that people in Prince Edward Island make much less money than those in Toronto or Vancouver.
According to the information I have obtained from my research, most families in Prince Edward Island pay approximately $200 per month for utilities. These utilities can be broadly defined as electricity, heat, lighting, telephone and so on. The cost of these utilities amounts to approximately $2,400, yearly.
Using Prince Edward Island as an example to which there are many parallels across the country, the average family income is $18,800. If we use the rule of thumb once again, 30 per cent of that-which the government says is the figure
home owners should be tolerating as a proporation of one's income as an expenditure on a home-amounts to $470 per month. The average net monthly income of Islanders based on $18,800 a year is $1,100. Of that $1,100, a family must pay $670 for mortgage and utilities. That is comprised of $470 for mortgage payments and $200 for utilities. Therefore, the average family is left with $430 per month to live on. This is not taking into account any expenditures for house maintenance; it is just the basic cost of owning a home. The remaining sum of $430 per month to live on is for a father, mother and an average of two children. What can they do with $430 when the government is plunging the country deeper and deeper into recession? How much food will that buy? How much clothing will $430 buy for the average family on Prince Edward Island? These families also have to pay medical and dental bills. These calculations do not even take into account the astronomical costs of home maintenance for such things as plumbing and electrical fixtures.
How would the minister responsible for housing enjoy trying to survive on $430 a month? That is approximately $100 a week, a little over $13 a day. 1 suspect that the minister spends that much on taxis. I do not know whether you think 1 am being unduly harsh with the minister responsible for housing, Mr. Speaker, but I think you would be the first to agree, as would most Canadians, that, if anything, I am being charitable to the minister.
Mr. and Mrs. Gallant who live just outside of Charlottetown in my riding would agree that I am being charitable to the minister. They wrote to me on October 29, 1981 to indicate their frustration. Incidentally, my mail bag is full of letters such as this, and the same is true for other members of the House. They are swamped with letters such as this. I will read the letter so hon. members may share the pain, hurt and sorrow of Mr. and Mrs. Gallant. They say:
I am writing to you in order to express to you my deepest concern over the present government policy of high interest rates which I am afraid may soon lead to the loss of my home. At the present time my husband is recuperating with a broken ankle and is drawing medical benefits from the CE1C of $572 per month. Of this $572 we must pay out $304.13 for our mortgage payment to the P.E.I. Housing Authority for our Co-op home which we built in 1975.
That is a direct quote, Mr. Speaker. They have had their home for seven years. The letter goes on to say:
Our present government states that those who are spending 35 per cent of their income for shelter are in "dire straits" so as you can see from the above figures we are in a disastrous situation as we pay 53.2 per cent and my fears of losing my home are well founded. This figure of $304.13 represents an increase in payment of $150.66 from our original monthly payment when we signed our mortgage in 1975.
These are typical people, Mr. Speaker, not atypical. They bought a home in good faith and had the same reasonable expectation that any Canadian, including bankers, would share that their interest payments would remain in the vicinity of what they were paying seven years ago when they bought their home. In this case the family has suffered some adversity because the husband had developed medical problems, but the letter goes on to say that even if that had not occurred, the high interest rate policy of the government has forced them into paying several times more for their mortgage than what
February 11, 1982

they could have reasonably expected. The increase is 53 per cent, and though their income may well have increased a little since 1975, I venture to say that it has not increased by 53 per cent. As a result, the Gallants and many like them right across the country stand to lose their homes.
1 understand I have about five minutes left, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Michael McMillan: If I may conclude, I and other members in the House invited the minister to respond to critical situations like that of the Gallants. He promised in the House two weeks
ago-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps I could explain to the hon. member that we have private member's hour this evening, which begins at five o'clock.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Is my time up?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sure the House would agree to give the hon. member a moment or two to complete his remarks.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I express my appreciation also to hon. members of the House.
When the Clark government was in power, interest rates were not above 14 per cent.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It was your policy to have high interest rates too.


Thomas Michael McMillan: The Liberal Party lamented, cried and attacked the Clark government for its so-called high interest rate policy. We have seen interest rates in this country rise to 20 per cent, 21 per cent and 22 per cent, and even now, although they have declined a bit, it looks very much as though by the spring we will be on a course of record high interest rates again.
This government has been callous and heartless. It has forced a tight money policy on the country as a whole, and to address the problem it has come up with a pathetic and mealy-mouthed policy which should be the shame of the minister responsible for housing. It should be cause for embarrassment for every Liberal member of the House of Commons.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: They are beyond embarrassment.
Daycare



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois)-Finance- Advantages for Quebec related to new fiscal transfers; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Fisheries-(a) Task force decision not to hold public hearings, (b) Fishermen's representation.
It being Five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.
There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to notices of motions (papers).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Notices of Motions Nos. 22, 35, 1, 48, 28, 43, 5, 54 and 69 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams, minutes of meetings and other communications during the last year between the government and the province of Ontario relating to construction and health standards for daycare centres.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I want to express my appreciation to my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). He has seconded the motion in order to give me the opportunity to speak on this subject. Of course, he is not aware of what I am going to say in my remarks, so he can accept no responsibility for the comments I am going to make.
I am very pleased this afternoon to be able to discuss a subject in which I have taken a considerable amount of interest. Some may say I have taken a little too much interest in this subject. Be that as it may, I am the father of three children and a grandfather of two children. All my children and grandchildren have been through kindergarten, which we

February 11, 1982
Daycare
now term daycare centres. Fortunately, our family was in a position to be able to pay the cost, but nevertheless we were very pleased that such kindergartens or daycare centres were available. I sincerely hope such facilities eventually will be available to all children from coast to coast in this country.
I would like to set the tone for my remarks and state the reason I first put this motion on the Order Paper. Last spring I had the opportunity, as a member of the fiscal transfer payments committee, to cross this country and discuss with representatives of the governments of the provinces-some of the prime ministers, many ministers including ministers of education and health and ministers responsible for social services- problems in the three areas of health, post-secondary education and social services. While in the various provinces we also listened to representations from groups from those three sectors. We spoke with many groups in the health sector. We heard from groups of doctors and nurses and groups representing hospital administrations. We spoke to university teachers and university administration groups, and we also spoke to a large number of groups responsible for social services in this country.
It occurred to me and became clear through questioning that many of our social service groups were working somewhat in the dark. When we asked them questions about their operations, they knew what they were doing, but they had no certainty that the provincial administrations were necessarily aware either of their operations or of the useful part they were playing and, of course, they were never aware for how long they would be able to continue to receive funding.
I discussed with several of these social service groups the Canada Assistance Plan, the cost of which, as hon. members are aware, the federal government shares with provincial governments on a fifty-fifty basis in relation to certain social services. In fact, the federal government transfers some $2 billion to the provincial governments for that purpose. The groups were most interested in the agreements signed between the federal government and the provincial governments. However, those agreements were not available to the public and therefore were not available to the social service groups.
When I returned from that trip across Canada, 1 asked if these documents could be produced. I was told by officials in the Ministry of National Health and Welfare that these documents were not to be released, at the specific request of certain of the provincial governments, so I took the only initiative I could at that time and put a motion on the Order Paper. My first motion was to obtain a copy of the agreement signed between the federal government and the province of Ontario. I rose in the House a couple of times to ask what was happening to this motion, and eventually the document was produced. It is a voluminous document. Of course, once this agreement has been tabled, it is available to the public at large, so I decided at that time to put some further motions on the Order Paper, and hon. members will note that even at the present time there remain several motions calling for the agreements signed between the federal government and the other nine provinces. These documents have still to be produced, although I was assured as late as this week that they will be forthcoming. I want to see them because I want the various groups in the social service field to know that they are available and that they can be perused by them.
It is not difficult to understand why the provincial governments were not anxious to make these documents public. In fact, a reading of certain minutes indicates that it has been stated on more than one occasion that making these documents public might lead to some comparisons between provinces. It might lead to some bargaining between social service groups. It might not necessarily be good for the provincial governments because there might be pressure brought to bear on provincial governments to provide services provided in other provinces or to provide services on an equal basis throughout certain provinces. I do not like this approach to social services, Mr. Speaker. I am absolutely convinced that in the field of social service there should be equal opportunity and equal accessibility to all persons in all provinces.
You will note from a reading of the minutes of the meetings of the committee that examined fiscal transfer payments, that in one province there is only one daycare centre. You will also note that the federal government, on a per capita basis, puts 2.5 times as much money into one province as into another. Let me hasten to say that this is not the choice of the federal government. Of course, the Department of National Health and Welfare receives a bill from the provincial government and, in effect, all the federal government does is to see that the general standards of the programs are conformed to, and then it signs the cheque.
Last week the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) was proud to announce that the federal government had increased the spending on social services this year by 19 per cent. That pleases me, but it also indicates to me that, first of all, it was not our choice to spend 19 per cent more as we are just paying the bill. Also, there is apparently greater need in the country, otherwise the provinces would not have increased their spending by a similar amount.
In June last year the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) issued a news release in which it was stated that he approved a program to facilitate the operation of pilot daycare centres in federally owned or leased buildings. I should like to quote from that news release as follows:
These projects are designed to permit employees with young children to fulfil their combined roles of employees and parents.
It goes on to say:
The management of these centres will be the responsibility of parent-users, who will form a legal corporation and assume complete administrative and financial responsibility for their operation. In order to facilitate this undertaking, the departments will provide the required space and maintenance.
So far so good, but that led me to recall that during the nine years or so that I have been a member of this House, three of the secretaries employed in my office have been single parents inasmuch as they have been responsible for bringing up young children, and, of course, as they live alone, they have been
February 11, 1982

obliged to go to work. The circumstances of the three ladies were different. One was a widow, but in all three cases the women were obliged to find daycare centres or kindergartens in which to leave their children between the hours of approximately 8.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. Each approached the problem from a different point of view. In one case, because a mother lived nearby she was able to leave the children there. Another left the children with a neighbour, and the third put her children into a daycare centre. Of course, not everyone has a mother or mother-in-law available and it is not always easy to find a kind neighbour.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, in this day and age I think we have to recognize that the working mother-or for that matter a working father whose wife must of necessity go to work- should have access to controlled facilities on an equal basis. When I say an equal basis, that is because what is happening at the present time-and this is the reason I brought the motion forward-is that the government has indicated its willingness to provide space and maintenance, and then it has indicated that it is going to wash its hands of the operation. I do not believe that the government is going to be able to do exactly that.
When I put this motion on the Order Paper, I asked for communications dealing with construction standards and health standards. The first thing the government will have to do is to make sure that it conforms to the construction standards that apply in the various provinces. In order to do that, it should be aware of what those standards are.
At the present time the Department of Public Works has under construction a daycare centre in the city of Ottawa which I understand is listed as costing some $250,000. Rumour has it that the department is likely to spend in excess of $350,000 to build it and, in fact, one person who should know indicated to me yesterday that it might cost in excess of $400,000. At that point the facility is to be turned over to a corporation which is to run it on a self-supporting basis. In other words, the daycare centre is to be a self-supporting facility.
The implication and the philosophy is that the daycare centres are to be provided for those who can afford to pay and for those who are willing to pay. If no federal moneys were involved, we might accept that approach. However, if the government is prepared to put $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000 into a daycare centre for some 40 children, then the government is financially involved and is, in fact, subsidizing the children who use it.
Under these circumstances we have no choice-at least I hope we have no choice-but to ensure that these facilities, financed out of the public purse, shall be available to all children on an equal basis. I will go further and suggest that they shall be available to the children of the parents who have the greatest need. That means, of course, the parents who cannot afford high fees for a daycare centre.
All I know about the charges at the present time is that the figure $75 per week is being bandied about. One can translate that into a cost of $650 per month for two children. I have to
Daycare
ask myself if there is a bus driver on the hill or a secretary living alone or, for that matter, anyone working in the cafeterias or anyone in the public service in Ottawa at that level who can afford that kind of fee for children in a daycare centre.
What I am saying is that if the federal government intends to venture into this field, then it has to be with full subsidization; otherwise there must be no federal financial involvement whatsoever. In my opinion it makes no sense that we should spend huge sums of money to provide the facilities unless we carry through and provide to the parents who do not have the means themselves, the necessary grants to ensure that every child has an equal opportunity to share the facilities.
I feel very strongly on the subject, Mr. Speaker. As a parent I feel that I have had the privilege of seeing my children brought through the kindergarten system. In fact, I was able to see my daughter, who will be ten years old next week, take her first grade in a private kindergarten. Now she is one year ahead of the other girls in her particular class. I would like that opportunity to be available to every child. I suggest that the government must very seriously reconsider its approach. The President of the Treasury Board issued his news release in June. Hopefully he will issue another news release indicating that from here on in we intend, as a federal government, to ensure that daycare facilities in the public service will be built and available on an equal basis for all children.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) provides us with an opportunity not only to deal with the specifics of his request for documents relating to daycare centres, but it allows us to discuss in a more general way the subject of daycare which has risen to serious eminence in Canada over the past decade.
My association with daycare goes back to the late 1960s when, in the city of Halifax, the governors of an institution which was previously known as St. Joseph's Orphanage realized and recognized the changing times and the need to provide a different form of child care beyond the old tradition of the orphanage. Those forwardminded persons developed an institution which became known as St. Joseph's Day Care Centre. I believe it was one of the first substantial institutions of that kind in the area, although other nursery schools and institutions which might have been called daycare centres had been previously established. But it was the first effort of which I am aware to establish a substantial institution based upon developing principles which are now very much a part of the daycare system.
I was involved as a member of the board of directors of that institution. I was very pleased to be a part of the developing concept which we were able to implement and bring to life in the new daycare centre.
Also I was equally pleased, at the time I served as legislative counsel for the province of Nova Scotia, to be involved as a draftsman in what I believe was one of the first pieces of

February 11, 1982
Daycare
daycare legislation enacted in Canada. In 1971, the legislature of the province of Nova Scotia enacted the daycare services act, the purpose and principle of which was to give daycare a legislative base from which standards, methods of providing financial aid through public funds and similar matters to enhance the development of daycare facilities across the province could be developed.
In this respect I should pay tribute to my colleague from the city of Halifax who is now the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) because he, as premier of the province at the time, took an interest in the subject when it was presented to him by people like myself and other persons interested in daycare. Through the efforts of his government we were able to provide this legislative base for daycare.
Since 1970 daycare has developed not only in Nova Scotia but across the nation as the means of dealing with a very serious difficulty which arises in some family situations; that is, the situation in which parents of a child or, in the case where a child has no parents, those responsible for the custodial care of the child are unable on a day to day basis to provide proper care for the child. As I indicated, the old tradition was to allow such a child to be boarded in an orphanage with other children beset with similar difficulties. But the developing concept of daycare allowed us to replace that institution which lacked the kind of real life experience that any child requires in order to develop, progress and become a successful adult in modern society.
It is with great appreciation of the need and necessity for proper daycare facilities across Canada that I now rise to address some remarks on this subject. Let me conclude my references to Nova Scotia by recording the fact that some years later, in 1978, another daycare act was provided, which indicates and records the evolutionary process that even today is evolving with respect to daycare. For the record, daycare is defined in the statutes of the province of Nova Scotia-and I suspect it is similar in legislatures elsewhere-as the providing of services pertinent to a child's physical, social, emotional and intellectual development apart from the child's parents or guardian. The whole concept of daycare is to provide for the child's needs in a home away from home type of environment. What has developed over a period of time and is more or less established is that the kind of environment which will give a child the same benefits and advantages of a parent in the home upbringing has become very costly. Indeed the costs have grown to the extent where it is almost essential that some form of public assistance be provided if we are to have proper daycare facilities across Canada. In some cases those facilities can be provided without public expenditure by corporations for their employees. In other similar situations, universities and educational institutions have tended to pioneer in the provision of daycare facilities for staff persons and employees. But it is not everyone who is in the situation where they can look to an employer or an institution such as a university to assist them with the provision of daycare for their children. The hon. member was quite right when he underlined the need for government involvement in the matter of daycare, both at the
provincial level, which has the primary responsibility, and at the federal level, particularly with respect to public servants.
Let me review very briefly the kinds of situations in which daycare is often required; that is, in most cases the situation of a single parent who must work to maintain herself or himself and at the same time has responsibility for the upbringing of a child or children. For this reason, the provision of daycare has become mostly involved with the quest for equal rights for women. I think all hon. members of the House of both sexes appreciate the very particular problem of women in this situation, although it is certainly a problem which can be experienced by a male person as well.
The point I want to make is that if we are to talk meaningfully of women's rights which are now enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we must implement this concern in practical ways. The implementation of a daycare program is one of the many ways in which legislators in the Parliament of Canada and in provincial legislatures across the land can really give effect to their good intentions with respect to equality for women. It is those kinds of programs which allow women to take their place in society when they are in family situations and have the responsibility to maintain a child or children, as well as themselves. It is natural that in the forefront of the movement for proper daycare facilities have been many women who experience on a day to day basis the difficulties and traumas which occur when persons are prevented, for financial and other reasons, from providing direct care for their children. If we are to have a meaningful attitude toward the entrenchment of equal rights for women, we are required and forced to examine concepts such as daycare. It is not the only one, but it is very important to the implementation of women's rights in this country.
There are other areas at which we ought to look when we consider daycare. One in particular is the provisions of the Income Tax Act respecting child care expenses. Without going into detail, the Income Tax Act provides for a single person's exemption, it provides for a married and equivalent exemption and it provides for exemptions for children. But beyond those exemptions there is a provision for deducting the expenses incurred for child care outside the home, with a relative or in the circumstances spelled out in the Income Tax Act and regulations. But the limit on those expenses is $1,000 per child to a maximum of $4,000 for four or more children.
We know that the kinds of facilities and the kinds of services that ought to be provided in a daycare centre involve costs well beyond those amounts. That is to say, there is no way that suitable daycare can be provided for a child at an annual cost of $1,000. In fact, you are talking about amounts that go beyond that and in some cases are as high as $5,000 or $6,000. Again, if we were really to try to implement programs such as daycare, we would have to provide the financial capability to utilize those programs. One of the backup provisions is the provision in the Income Tax Act that will provide a tax benefit for child care expenses.
February 11, 1982

I have pointed out in the House and in other places time and time again that the deduction currently provided is totally inadequate. In no way can it reflect the actual costs of maintaining a child. Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for people to say that the wife or the husband should stay in the home and look after the child. Certainly that is the ideal situation and one that we would all like to see in every Canadian home, but in many cases economics make it impossible. Beyond that, there is also the element of free choice that is involved. It simply comes down to the fact that, in this day and age, many women and many men do not wish to stay in the home to assist in providing child care on a full-time basis. They prefer to seek and to pursue careers. We cannot in the House, or in any other legislature, interfere with that freedom of choice, namely, the right to pursue a person's interest in the way he or she wants. Whether the reason is economic or whether it is simply a matter of choice, many poeple are not in a position to care for children in the home in the traditional way. It is not sufficient, even if it is the opinion of some-it is not mine-to condemn such persons because at the same time you have to recognize that the real concern is the child.
We are providing these facilities and we are constructing these programs, not to benefit in all cases the parent or the person responsible for caring for the child, but to ensure that the child has the benefit of proper care. Whatever philosophy you apply to the situation, you are left with the practical fact that there are great numbers of children in Canada who are not cared for in the home. The only way that they can be properly cared for is in a daycare centre, with the appropriate facilities to provide the proper services.
As I have indicated, and it is worth underlining, all this costs money. The hon. member for Vaudreuil mentioned the Canada Assistance Plan and the kind of social services that are available under that plan. As I understand it, and I am not up to date on the matter, the Canada Assistance Plan does permit provinces to assist persons in the financing of daycare as one of the services to which the Canada Assistance Plan can be applied. I know that in my province of Nova Scotia the Canada Assistance Plan has been used for this purpose. Formulae and methods have been established for assistance to people who use daycare facilities. Again, as we have all seen, costs escalate time and time again to the point where even the relatively small portion of the cost that may be required to be borne by the parents becomes too great a financial burden. I know from my own experience in St. Joseph's Day Care Centre that once we constructed the formula and put it into operation that many people whose income levels exceeded those at which assistance was available could not, in fact, pay the amounts required to maintain the child in the daycare centre. Again, if a person's financial ability is not properly assessed, with the result that a person presumed to have sufficient funds but cannot maintain a child in daycare facilities, the child is the one who suffers. It is not enough to examine the circumstances of the parent and determine that in your view or in the view of the legislature they can maintain a child in a daycare facility if, in fact, they believe they cannot,
Daycare
because the child is left in circumstances which are not conducive to the social wellbeing and mental health of the child.
Child care is the problem area. Our concern ought to be and should be for the care of children, and think of nothing else; if we reject the concept that people are entitled in certain circumstances to help or assistance, and the idea of maintaining children in places other than the home with care provided by parents of the child, we will still have to face the problem of children who are not receiving adequate care.
That problem exists in Canada as it does throughout the world. As it happens, daycare centres have been a very successful method of dealing with that problem. As I have said, they are the modern version of the orphanage; they represent tremendous improvements on the concept of maintaining a child in an orphanage. It is not that many of the orphanages established in Canada and elsewhere did not do an excellent job of caring for children, but we now know that it is most important for a child to be placed in a situation as close to normal as possible. An institution like an orphanage is not the kind of place that will allow a child to develop in the normal way, developing his or her own capabilities and capacities.
With the rising costs and the strain of finances on single parents and many working parents, we have to consider what the role is of government and what provision must be made to ensure that the children of those parents receive care.
I think by bringing this matter before the House, the hon. member at least calls to public attention the fact that these problems exist, that there are methods for dealing with them and that there may be a role for government to play in providing the facilities and the services required by Canadian children.
Let me again just refer to the fact that we have included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms a special provision for women. I want to underline again the association of daycare with the women's rights movement. If we are not prepared as a government, and if we are not prepared as a legislating body to ensure that women can maintain their traditional role as parents and as the persons primarily responsible for the provision of child care-in some cases it is the single working mother who is the only person who bears that responsibility-and at the same time pursue a career which allows them to maintain financial independence, then we are not serious about women's rights. That is a matter that ought to be recognized and underlined; the granting of these rights is meaningless unless we are prepared and willing to provide the support programs, like daycare, that give real effect to those rights.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today not only about daycare but about Canada's children in general and the very urgent need for major action on behalf of all levels of government for children. I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), and I share what I think is his underlying philosophy that we must have good

February 11, 1982
Daycare
quality universal daycare in every centre in Canada, affordable daycare for every family that needs it.
Now, unfortunately, it is that member's government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), indeed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who have refused to take any action in this area. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the International Year of the Child occurred close to three years ago, and many projects funded partly by the federal government demonstrated the need for services and action for children. Last year recommendations were brought to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs from the Commission for the International Year of the Child, and we spent many weeks seriously considering the needs of children and made some very tough recommendations. They were rushed through, came back to the committee in order to be tabled in the House last July, and what has happened? Before this House adjourned for the summer it was intended that major action be taken. Nothing at all has happened. I checked with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and found that the report has not even been taken to cabinet. Judging from some of the remarks made by the minister, I am quite sure she has hardly read it, and I will elaborate on that later. The groups across this country who have worked so hard to do things for children have been completely ignored. This is a disgrace when you think of the situation in Canada today and the needs of our younger generation, and the damage that can be and is being done to millions of children, particularly those caught up in poverty.
So I would like to use my time, Mr. Speaker, to speak, of couse, on daycare and child care services generally, but also to read into the record some of the recommendations from a report the NDP presented to that committee and the recommendations we feel should have been acted upon.
Major economic and social forces have, over a long time, brought major changes to Canada's families. We are really in a new era today with respect to what is happening to families and its implications for social policy. Inflation and the growth of women's career demands have resulted in a very large proportion of two-worker families. Where just a generation ago barely 25 per cent of married women with school age children worked outside the home, it is now more than double that number and rapidly rising. Stress on domestic tranquillity and changing values in society have resulted in an increasing number of divorces. Two out of three marriages are likely to end in divorce today. We also see the new phenomenon of a constantly changing family situation, changing partners, indeed changing family combinations.
The growth in the number of single-parent families has given rise to a number of new problems for society. Recent estimates indicate that nearly half of the children born during the 1970s will be raised at least partially in a one-parent family home, usually the mother. In 1977, 44 per cent of Canada's families headed by women were living in poverty. We have runaway inflation and massive unemployment taking
their toll on today's families with a major impact on Canada's children. As previous speakers have mentioned, the lack of supervised daycare has made it very difficult for many women, and many men as well, who are badly in need of a second income, to get needed daycare. High mobility, isolation, and the distance from other family members, also make it very difficult to get support when needed. I think of many of the families in rural communities who do not have daycare centres or services. We think we are badly off in the cities, but I can tell you that in many communities in Canada there are no services at all.
Many children, particularly in western Canada where the families have moved and left their relatives behind, grow up without having their grandparents close by. This is really a sad commentary when you compare it to our generation's family life. The challenge of the 1980s is to find new ways of supporting families while enriching the experiences of growing children. New concepts in education and child development are needed to encourage self-reliance in children. They have to be able to adapt to a very mobile and changing society. We want to encourage creativity and adaptability so that children will be able to face the many changes that are coming.
Of course, of top priority are daycare and other child care programs for preschoolers, the most important age in a person's life. We need a range of child care services and supports, particularly for parents of young children. Affordable, quality daycare centres must be there in every community, not only to help meet the needs of working parents but to stimulate a child's development and provide backup support for communities. A guaranteed annual income is also basic to mitigating the effects of widening gaps between wages and prices and to substantially reducing poverty, and I will have something more to say about that in a moment.
We have presented in summary form a number of national priorities. We picked the most serious areas of concern affecting our children and pressed, through the health and welfare committee, for government action in these areas. Our national goals for children must include adequate family incomes and the opportunity for children and young people to develop their full potential in a rapidly changing world. Protection from poverty, abuse and neglect, the strengthening of families and a whole range of community support are priorities. We looked at it from the point of view of federal departments and chose just one area where we could and should take immediate action for children.
From the point of view of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), we urged income support programs above the poverty line for families with young children. This meant increasing the child tax credit substantially and, hopefully, taking steps to move as soon as we can toward a guaranteed income system. To the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) we said there must be emergency action for native children, and I wish I had time to elaborate on that. It is probably the most desperate problem in Canada, for they are the poorest of the poor, and this is a national disgrace.
February 11, 1982

We wanted preventive help for young children and families through the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the minister has done nothing about these recommendations. Through the same minister we wanted a national child care act and subsidies for comprehensive daycare. We want to extend job opportunities by providing training for youth through the Department of Employment and Immigration and the recognition of children's rights by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to concentrate particularly on those recommendations having to do with daycare and poverty as it affects young children. Let us look at some of the statistics which again prove how urgent the need is for good daycare across Canada. We know that 88 per cent of Canada's children are under the age of six. That is a large number of children, many of whom are born of adolescent mothers. If anyone needs adequate care, it is those children. Many mothers are in the labour force and are left with no choice but unlicensed child care arrangements. The state of baby-sitting is quite unreliable. Sometimes daycare services are not available or affordable, and children are actually being damaged. How tragic this is for mothers as well as for their children! Out of 531,000 children between the ages of two and six whose parents are working, only 15.7 per cent are enrolled in daycare. Out of 229,000 children under the age of two whose parents are working, only 3.8 per cent receive daycare. In my community in the province of British Columbia, there is no daycare service for children under the age of three, with the exception of private care. That means that a working mother must shop around in several places in an attempt to find satisfactory baby-sitting arrangements if she has children of different ages. There is no problem in proving the need for daycare.
Referring back to our special report on action for Canada's children, we recommended that there be a national childcare act and subsidies which would allow Canadians to have a comprehensive daycare program across the country. In many countries where family policy has been carefully and comprehensively planned, government-sponsored child care programs are provided as a matter of course. For instance, in Scandinavian countries, daycare is integrated with the school system. Every community and every family has available daycare for preschoolers which is very close to home, and it is good, high quality daycare. However, in Canada, while we call ourselves civilized, only 12 per cent of young children of working mothers were in government-approved child care programs in 1979. As I have said, over 600,000 children under the age of seven have no access to licensed care.
In addition, of course, there is a very great problem for children over the age of five, and this is also related to the field of daycare. We Find that there are approximately one million latchkey children, as they say in the trade, who have no licensed care at all. These are children between the ages of six and 12 who come home to empty homes and must look after themselves or go on the streets, as they have no one who can
Daycare
really provide the kind of supervision and care they need. That is another area of urgent need.
What should the federal government do about the problem? We feel, first of all, that there must be federal action to legislate a national child care act. We know that health and welfare services are largely under provincial jurisdiction; however, as the Commission on the International Year of the Child stated, it is also the responsibility of senior governments to ensure that all of Canada's children are provided with good care.
We feel that a national child care act, effected by agreement with the provinces, would spell out national standards for a broad range of child care services which would be available to families in all communities and provinces. Second, we would redefine eligibility for the Canada Assistance Plan. This was mentioned by other hon. members. Here again, the Canada Assistance Plan is in need of major revision so that more emphasis is placed on prevention of neglect. The Canada Assistance Plan usually provides money for services in cases of extreme neglect where children must be removed from their homes. We feel there should be greater emphasis on support services, such as daycare, and family services to go along with daycare, so that more emphasis is placed on prevention of neglect. These kinds of services should be available to a broader range of people.
Third, we would revise the Income Tax Act and provide an extended child care tax credit. I think that both men and women workers who need daycare for their children, regardless of income, should be able to deduct child care expenses from their income tax. This would help to support daycare centres financially. Fourth, we would provide start-up and capital funds for additional non-profit child care facilities.
I would like to stress that the essential funds should be provided for the non-profit daycare and child care facilities. It is extremely important to realize that because of free enterprise trends in our country, there is presently a movement toward commercial daycare centres into the field. There are many chain daycare centres which are trying to move in, just as the McDonald's hamburger chain has taken over our country. These commercial chains are moving up from the United States, particularly in this part of Canada, I understand, where they are providing daycare centres based on a profit motive. They provide no guarantee of adequate standards, and no guarantee that they will provide adequate staff. They exploit their child care workers and teachers by paying low salaries. These centres do not consider child development to be their main concern. We do not want daycare to be a profit-motivated, free enterprise business. We want it to be a very important and essential service, one which is part of our whole educational system for children.
Concerning the question of facilities, I would also like to mention that we feel the federal government should be providing much more in the way of start-up funds so that all communities, and particularly rural communities, can utilize some of the school classrooms which are now empty by converting them into daycare centres. This could be done with
14922

February 11, 1982
Daycare
churches as well where there are facilities. However, the communities need funds to fix up the facilities in order to get the daycare centres licensed. The federal government has a real responsibility to help in this area.
We also feel that the government should provide work-based child care programs and nine months of paid child care leave for federal government employees, as we have mentioned a number of times in the House. This should be an example to private industry. Two years ago in the House, I pressed for daycare here on the Hill to demonstrate that good daycare in the workplace is essential. It should not be provided only on the Hill but also in all federal departments and in private industry throughout the country. This is not, of course, the only kind of daycare. I think daycare close to home is often the preferred type of daycare for many families.
We would like to introduce amendments to the Canada Pension Plan to incorporate pension credits for those who are charged with the care of children under the age of seven. Once again, it is mainly women who are working in low-paid jobs in this most important field; women who not only do not receive adequate salaries for their efforts to keep daycare centres open while struggling with inadequate working conditions, but who do not receive pension credits either. Again, they will be the victims of the system. When they reach a later stage in life, they will find themselves poverty-ridden and seeking welfare because they will not have adequate pensions.
I mentioned earlier that income support programs to bring people above the poverty line are essential. I see that my time in which to speak has almost expired, so I will refer anyone who is interested to this report for further details. I would simply like to say that the high cost of living and continuing unemployment are having a drastic impact on the living conditions of Canadian families and children. Native children are suffering physically as well as emotionally, and this has been caused by the irresponsible federal government which is actually practising neglect in its lack of concern for native children. Provisions for licensed child care lag far behind most industrialized countries. We would like to see preventive services, and we proposed a program similar to New Horizons which would help to start many kinds of daycare and family support programs because preventive services are lacking and must be expanded and promoted.
Finally, the rights of children must be identified and protected. The recommendation of the health and welfare committee was that a children's bureau be established under the federal government which would give priority to children's needs. We wanted a minister responsible for children, and we wanted a major conference to negotiate with the provinces for ways and means to implement these recommendations immediately. This has not happened, and the Liberal government is directly responsible for this failure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead) seeks the floor, with the consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Weatherhead:: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, this debate will continue on another occasion for an additional 30 minutes or so. We do have many comments to make on this very important subject, and, with Your Honour's permission, I would like to call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-89, to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-89, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act. At the beginning, it is important that we recognize housing as one of the basic factors of human life. The kind of housing we provide says a great deal about the kind of people we are, and a great deal about the kind of people we hope to be.
Housing is a kind of touchstone. If we visit a new city or strange country, when we come back we want to talk about the kind of housing we have seen. We might talk about some of the grand mansions in some cities or we might talk about the shantytowns on the edges of those cities. Housing says something about the way we are as a people and how we see ourselves in relation to our world.
Consider, for example, pre-European west coast Indian housing. This housing blended very uniquely into its environment. It emphasized the total community of the Indian people with their surroundings. We can contrast that with the kind of Indian housing that was developed in Father William Duncan's mission village of Metlakatla. There are pictures of long rows of bleak identical looking frame buildings that stand out on the landscape. They symbolize European attempts to make
February 11, 1982

Indian life conform to a European concept of order and harmony. Father Duncan was one of the greatest missionaries to the Indian people. Perhaps if he had been less confident in his own ability and was less convinced of the superiority of his own culture, he could have helped to match some of the European technology with some of the aesthetic sense of the Indian people and come up with a much better housing situation than what we see in the pictures of early Metlakatla.
It is important as we begin a discussion of this bill that we recognize the importance of housing not just to provide shelter but in the total context of human life. I would like to consider the kind of housing policy that is essential to meet the challenge of the eighties.
There are at least four components that have to be brought together in such a housing policy. First, there is the question of our need for housing. Second, we have to look at the technology and the materials that we can use to provide housing. Third, we want to look at the question of aesthetics. Fourth, we have to look at the social dimension, how our housing stock fits into the community.
First let us look at the question of need. An absolute number of houses are needed. A few years ago it was estimated that we need to build 234,000 housing units per year. If we look at the housing starts over the last few years we see that in 1980 there were 158,000 housing starts. In 1981, we had 178,000. There are approximately 165,000 planned for 1982. We are falling behind our much needed housing requirements by 50,000 to70,000 every year. We can look at the need for low cost housing in the various sectors of our population. We need to consider the change which has occurred in the makeup of our families such as the growing number of single parent families and the increasing number of senior citizens.
While reviewing housing needs, perhaps we need to reconsider the whole concept of suburbia. Suburbia is a concept which has run its course and perhaps it is time we recognized that we can no longer afford two and three-car houses because of the economic problems. Greater emphasis will have to be put on housing in the mid-town area where we must preserve the present stock of housing that exists there.
If one reviews what CMHC has done to assist this housing situation, one would find that in 1975 it made loans of $900 million and in 1980, it made loans of $300 million. Five years later it was making one third of the loans and this does not take into account the inflation factor.
While we consider the need for housing, it is important that we move away from the concept of housing as an investment, a hedge against inflation, or a nest egg, and start considering housing as a basic human right. The idea of housing as an investment has acted in a most detrimental way to Canadians. People who thought they had made a good investment in housing are now unable to meet mortgage payments. There are Canadians who own homes in one part of the country and have been transferred elsewhere but are unable to accept the transfer because the cost of housing has risen more sharply in the
Housing
new area. People who thought their investment value in their homes was rising are now faced with increased assessments which make it difficult for them to pay their taxes. Our concept of housing as an investment, rather than a human right and necessisty, is no longer valid.
We must also consider the need for affordable rental units within our housing policy. Housing which was built under the previous MURB programs was very costly in many cases and we should now put money into low-cost rental units.
Another factor which must be considered is the technology and availability of materials to be used for our housing. A housing policy must be integrated with energy needs. In this regard a great deal more research should be conducted with respect to such areas as solar healing and conservation. It is interesting to note that a recent Gallup poll indicated that people preferred moving toward solar energy rather than nuclear energy by a ratio of nine to one. However, the government is spending our money on nuclear energy. The government should be assisting those home owners who have solar heating so that solar heating installations do not increase the assessment on their property taxes. There should not be a tax policy which works against an intelligent housing policy. There should be a housing policy which has land assembly plans. There is nothing to that effect in the bill. Land costs are one of the highest factors in housing, along with interest rates.
There is still too much construction on agricultural lands. We need more money to develop sewage treatment programs to meet the needs of the 1980s so that we will not continue to dump sewage and primary processed sewage into our rivers and oceans. For example, there are no public beaches for two million Montrealers because of the lack of adequate programs for treating sewage.
A housing policy which will take into account modern technology and the availability of materials will stimulate Canadian industry. As we begin to meet our housing needs we will stimulate the plywood and lumber industry, the cement industry, and other housing-related industries.
A modern housing policy should not just take into account the bare minimum requirement for shelter from the elements. It should also provide a sense of aesthestics in this modern industrial society with its stresses and strains. Although houses are needed, people need homes to which they have a sense of belonging.


Dave Nickerson: We know where you belong.


James Douglas Manly: Pardon me?


Dave Nickerson: I said that we know where you belong.


James Douglas Manly: I belong here to try to speak to an intelligent housing policy which we are not getting from the government. If the hon. member is satisfied with the government's housing policy, good for him.
There should be a housing policy which will allow people to live in homes they can be proud of. If the members to my right do not agree with that, that is too bad.

February 11, 1982
Housing


Howard Edward Crosby: Have you been to Scarborough lately?


James Douglas Manly: I believe that a housing policy must avoid the sterility of mass uniformity in urban areas.


Howard Edward Crosby: That is it; that is Scarborough.


James Douglas Manly: You can mention some of your suburbs in Ontario. I can think of similar areas in British Columbia which can be greatly improved upon. Different regions can afford different housing styles.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a need when planning our housing to take into consideration the social aspects of our society. Our houses must not be planned as a series of isolated dwelling units but must take into consideration other policies of the government such as energy, transportation, daycare, education, recreation and culture. It must consider the changing patterns of family life, employment and age.
It is within that framework of a complete housing policy that I would like to point out some of the problems regarding Indian and native housing. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has delegated some of its responsibility for Indian housing to CMHC. However, CMHC has not been very helpful to the Indian people in meeting their problems. There is the danger in considering the problem of native housing that we might ignore the fact that some Indian people have built very nice homes for themselves in which they take a great deal of pride. When we make reference to the fact that Indian housing is a national disgrace, we do not mean that all Indian homes are shacks. That implication would be grossly unfair to the Indian people. Many homes on Indian reserves are spacious and others are modest but attractive and well maintained. It is also a fact that too many Indian homes are inadequate because of poor heating, poor ventilation, inadequate sanitation and safety facilities.
A survey put out by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on Indian conditions in 1980 detailed the major health problems encountered by Indians. The survey said:
The major causes of Indian deaths and illnesses appear to be associated with poor housing and living conditions and a rural life style.
In a report on Indian health, Mr. Justice Tom Berger makes the same point. He says:
So many of the causes of Indian ill health lie beyond the fact of illness itself... Indians are usually poor. Their homes are crowded. One third, at least, of their houses are unfit for human habitation. There is a lack of clean water, and inadequate sewage and garbage disposal. The prevalence of respiratory illness among Indians is, of course, aggravated by the absence of central heating in a cold country.
During a survey of housing on a reserve near my constituency two years ago houses with four and five bedrooms and 16 and 18 people crowded into them were still found. In 1977 across Canada 14.8 per cent of all Indian homes housed two families; another 4 per cent housed three or more families. This is the kind of crowding conditions in which Indian people have had to live. Fewer than 50 per cent of all Indian homes
across Canada have water or sewage hookups. In 1975 fewer than 35 per cent of Indian reserves had adequate fire protection. This, combined with overcrowding and inadequate heating, explains why Indian people have had a death rate resulting from house fires seven times that of non-Indians.
There is a backlog of some 11,000 homes to be built and another 11,000 homes which need to be renovated and brought up to date. At present there is supposed to be a major review of Indian housing by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and CMHC. We are still waiting for it, and the two departments seem to have a great deal of difficulty getting together and coming up with some proposal which, in consultation with the Indian people, will be acceptable.
The use of CMHC funds is helpful on some reserves, but on many others it is not of very much help. It creates all kinds of additional problems for the Indian people. For example, there is the difficulty of making payments when people have a welfare-type economy. When these housing programs no longer have any labour component we really do not have good Indian housing policy at all.
A discussion paper put out on October 28, 1981, by the department talks about some of the problems. It says:
In order to access housing effectively, bands must go to D1AND, CMHC, in some cases the Canada Employment and immigration Commission (CEIC), approved lenders, their own resources, etc. Even when bands seek funds from all these sources, they are often not able to raise the full amount needed for their housing.
Almost invariably these labour funds come on stream at the wrong time of year for house construction on Indian reserves. Worse still, bands often do not know whether programs funded in one year will even be available at all the following year. For example, labour funds in support of house construction on Indian reserves in 1977 were made available through CEIC's Canada Works Program. Then through their Local Employment Assistance Program (LEAP) and laterally through their Canada Community Development Projects (CCDP). This last program for 1981-82 was not announced until the end of the summer for implementation in October. Bands could not plan for it but will try to take up as much money from this program as they can, despite its coming on stream at the wrong time of the year-
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has recognized the backlog of 11,000 homes which need to be built, but is not able to come up with programs which will meet that backlog. The 1980-81 report of the department points out the following:
The on-reserve housing target remained the same in 1980-81 as they were for 1979-80: 2.400 new houses and 3,000 renovations to existing structures... There remains a shortage of approximately 11,000 housing units on reserve and a backlog again of 11,000 units in need of repairs.
The on-rcserve housing backlog increased steadily from 1963 to 1971. From 1971 onwards, the backlog has remained relatively stable due to the fact that the target of 2,400 new housing units remains sufficient to satisfy current demand in terms of accommodating new families-
In other words, the department is just barely able to keep up with the growing population. It is not doing anything about the continuing problems of overcrowding mentioned earlier.
When we look at the situation of off-reserve Indians, we find it to be similarly desperate. If we look at our small towns across Canada, often we will find across the river or on the other side of the railroad tracks small communities derisively
February 11, 1982

called "Tepee Town", "Moccasin Flats" or "Apache Pass', depending on the locality. This is where many native people have to go because they do not have access to anywhere else. They have been forced off reserves, and there is a lack of adequate low-cost housing in our towns.
In the annual report of the department we find this very interesting statement:
-the number of applications for off-reserve housing units declined. This was due to economic factors such as high interest rates for first mortgages, which have pushed up housing costs.
In other words, fewer off-reserve Indian people are applying for help because, no matter what kind of help is offered by the department, it is not enough to offset the disastrous interest rate policy of this government. The budget for rural and native housing between 1976 and 1981 was cut from $178 million to $115 million by the CMHC. That indicates how seriously this government is taking the problem.
When we look at Bill C-89, we see that it falls far short of what our country needs in terms of a housing policy. In many respects it runs directly counter to those needs. I would like to point, for example, to the mortgage interest deferment plan. As has been pointed out many times by speakers from our party, this is a cruel hoax. It is the kind of arrangement which gave mortgages a bad name during the thirties and the early years of this century. People pay and pay and pay on their mortgages, but they never own what they are paying for. Like the ill-fated AHOP, it is a financial time bomb. Mortgage holders under this plan will owe more at the end of the year than they do at the beginning. It is no real help at all to people who face the high mortgage interest rates which are the result of this government's policies.
Another disastrous feature of this bill eliminates the requirement that housing co-operatives must be non-profit. Again, this opens the way for speculators to move into the co-operative area. Instead of doing this, we should be expanding the whole co-op sector. But if we look at figures for 1976 to 1981, we find that the amount of money available for co-op housing was reduced from $51 million to less than $1 million.
In conclusion, I urge the government to recognize the inadequacies of this bill. I urge it to recognize that the short-term measures in it do not help. They do not help even in the short term. I urge the government to bring in a national housing policy which would begin to meet the needs of the 1980s; a policy planned for the whole nation but involving community planning in detail; a policy which would allow for orientation toward community needs.
What we need is a plan that will recognize the changes in the Canadian population, a plan that will recognize the needs of the Indian people, the elderly, single parents, and the poor. We need a plan that includes a place for public co-op and low rental housing as well as for affordable single units. I urge the government to introduce a plan that brings together the needs of our people for housing, the skills of our people in designing building and renovating homes, a plan that uses the wealth of
Housing
our nation which, until now, has been siphoned off to the banks in high interest rates.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House on this bill, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act. I should like to remind hon. members that on Monday, January 25, 1982, the House passed a unanimous motion under Standing Order 43 expressing our condolences to the family and relatives of nine Canadians who died in a fire in Spanish, Ontario.
Some people may wonder what that fire has to do with Bill C-89. The fire, the deaths, the surrounding human tragedy symbolizes the grief that the Liberal Party is bringing to hundreds of thousands of Canadians daily. What connection does this fire have with this bill? The fire, the deaths, the human tragedy and suffering might not have happened if this government had moved sooner, with more conviction, with more passion, with more compassion and more understanding to assist Canadians suffering under the Liberal high interest rate policy. Members of the Vincent family who perished in the fire were forced to move from their home in Spanish, Ontario, a single family residence, because they could not maintain their mortgage payments. Perhaps if the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) had been more forceful in persuading his Liberal colleagues to work toward adequate assistance sooner, that tragedy might not have happened. On the concession roads of this country, in village after village, town after town, city after city, Canadians are losing their homes daily because the Liberal government has failed to act to assist home owners.
I should like to read to the House some excerpts from an article which appeared in the Midland Free Press on January 29, 1982. The article begins:
Like so many thousands of Canadians, Jim Pelletier is the victim of the growing economic shudders felt nationwide.
Pelletier lost his three-bedroom bungalow in Port McNicoll last summer when mortgage and interest rates reached the 20 per cent point.
The loss of his home, plus the break-up of his family combined to put Pelletier into hospital for depression.
The article states that his monthly payments jumped from $330 to $530. The article goes on:
It made me feel terrible, like we were working for nothing, Pelletier said from his Midland Bay Street apartment... We worked hard for that house for five years. I put my blood and guts into it... Losing it hurt.
That story is being repeated in the riding of Simcoe North just as it is across the country.
For 22 months the Liberal Party has talked about monitoring the situation. In the Speech from the Throne in April, 1980, the government stated:
In particular, my government recognizes the need to protect those Canadians most affected by unacceptably high interest rates. My government will act to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation so that the spectre of foreclosure will be avoided.
What an empty promise, Mr. Speaker. This government does not even understand that lending institutions and private lenders no longer use foreclosure as the main legal remedy.

Housing
Foreclosure is a legal remedy whereby, upon default, the mortgagee enters into a lengthy legal procedure of nine to 12 months designed to secure title to the property for the lender. All of the equity is transferred to the lender. That legal procedure is unpopular and expensive and, therefore, is no longer used extensively by lending institutions.
In Ontario, at least, people have switched to power of sale proceedings. When a mortgage goes into default, the mortgagee simply sends a formal notice to the home owner advising him or her to bring the mortgage into good standing within a prescribed period or the home will be sold. In this case the lending institution only gets the amount of the mortgage upon completion of the sale. The difference between the sale price and the mortgage goes to the home owner-after expenses, of course.
Home owners in difficulty in Ontario and in all provinces are being forced to sell at distress prices by the lending institutions. The lending institution which controls the sale is only interested in getting the mortgage principal out of the deal. The home owner's equity means nothing to it. Consequently, thousands of Canadians are losing their homes, thanks to the Liberal Party's high interest rate policy. Reference to rising or falling foreclosure rates is empty rhetoric since that legal remedy is no longer in popular use.
We cannot measure the effects of sale proceedings, nor can we measure the human suffering, but there are some causes that we can examine and there are some solutions we can suggest. There are two main causes of the problems of Canadian home owners. The first occurs as a result of the Liberal Party's high interest rate policy and the second is the failure of the Liberal government to address the problem. The present government is responsible for the highest mortgage interest rates in Canada's history.
In 1980, the year the Liberal Party lied to the Canadian people in order to gain re-election and promised to protect them from the spectre of foreclosure, mortgage interest rates rose from a low of 13 per cent to a high of 17 per cent. In 1981, the second year of the promise to do something, the rates ranged from a low of 15 per cent to a high of 21.5 per cent. I would remind the House that this is the rate being charged in Toronto and the other large cities. It is certainly not the rate that is available to Canadian home owners in the riding of Simcoe North and the rural areas of this country. Canadians have suffered the highest mortgage interest rates in history, since the Liberal Party took office. In 1982 this government continues to do nothing to control soaring interest rates.
During the past two years all hon. members have received complaints from home owners faced with horrendous increases in mortgage payments as a result of this government's policies. There is no way that people can handle the unconscionable increases in payments. I am sure all members, no matter on which side of the House, will agree with me that there is nothing so frustrating for a Member of Parliament as listening to home owner after home owner tell of the hardship the high interest rate policy is forcing upon them. We on this side do not want to monitor the situation; we want to offer the people
February 11, 1982
action. At least we can say that we did offer them action. The people have had it, Mr. Speaker; they have had it up to here with what they are having to pay.
Coupled with these high interest rates is a social problem, the extent of which we cannot gauge at this time, but it is out there. Until the mid-1960s the long-term mortgage was the rule-20 or 25-year terms. Home owners knew that their monthly payments were fixed at something they could afford for a substantial period of time. Then in the mid-1960s lending institutions moved to the five-year mortgage. Perhaps it was not as good, but it was a substantial time-frame within which to plan one's future with a reasonable sense of stability. Now Canadians are faced with one and two-year terms, even six months in some cases. The stability of having one's amount of payment fixed for five years is gone. I do not pretend to be a social scientist, but common sense tells me that this will place a terrific strain upon many hundreds of thousands of Canadian families.
What does the bill do? The much-touted Canada mortgage renewal plan is little more than government stalling tactics which force Canadians already faced with financial difficulties further into debt. It will not help anyone who faced the Liberal high interest rates before September 1, 1982, or anyone after November 12, 1982. A leaked document prepared in the autumn of 1981 predicted that more than 100,000 Canadian households would be faced with mortgage payments exceeding 30 per cent of their gross income. The bill proposes to give an interest deferral guarantee of up to $3,000 to borrowers who have some equity in their homes. The government estimates that 37,500 home owners will qualify for this deferral guarantee. This is nothing more than an encouragement to Canadians to increase their debt load. Canadians are mortgaging their future because the government has absolutely no imagination, except to suggest that Canadians borrow more against what little equity they have. Approximately 12,500 home owners with only 5 per cent equity will receive an outright grant of $3,000. That grant is tantamount to AHOP revisited, the program brought in by the Liberal government which led so many Canadian home owners to disaster. Of the 920,000 Canadians who will be renewing their mortgages in 1982, the government proposes to assist 50,000 home owners.
If the Progressive Conservative mortgage interest and property tax credit plan had been adopted, every Canadian home owner would have received assistance with his mortgage; not just the 920,000 renewing their mortgages this year, but every Canadian home owner with a mortgage. They would have received a credit of up to $1,500 a year, amounting to $125 per month. This would have considerably addressed the problem with which Canadian home owners are faced as a result of the Liberal high interest rate policy. The Liberal Party voted against that proposal, the NDP voted against it as well. We invite the Canadian public to compare the paltry provisions of the bill before the House with the Progressive Conservative mortgage interest and realty tax credit plan we introduced in the House against which the Liberals and members of the
February 11, 1982

NDP voted, defeating it. It has often been suggested that we in the Conservative Party have no alternatives, but that alternative would have provided an incentive for Canadians to own homes. We on this side feel that those expenses should be legitimate deductions from income and that this was positive action to address the problem. The minister of housing has thrown a papier mache life ring to drowning Canadian home owners.
I should like to draw to the attention of the House the minister's remark when he introduced the bill on February 8, 1982, as reported on page 14760 of Hansard. He said:
I would like to add that these 15.000 new units would mean not only affordable homes for 15,000 more families, but also an estimated 35,000 additional jobs for people involved in the construction industry and associated businesses.
In the past 1 was spokesman for housing on this side. The highest multiplier we could find to which experts referred that related housing starts to jobs-and I checked this information this afternoon-was 1.75. If I take the 15,000 housing starts and multiply them by 1.75, I come up with 26,250 jobs. I suggest that either the minister is guilty of his usual accuracy or, if the figures are true, he is guilty of his usual inaccuracy.
I should like now to deal with the minister's actions as minister responsible for housing when the budget was presented and the bill was introduced. When we look at the attitude of government in regard to the bill, we must also look at the attitude of the minister to government and to the House of Commons. In the week preceding the budget, on November 13, 1981, the minister's officials were busily calling selected Canadian home owners and telling them to hold on until Thursday night, that there would be something in the budget to help them. The criteria for calling was never disclosed to the House, although we asked for it. Some Canadian home owners were called, others were not, but everyone had some hope. Then the bill was presented and everyone lost hope.
Subsequently the minister announced to the House that he had personally signed in excess of 10,000 letters directed to Canadian home owners. To think of a minister of the Crown sitting down to sign personally 10,000 form letters boggles the minds of everyone on this side of the House. Then the budget was brought down, and everyone laughed when the minister of housing made his comments. Then after 19 months of monitoring, Bill C-89 was the piteous and paltry answer. Lo and behold, the next day advertisements appeared in newspapers inviting people to contact CMHC about its new plan. We on this side found it passing strange that the ad had been placed so quickly on Friday by a minister who had advised us on Tuesday that he had no idea what would happen on Thursday. Then we obtained the answer. The officials had worked through Thursday night and, as a result of hard work, produced a cameraready ad in Ottawa which was then taken to Montreal for shooting and delivered to newspapers such as the Brockville Recorder and Times in time to be printed on Friday. At a later date it was determined that the ad in fact was produced on the Monday night prior to the budget, that is the Monday night prior to the Tuesday when he told us he had no idea what would be in the budget on Thursday. There are
Housing
two schools of thought on this side of the House in that regard. One believes that the minister deliberately misled the House; the other believes that the minister was misled by his officials. In either case the minister became the laughingstock of the House, the media and the country.
1 should like now to turn to the area of housing starts. Under Liberal government housing policies, Canadians are facing an accommodation crisis. In 1980, we required 222,000 housing starts to adequately shelter Canadians, and Liberal government policies resulted in 159,000 starts. They improved in 1981, at which time we required 222,000 housing starts to adequately shelter Canadians, and Liberal government policies resulted in 178,000. This is government by shortfall; housing policy by shortfall! In 1982, again we required 222,000 housing starts to adequately shelter Canadians, and the figures released this week show that we will achieve 148,000 housing starts.
The housing start figures indicate that both the single family residential market and the multiple dwelling rental accomodation market are facing serious shortfalls. In fact, the single family residential market has become completely unattractive because of mortgage interest rates and present economic difficulties. For the same reason it is unattractive to build rental accommodation.
During the past two years the national vacancy rate for rental dwellings has dropped from an accessible 2.3 per 1,000 units to an intolerable 1.4 vacancies per 1,000 units. The Liberal high interest rate policy has played a significant role in discouraging the building of rental housing.
One of the devices that was still providing some rental accommodation was the multiple unit residential building program. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) eliminated the MURB program on November 12, 1981. In doing so, the Minister of Finance eliminated projects which were in process at that date. Thousands of Canadians were thrown out of work by the actions of the Minister of Finance.
Within a week the Minister of Finance backtracked and reinstated the MURB program, provided the footings or other base supports were in place by December 31, 1981, or where arrangements for construction were made in writing and substantially advanced by November 13, 1981 and the footings were in place by May 31, 1982.
I am not here to debate at length the value of MURBs. There is a school of thought that says they are a legitimate device to stimulate the production of rental accommodation. There is a school of thought that says they are nothing but a tax dodge for the rich. But, in any event, that device will disappear on May 31, 1982.
In the House of Commons we have to ask ourselves how the Minister of Finance could have been so out of touch with reality to forget about the provisions to phase in this elimination of MURBs. Why could the minister forget to phase it in and leave all of those people trying to provide rental accommodation out in the cold? Then he backtracked.

February 11, 1982
Housing
What did the government do having done all that? What did the government do to stimulate the building of rental accommodation? How did the government react to this crisis? The government cancelled the MURB program which it estimated produced 25,000 housing starts per annum and replaced it with a program designed to loan $7,500 per unit, interest free, to builders of up to 15,000 units. The net effect was that we lost 10,000 rental units. That is a terrific way to approach a vacancy rate crisis.
Furthermore, the government has totally abandoned the law of supply and demand in favour of bureaucratic action. Whatever the inadequacies of the MURB program at least we knew the market would dictate where they were built. These units would be built where the demand existed. Now we know these units will be built where the bureaucrats designate. These are the same bureaucrats who brought us the budget of November 12 and they are now going to allocate the interest-free loans. They are the ones who will do it. In Oshawa, which has a zero vacancy rate, what will be done about the 232 units they presently have under administration which are vacant. Those are the same bureaucrats who want to allocate rental accommodation for Canadians.
Given the budget's lack of reality, is there any Canadian who thinks that those loans are going to be allocated properly? Given this government's past actions, are there any Canadians who think that those rental units and loans are going to be allocated fairly?
In my riding of Simcoe North, we are facing a crisis vacancy rate. There is a vacancy crisis in Orillia and Midland. What guarantee do we have from the minister that some of those interest-free loans will be allocated to interested developers in the smaller communities of Canada? Quite frankly, I am not worried about Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. I am worried about my riding. The people of my riding sent me here. How many units will the government allocate to the riding of Simcoe North?


Norman Kelly: What do you need?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Let us find out what we need. We need some help from the government.


Norman Kelly: Give us a number.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We need some of those loans.


Norman Kelly: Give us a number.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I hear an interjection from the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly). Since he is connected with a constituent of mine, and without reading out the name of the constituent, I would like to make one comment just to set the record straight.


An hon. Member:: Name him.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: This is what my constituent says about the government represented by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre:
In the past, we have had our ups and downs, but I never really worried about the future. Right now though, I am worried as I just cannot see any future.
That is what the government of the hon. member for Scarborough Centre has done for his brother. I am sorry, I will get back to my text. I was a little bit thrown off there.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Suddenly there is silence on the other side.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I would like to suggest something to the minister and I do this with all sincerity. I have practised law in a small town, and I was in business before that. Prior to 1971 when the government allowed losses on rental accommodation ventures, they were deductible against other income. As a result, multiple unit dwellings were not owned exclusively by doctors, dentists and the occasional lawyer as a tax dodge. They were owned by mechanics, farmers and by service station owners. These are the people who own, bought and built the triplexes, the duplexes and the sixplexes all across Canada. They applied any loss they incurred against other income, and they provided rental accommodation. But, when this government wiped out that ability to balance off income losses on rental properties against other income, the rental accommodation was wiped out.
I suggest very sincerely to the government that it take a hard look at bringing that incentive back, because it has gone. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is a tragedy at a time when Canadians are renewing their mortgages at the horrendous rates advocated, supported and propogated by this government. I suggest that the Liberal government has brought forward the weakest solution imaginable.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Paul Cosgrove.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The government completely ignores the stated housing policy of the Progressive Conservative Party to see that every Canadian has a right to accessibility to decent affordable housing.


Mr. Turner:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand there was a delay in the reprinting of Bill C-78 which resulted in some members not being able to give notice of amendments.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(5), and in order to be fair to all members, since this bill will be called tomorrow, would the House give leave to extend the deadline for giving notice to proposed amendments to Bill C-78 until ten o'clock tonight for tomorrow's consideration and until five o'clock Friday for consideration Monday or thereafter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 see two hon. members rising. Are they both standing on the same point of order?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see any difficulty with that but I would like to have the opportunity to discuss the matter with my House leader. I can do that within the next ten minutes and get back to the hon. member. This is the first notice we have had of the offer. We would have appreciated some advance warning but we Find that this is the
February 11, 1982

way the government operates. We can appreciate that it is part of the pattern. I will get back to the hon. member immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has been apprised that there will be a few moments today while the proposal put forward by the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) is considered.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are hurting. This nation is crying. The Canadian people are crying in frustration, anger, fear and, unfortunately, in too many cases with despondency. According to a Gallup poll, one of the most basic desires of about 95 per cent of us, we in this House and the people we represent, is that we, at some time, in some way, in our lifetime, might be able to have a detached house, standing strong and independent on a good sized lot. That is what the dream is. That is in fact a reality for almost 60 per cent of Canadians, but the dream has been shattered for the other 40 per cent who have come to expect that if they do not own the roof over their heads right now, the opportunity has gone and the dream will never be fulfilled. That applies to just the 40 per cent who do not own homes now, but who would like to.
However, they are not in as bad shape, Mr. Speaker, as the
1,200,000	Canadians who thought they had realized their dream and now find, as a result of mortgage renewals, that it has become a nightmare of lost savings, lost equity, and mortgage payments they cannot possibly meet.
In 1965 one out of every two Canadians could afford to buy a house and carry the mortgage for 30 per cent of their income. I was fortunate in 1965 to be one of those, but what about the 1,200,000 who bought in the last one, two, or three years? Well, that has now changed. Instead of one out of two, right now in Vancouver only one out of 43 tenants who want to or could have afforded to buy a home can qualify. That is a drop from one out of two down to one out of 43; in other words, almost none, Mr. Speaker. Those are people who have had their dreams dashed.
When you think about those few who can qualify, you might wonder why they would want to, because having qualified they would find out, if it was in the lower mainland of British Columbia, their gas rates would have increased by an average of 95 per cent this year. Their taxes would have doubled along with their assessments.
I live in the fastest growing part of Canada and I represent that suburban fringe where those one, two and three-year mortgage renewals are coming due. A lot of those 1,200,000 people are in my riding. I know about the problems because I hear about them from my constituents. These are the people who are really in trouble. Many of these people are not just in dire straits. As a result of the government's policies they are far beyond that, to the point of giving up.
Let me give you a typical example. Eighteen months ago a family in the greater Vancouver area earning $42,000 saved $30,000. That is not easy to do, Mr. Speaker. The average
Housing
person must have a down payment of at least $30,000 to get into the average home in Vancouver. The person could make that down payment on a medium-priced house for which he would pay $150,000. Eighteen months ago he could get a mortgage at 12 per cent, resulting in mortgage payments of $1,300. That is a pretty heavy payment. It took all his savings to make the down payment and in fact the wife had to work in order to make that payment of $1,300. Perhaps, they had a little help from their parents and they planned to do without holidays for the next few years. This spring, on renewal of the two-year mortgage, the payment will jump from $1,300 to $2,100. They will have to find $800 a month, Mr. Speaker, to keep their home. Is there any member of this House who can pull $800 a month out of his salary? Perhaps Mr. MacEachen could, but we could not, and our salaries are a lot better than the $42,000 this man is making. This is sad, it is terribly tragic when you are in that position. There are hundreds of people like that and I am going to read you some of their letters in a minute.
To add insult to injury, the same house 18 months later is only worth $120,000. Their savings of $30,000 is gone and what do they have in exchange? They have a payment which has gone from $1,300 a month to $2,100 a month, which they cannot possibly pay. They have a 95 per cent increase in their gas rates, taxes are up, the cost of living is up and inflation is 12 per cent. Where are they? They are lost because they cannot keep up, and they do not know what to do.
You might say: Well, sell your house. They have no equity left, and they cannot sell at a loss. Even if they could sell no one can qualify to buy the house. Suppose they could sell it, where are they going to live? In Langley, in my riding, people come to my office who cannot find a place to stay. There is a zero vacancy rate-not next year, Mr. Speaker, but right now. We have a zero vacancy rate and everything is at a standstill. We have land, we have space, area for growth and we have sewers in place. Now small businesses are going bankrupt at the rate of 2,500 a month. They cannot afford to go to the bank at 20 per cent, 24 per cent or 26 per cent to build a house. As a result there are no small builders building houses. They cannot afford the risks involved, assuming they have the credit to borrow at 20 per cent, because they do not want to lose everything they have.
The people in my riding, Mr. Speaker, are not statistics. These 1,200,000 people renewing their mortgages are human beings; they are you, me, our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins-they are our constituents.


An hon. Member:: Flesh and blood.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The people who wrote me these letters are real people, educated people, and they are very serious letters. This letter thanks the minister responsible for housing for his marvellous response, and it says:
In your letter, you indicate that the government is committed to budgetary restraint and therefore can not subsidize mortgage rates. We are pleased to hear that the government is trying to reduce non-productive spending, however, your government did not follow this policy for a number of years and we taxpayers are now obliged to pay off the national debt and suffer high interest rates. Until the

February 11, 1982
Housing
government is prepared to balance its budget, we see no hope of combating inflation.
You suggested that we draw on our savings accounts to pay the increase in our mortgage interest; when we purchased our home last year, the rate was 13% per cent and our mortgage payment was so high that we could not afford to save. In fact, we have savings of less than $1,000. We do not have any assets that can be liquidated other than our wedding rings.
We feel that housing is a necessity as is food and the mortgage payment should be exempt from income tax. The loss of revenue to the government should be compensated for by cutting down on frills in government such as the $27,000 fuel bill to fly 3 aircraft to Manitoba when the 3 officials involved could have taken scheduled flights at a cost of $1,500. We also feel that Mr. Trudeau's decorating bills and high living should not be paid with taxpayers' money.
You see, they know about that.
The letter continues:
Perhaps you should review the latest Canada Council grants and weigh them against the plight of the Canadian home owner.
If the high interest rate is not lowered and stabilized, CMHC will be faced with a flood of foreclosures; many of your mortgages are 95 per cent advanced on equity. Our local house prices have dropped by 25 per cent since January. Should you have to foreclose, there will not be sufficient equity to pay off the debts owing against the homes that were purchased at market peak.
We will struggle to hold on to our home and expect your government to work toward a solution to this difficult problem.
The government works toward a solution, all right! What a solution!
Another one of my constituents writes:
1 have not, and will not sign the renewal of my mortgage. How can the banks be allowed to administer such injustices? Do the people in government positions really know the misery and desperation of the average Canadian?


Ian Deans: I think that an excess profits tax would be a good thing.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The letter continues:
We read in newspapers and books about some highly paid child-psychiatrist who wonders why most of our children are depressed, rebellious, and suicidal. What do we expect? Most of our kids are brought up in apartments which are borderline on slum, starting in the range of S550-$MM) monthly. Can you imagine the frustrations of parents every day of their lives just to pay rent or mortgage and eat Kraft dinner three times a week?
1 have to retain possession of my home. My children will be left without channels for proper education (university), proper dental care, opportunities for the future and the mental stability required to lead a good life. If 1 don't leave anything for their future, they will end up on the streets like so many others.
My place of employment, Panco Poultry Cargill Ltd., the largest poultry processor in B.C., closes its doors February 1, 1982, leaving another 400 people on the unemployment line.
What hope is there for that mother? These people are not uneducated, unthoughtful people. They are writing intelligent letters. One can tell by the state of the letter that this is an intelligent Canadian who has written with logic. Can hon. members hear?
I received another letter from one of my constituents which states:
I have never written a letter to my MP before, so I will try to be short and not misinterpreted. 1 have tried to understand both sides of the story from Ottawa, inflation or high interest rates. Understanding does not put food on my table.
I have nowhere to turn now, and I hope you will show me the courtesy to read on.
The mortgage on my house is now being renewed. The rate has risen in two years from 11% per cent to 20% per cent. So far, I am the same as the general populace. Here is where my dilemma begins.
I have two children, 15 years and 11 years. I have raised them on my own for nine years. During that time we did without, literally. After seven years, I invested every cent I had saved into the down payment on a little house. I knew this was the only way I was to have anything of value for the future.
This summer I was diagnosed as having melanoma cancer, which has penetrated the lymph nodes. Every day I get a little wearier, which is a factor of this type of cancer. Because of this, 1 cannot take another job after my eight hours are over at work. Now, what to do? We pay $438 monthly now and that's to be doubled. I have to borrow sometimes to pay the mortgage now.
What will the government do with my kids when the house is foreclosed upon and I am gone from the cancer?
In summary, I will not leave my home. We will have to be bodily removed, and even then I will protect my home and children with whatever physical means are available. That is my right.
It is the government's obligation to do something about this woman's problem, but it has done nothing. This letter reflects a real case. I have spoken with this woman and her family and I feel sick for them. I feel for this family because of what the government is doing to them, and hon. members should, too. All this woman gets is a busy tone at the other end of the phone and an answer that she should somehow cut back, perhaps on her holidays, or perhaps save a little bit. What kind of a minister is this? What kind of a government is this? They should meet that woman and talk to her, and do something in the name of humanity.
These are average people, about whom I care. 1 know hon. members care about them. Hear them! They are crying! The whole nation is crying, yet the government sits there and does nothing. Is this only one woman? 1 gave an extreme example to make a point, to make hon. members care and listen. I gave other examples which were average cases. Do not smile! It is not worth smiling about. Do not smile over there! Cry for them! That is the way 1 feel.


Norman Kelly: It is not the subject, it is the delivery.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I am sorry, Sir, but that is the way I feel. When the hon. member starts feeling that way, maybe he will vote against the government and do something about the problems, instead of smiling there in the Liberal backbench. These people are not alone. She is not alone.
I surveyed my riding by questionnaire. One question asked: Has your mortgage put you in dire straits? Forty-eight per cent answered "yes", or almost half the population. 1 asked: Have rising mortgage rates seriously affected your plans to purchase a home? Fifty-nine per cent answered "yes". I asked: Should mortgage interest rates be made tax-deductible? Obviously, 83 per cent answered "yes".


Norman Kelly: Of course.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Do my constituents support that Conservative proposal? Yes, they do. Should it be implemented? The answer is yes.


Norman Kelly: What about the renter?
February 11, 1982


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I spoke about the renter. No one is building rental units. We now have a little push on MURB because we are trying to get in under that deadline, and that might help for two months.


Paul James Cosgrove: How about the bill in front of you?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: If the minister destroys everyone's aspirations for homes, if everyone gives up, there will be no upward movement of people moving into homes and moving out of apartment accomodation, and so on. There is no hope for the renters, either. There is a zero rental vacancy rate, and renters are paying $550 or $600 for an apartment in suburban Vancouver, 38 miles from downtown Vancouver. Yes, what about the renters? I agree, that is a question which must be answered. Stand up and tell me what the government will do about them?


Paul James Cosgrove: We are providing $350 million more than in your plan.


Norman Kelly: Do not confuse him with the facts.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I will admit what the government is doing is successful when I see someone in the construction industry start to pound a nail and when I see plans for construction. Plans are not coming in because the government does not have the right attitudes.


Paul James Cosgrove: First, pass the bill.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Does the minister really think this bill will do something for Canadians?


Paul James Cosgrove: Not while you talk.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The minister does not even believe it. He knows how pathetic this vehicle is.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is as plain as the hair on his head.


Ian Deans: That was cruel.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: So is the minister.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: In my riding, in Surrey, British Columbia, I put up a notice for a meeting. On October 8, several hundred lower mainland residents came out and gathered in Surrey to talk about their problems. They signed a petition. I wanted to give them some hope at that stage because I, too, felt there might be some hope. I said to the people, "Your government can help you. Your Member of Parliament can stand up on this floor and speak. I can take petitions. Before the government brings down that budget, let us petition and let it know that we have this many people who care. Let us let the government know." We signed a petition, and I brought it to the House of Commons. What happened when I brought it here? I stood in my place as a responsible member and I tried to read the petition, but was stopped. I asked, "Can I just put the petition in? Will Your Honour receive it?" Madam Speaker said, "We will receive it". She received it.
Housing
The next day I said, "Madam Speaker, ask everyone in this House if we can now hear the petition? Can it be read in this House so hon. members can hear the desires of hundreds of thousands of people who have signed their names to similar petitions? Can we hear this direct representation?" The Liberal backbenchers, as the record and anyone who was in this House will bear out, said, "No, we do not want to hear their petition. Do not read it. You cannot read it in this House." I asked Madam Speaker, "Will the House then give permission to pass it on to committee to study and maybe get some action?" There was no way. I tried again and again and again. They did not want to hear the people of Canada. They would not even let me read their simple petition.
What do they want? They want interest rates to be reduced, adequate affordable housing to be recognized as a major government principle and objective, mortgage payments to be made tax deductions or tax credits, and limits placed on mortgage interest increases upon renewal. That is what they are asking. I have read this in the House of Commons, and I ask the minister of housing, did it hurt to have that petition read in the House of Commons? Why would you not let me read it in the House?


An hon. Member:: Read it now.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I just read it. I do not know why they were afraid, unless they knew how much it would hurt. Why will the minister not take those petitions to the committee? He can do that. He has the petitions. He can appoint the committee. Let us have some hearings about this. Let us go across this country and see how people are hurting. 1 know the minister went across the country. I hope he had some bodyguards with him.
I am concerned that my petitioners have not been heard on the floor of this House through direct representation. It is time the government reformed that aspect of these House proceedings.


Paul James Cosgrove: I answered 10,000 petitioners.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: What was the answer you gave them? I have it here. This is the answer the minister gave. 1 will read it:
As you know, the government is committed to budgetary restraint, and for this reason, we are not contemplating an across-the-board program of home owner subsidies. In fact, many Canadians are drawing on their savings or are changing their spending habits to help them meet increased housing costs.
That is what the minister's letter told them. What help is that to the people? Do you want their gold wedding rings, the gold in their teeth to be picked out before you do something? Is that what you want?


Paul James Cosgrove: Read on.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I will read on. You gave them a promise about a budget that is coming; the budget came and offered them nothing.
The people who came to this meeting, those who came to Ottawa to protest, were not big businessmen, or professional

February 11, 1982
Housing
lobbyists. They represented all political parties. They are the working class-that's the picture-who generate the Canadian economy and the tax base that is so often wasted by this government. That is the kind of people they are.
Some of this group came to Ottawa. What were they met with? They were met with riot sticks. These ordinary working Canadians were shocked at the state of the democracy, the state of this economy, as I and every member of this House is shocked. They stood at that meeting and demanded that the government do something. They cried. Grown men stood and cried in front of these microphones. There was no one in that room who did not see those tears. Worst of all, many sat despondent in silence, without hope, knowwing that signing the petition probably would not work. Some of them would not even bother.
Sitting in that group were Dennis and Ruth Tkach. They signed the petition. They went out and gathered more names on the petition. They wrote to the minister. They tried to get him on the free line, but could not get through. They held their breath waiting for the budget, waiting for hope, waiting for a promise of help that never came. Their house is up for sale. They hope it will sell before it is foreclosed. They have lost. It seems to me I heard someone in this chamber say that no one was going to lose. Now it has happened.


Mr. Gauthier:: That's not parliamentary.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: It is not parliamentary, but I hope it has some effect on you.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Complete your speech.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I am making my speech. I am sorry it is not important to you. What did the people who came to that meeting think? What did they say about the budget? What do the professionals say? I asked the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board what it will do. I asked it to look at the new proposals the minister had come out with and tell me whether they would provide more housing. What did the professionals in this area say? They said:
The budget proposals will have a negative effect on both the supply of rental properties and the quality of existing rental accommodation, thereby adding additional pressure to this area of housing.
The budget proposals may not increase tax revenues; in fact a decreased volume of activity in new construction and resale markets may actually reduce the amount of income which will be taxed.
The budget proposals will likely cause increased ownership of Canadian real estate by foreign investors-
I thought the minister was concerned about that.
-as well as wealthy corporations and individuals.
The budget proposals will increase unemployment in the construction and real estate related industries.
Internal asset reorganizations on a roll-over basis have been made virtually impossible if real estate inventory is involved.
That is what the professionals are saying, those in the field. The minister says that something will be done about rentals. Well, that is what the professionals say his program does.
The government brings in this bill in order to give help, but what kind of help? When the bill first came in, 1 thought maybe it would provide some help. Then 1 looked at the qualifications. You have to spend over 30 per cent of your income and you must have a minimum percentage of equity. Who is going to be helped? I suggest almost no one.
The people who will be helped are those who are already on their way down. They have no incentive to stay in the house anyway. Why should they stay in that house, pay their taxes and so forth after they have lost their investment? That just amounts to high-priced rent, so why stay? Why accept this theoretical goodie? This is too late, for the wrong people at the wrong time.
This program is a "time buying" program. That is what they are hoping. Let us see what is going to happen in time. The bank rate announced today tells us what is happening. The Bank rate this week is 14.87 per cent, up from last week. The rate on six-month treasury bills was 15.44 per cent, up again in six months. The rate on one-year bills is 16.26 per cent. In other words, this is buying time at a higher interest rate. That is the way it will go unless this government does something about it.
Could mortgage interest deductibility work. That would drop interest rates in a specific area to 14 per cent or 15 per cent. Could this be done? It was proposed in a budget. The Conservative budget made it possible. The Conservatives put it in a budgetary process that would have been brought forward but for the socialists, the NDP, who defeated that proposal of mortgage interest deductibility in this House of Commons.


Ian Deans: The public defeated it.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Instead we have the bill that is now before us. That is their choice. My petitioners asked for lower interest rates. Can interest rates be lowered? First we had the excuse that we had to keep pace with United States rates. Then the interest rate went to a four to six point spread. We have had 4 to 6 point spreads before. We can lower interest rates if we want. If we were to lower the interest rate a little bit, even if the dollar dropped, not only would it help housing, it would help unemployment and our export industry. It is true we would have to accept some inflation, but the way the nation is hurting today, that is the only alternative.


Norman Kelly: How much is some-2 per cent, 5 per cent?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: To start out with we have to make housing affordable; it must be lowered to that point of affordability. Affordability is the point at which people can qualify. I said we can do it in the housing program through mortgage interest deductibility. If the government does not want to go all the way it can start with one program. It will not know the market reaction until it tries it, and it is about time the government did try it. I think it would be healthy to have a lower interest rate and to drop the dollar at this moment. I think it would help British Columbia in particular.
February 11, 1982


Norman Kelly: Give us some figures.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Perhaps it could be tried for a fixed term of a five-year minimum. We have had fixed terms before. It is true that we might have to adjust two or three other related monetary instruments but we have had five-year, as well as 20-year and 25-year mortgages before. They still have those five year mortgages in the same money market in the United States. I have an offer in hand on a mortgage in the United States, a remortgage of 14 per cent this week. That is what their remortgages are, 14 per cent. I can show you the offer in the U.S. It is a remortgage on an investment property of 14 per cent and that same mortgage here would be 20 per cent. If they can do it in the United States, in the same market, surely the government can do it here. If they can have the kind of deductibility-


Paul James Cosgrove: That is why they are building half as many houses as we are.


Ian Deans: They are building half as many as we need.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: You can still remortgage a house in the United States. When he can match the American program I will be satisfied. When he can make housing as affordable in Canada as it is in the United States the minister will have done something. Then he can stand up. Until he does, he better just sit there and listen.
How about some innovative ideas? How about considering subsidized interest rates for first-time buyers? We should try to get some first-time buyers involved. We should give these rates for the first three years to give them a stake in the country.


Norman Kelly: How much would that cost?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: it would cost a lot less than the mortgage interest deductibility which was proposed in our program. What 1 am saying is that if you cannot provide interest deductibility for the whole group, why not do it for first-time buyers? Why not help first-time buyers?


Norman Kelly: How much would it cost? Give me a figure.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Our heckler from the Liberal side was not here for the Conservative budget. He came in after the Conservative budget which his party defeated. Unfortunately, he will not be here to hear the Conservative budget after the next election because he does not understand these things.


Norman Kelly: I came in because of the Conservative budget.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Where are you going because of the Liberal budget?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I would suggest that consideration of interest subsidy for first-time buyers, say for the first three years, would be an innovative idea. Perhaps a home acquisition grant such as some of the provinces tried to give for first-time buyers would help give them a start. Give people such as the young
Housing
people working in this building and across Canada a first-time start.


Norman Kelly: How much would it cost?


Ian Deans: I will move you to the other end if you do not be quiet.


Norman Kelly: I have learned from you.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, this Liberal has no innovative ideas of his own, but I appreciate his heckling so I can explain mine. He asks how much it would cost. It would cost less than the Conservative proposal in the last budget which was fiscally possible and would have reduced Canada's deficit as well.


Ian Deans: Oh, come on now. You were doing well until you started that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The Liberals sit there and laugh. Ours was a real budget. They should be crying like the rest of Canadians. Instead of some innovative programs the government comes in with some half-baked ideas which will not help anyone except perhaps a small minority of Canadians. This country is hurting and every backbench Liberal knows it. They are trying to tell the minister and the government but they cannot hear. That chicken member over there would not have signed the letter; I know that. Those backbenchers are trying to tell them that the nation is hurting and that the country is crying. I hear them, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the government begins to hear them too.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate this evening. Tonight I rise with a feeling almost of frustration and, I was tempted to say, righteous anger. When I hear the appeals being made in the House for some evidence of concern and compassion, then listen to the interjections and silly remarks of some of the Liberal members, I have to come to the conclusion that it is an absolute impossibility to impress upon the Liberal backbenchers, as well as others, the fact that there are needs in this country which they should be concerned about instead of laughing and sneering, as they are doing tonight. However, I will venture to make a few comments in connection with this measure which proposes to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.
In his introductory remarks, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) stated:
-the bill before the House for second reading is a response to the serious difficulty which many Canadians are now facing in finding and maintaining good housing at affordable cost.
The minister indicated as well that the bill:
-provides the necessary legislative authority to put into effect the Canada mortgage renewal plan.
_____________________COMMONS DEBATES____________________________________February 11, 1982
Housing
Notice, Mr. Speaker, the "renewal plan". He goes on to say:
it enables the government to act more effectively in stimulating production of rental housing, and makes possible new kinds of assistance for young families who are buying for the first time.
Those are very optimistic words. However, we are getting used to hearing optimistic declarations from the government. Unfortunately, time usually proves that that optimism is ill-founded.
I remember years ago-I have been around here a little while-the response of the government to the inflationary problem was that it was going to wrestle inflation to the ground. Those are noble words, Mr. Speaker; a ringing clarion call to challenge the forces that were driving prices up and causing such havoc in the country. I think just about every budget that has been brought in since that time echoes the same words-perhaps different words but the same sentiments.
We also heard the statement made that we were overcoming the problem of unemployment. Once again, every Liberal budget that has been brought in since that statement of many years ago has reiterated this statement, that the government will bring this demon of unemployment under control. We heard the assertions that the government will assist the farmers in riding out the critical financial problems they are currently facing. We know what has happened. 1 suggest there have been many other similar declarations which have indicated the same determination and same direction, but, in the final analysis, nothing has happened. Instead of getting better, things get worse, and we all know where inflation stands today. We all know the level of unemployment in Canada today. We know the situation in which the farming community and small businesses are finding themselves today. Instead of getting better, the situation is worse. Yet hon. members on the government side sit and laugh, sneer and joke. They are at it again now. I do not know what it will take to shake them loose and make them show at least some compassion and understanding of the problems Canadians are facing at the present time.
There are three basic needs of mankind; food, clothing and shelter and when we consider the climatic conditions in Canada, we know that shelter certainly is without question basic to our survival. Shelter or housing, is a right, but unfortunately this is not one of the rights enshrined in the charter, thanks to the insistence of members of the New Democratic Party who, it appears, made its deletion a condition of support for the government's constitutional package. The government backed up and said it would not guarantee the right to own a home or property.


Paul James Cosgrove: It is the provinces which have jurisdiction.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Although the government has declined, no doubt for political purposes, to guarantee the right to own property in the charter, the ownership of homes has been a dream of most Canadians throughout past generations and is today the objective to which a great many still aspire. This was
one of the magnets which many years ago drew my parents from the old country to this land of promise. There was an opportunity to own better property, to make a living, to raise a family and to contribute to society. I suggest that hundreds of thousands of others from all over the world were drawn to Canada for the very same reason. Now people are in danger of being deprived of that.
According to another report, consideration is to be given to penalizing thrift, initiative, and sacrifice on the part of home owners by deeming the rental value of their homes as taxable income in order to increase government revenues. This would be a blatantly reprehensible act. It would erode the desires and dreams of would-be home owners. It would destroy the dreams they have had and undermine and destroy the fruits of their labours toward building and achieving stability in their home circumstances. These two factors the refusal to guarantee the right to own property and the possible imposition of taxation of imputed rent on owner-occupied homes could bring the present government's commitment to home ownership-I was going to say into question, but it goes far beyond that.
These ideas show how hypocritical the government is. Hon. members opposite talk about doing things for people and helping them to own homes but then say they will not guarantee that Canadians can own homes and that if they do own homes, the government is considering taxing their rental value. The government is considering making people pay tax on money they have saved, slaved and sacrificed to get in order to build up equity. People will be taxed because they own homes and do not have to rent.
The writer of an article which appeared in a newspaper a short time ago suggested that the principle of home ownership is becoming obsolete. I think I heard a reference to that tonight. Apparently someone else read that article. I believe home ownership is still a desirable and legitimate aspiration and, instead of being undermined, eroded and destroyed, it should be encouraged and nurtured. I believe the ownership of a home promotes a sense of achievement. It brings a measure of satisfaction and contentment. After all, what is life without a feeling of achievement, without satisfaction and without contentment? Instead of that, people are living in fear and agony because what they have achieved is about to be taken from them, and they will be set back years and years to the position from where they started.
While I have little confidence that the measures proposed in this bill will be as effective as the minister implies, I suppose any help is better than none. My lack of enthusiasm is based on the fact that the basic direction of government policy as laid out in the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is having an extremely detrimental effect upon the housing picture and will more than offset any possible benefit which might be brought about under the provisions of this measure.
Reference has been made in this debate to the fact that there are two basic considerations in the matter of housing policy and the provision of housing, and the first is the availability of housing. We are told that Canada needs 220,-

February 11, 1982
000 new housing units each year. In 1980 only 159,000 units were built, and in 1981 only 178,000 housing units were built. The latest Conference Board forecast of November, 1981, predicts that only 180,000 units will be built in 1982. This means that there will be a shortage of approximately 143,000 units over a three-year period.
When we look at the national vacancy rate, we see that it fell from 2.8 per cent in April, 1980, to 1.2 per cent in October, 1981. Centres with serious shortages include Oshawa, with a vacancy rate of zero; Edmonton, 1.1 per cent; Halifax, 0.5 per cent; Hamilton, 0.7 per cent; Kitchener, the same; Ottawa, 0.6 per cent; Regina, 0.3 per cent; Vancouver, 0.1 per cent; and the same for Victoria, British Columbia. There are projections that the vacancy rate will be down to just about zero universally in 1982. That does not paint a very bright picture for those who are seeking a place of shelter. There are those who have to rent, and even now it is almost impossible to rent. If there is an available house, the rent is so high that a great many families find it absolutely impossible to pay under present circumstances.
There is a very serious situation in Canada regarding the availability of housing, Mr. Speaker. Unless something is done in the very near future a great many people will reach the point of desperation. They see no way through the problem, no way around it, no way over it; they are up against the wall and do not know what to do.
The question of affordability of housing has been mentioned a number of times. The horrendous increase in interest rates is largely responsible for the unconscionable increases in housing costs today. While there has been a slight decrease from the high levels of a few months ago, the indications are that another surge will take place in the near future.
I should like to refer hon. members to an article by Paula McLaughlin which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on February 6, 1982. She writes that the days of the 14 per cent mortgage are gone forever and that home owners should brace themselves for more increases in the cost of mortgage money later in the year. Her authority for this statement is a spokesman for the national realtor, A. E. Lepage Limited. Apparently the manager of mortgage services for that company said that rates this summer and fall may approach last year's record of 22 per cent.
The article states that this spokesman believes that home ownership remains within reach of many first-time buyers. I am not so sure about that, Mr. Speaker. It goes on to say that last year at this time the interest mortgage rate was 14.5 per cent. It shot up to 22 per cent in the late summer then dipped to the current level of 17 per cent to 18 per cent. This spokesman seems to feel that unless something happens in the United States which has a drastic effect on Canadian interest rates, a similar trend could be followed next year.
The situation has been deplorable, Mr. Speaker, and the future is bleak indeed. That is why I cannot understand the attitude of those who are in positions of responsibility in this
Business of the House
country, and by that I mean the Government of Canada. I cannot understand the determination that has been indicated by the Minister of Finance when he says that no changes will be made and that the policy will be maintained. That is an incredible attitude for the government to take.
Statistics show that on a $50,000 mortgage at 10 per cent the monthly payment is $447; at 12 per cent it is $516; at 14 per cent $587; at 16 per cent $660; at 18 per cent $733 and at 20 per cent $807. This is the terrible situation in which people who have to renew mortages find themselves.
We are told that approximately 1,200,000 Canadian families will have to renew their mortgages within the next two years. If there are any 10 per cent mortgages left, their owners will face a monthly increase of 41 per cent in their payments. According to CMHC, 40,000 Canadians will lose their homes as a result of high interest rates. What a dismal picture that is, Mr. Speaker, but it is what a great many Canadians face. Is this affordable housing? I say it is not.
On the question of shortage of funds, an article in the Financial Times of January 11, 1982, states that mortgage funds are drying up and that this, coupled with the palliatives offered by the government, puts an almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of home owners and prospective home owners.
In light of what the recent budget is going to do to the insurance industry, I do not think there will be a line-up of officials from insurance companies wanting to provide mortgage money. As far as affordability is concerned, I just do not see that the situation has been improved at all.
The problem of the cost of housing has been discussed a number of times in this House and I will not take time to repeat the arguments tonight, but what happens when houses increase phenomenally in value? The home owner is then faced with another horrendous increase in taxes.
An article in the Abbotsford, Sumas & Matsqui News, which is published in my riding, on January 27, 1982, carried the heading "Assessment revolt taxes appeal court". One sentence in the article that followed reads as follows:
A spokesman for the assessor's office said at last count some 2,400 appeals had been filed. The usual annual load is about 300 appeals.
Later the article goes on to say:
Property owners in this area have been hit by assessments as high as 60 per cent over last year. The minimum hike is about 30 per cent.
Area property owners have been caught by assessment values reflecting inflated real estate prices of a year ago.
On top of all those other obstacles that will inhibit the ownership and maintenance of homes, people are facing another substantial hike in taxes.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am most reluctant to interrupt the hon. member, and I hope he will forgive me, but about an

February 11, 1982
Business of the House
hour ago or less, the government whip rose and proposed a request for unanimous consent to permit the submission of amendments to Bill C-78 in order that they might be submitted after the hour that is normally agreed upon. 1 do not want to arrive at ten o'clock without a decision having been made. I raise the matter realizing that this party, and perhaps the official opposition, might have amendments which they would otherwise not be able to put in. I wonder if we could seek an opinion from the government and from the official opposition in order to determine whether unanimous consent is being sought and is forthcoming.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was that we give leave to extend the deadline for giving notice of proposed amendments to Bill C-78 until 10 p.m. tonight for tomorrow's consideration, and until 5 p.m. Friday for consideration or later if necessary. Does the hon. House leader of the opposition agree?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the deputy House leader of the official opposition stated, this was sprung upon us about 45 minutes ago. We cannot get in touch with our labour critic; we have tried. We do not know whether we have amendments. I asked the government whip in a brief conversation a few moments ago whether the government had amendments. He informed me that he did not know. It seems to me that it is not possible to give consent under those circumstances.
If I might comment upon the matter, it also seems to me, if the government considers Bill C-78 so all-fired important that it must be debated tomorrow in place of the allotted day, that it should have been ready with the bill. Obviously it is not, because it is requesting an extension of time. Under the circumstances I think that consent cannot be forthcoming, the matter having been sprung upon us, but I would suggest that tomorrow, after having allowed us time to get in touch with our labour critic, the matter might be raised again. If not, then some other order could be called tomorrow and we could proceed with the consideration of Bill C-78 on Monday.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to mislead the House leader of the Official Opposition. I should advise him that we have given notice of amendments.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member does not follow me. I know that because I inquired at the Table. Those amendments were filed, as is required by the Standing Orders, prior to six o'clock today. But when I asked the government whip whether the government had any further amendments, he told me that he did not know. That was the possible amendment area about which I was speaking.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on February 10, I asked a question of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) concerning fiscal transfers to Quebec and the gains or losses for this province in terms of the amounts that will accrue to Quebec. The minister confirmed certain figures very briefly. That is why I am asking this evening for further information concerning the impending war of figures, to all appearances, because since the federal-provincial conference, the PQ government, as usual, would have the people of Quebec believe that the federal government is to blame for all the economic ills and problems in Quebec. The PQ government had the media broadcast last weekend that the cabinet would meet in conclave to assess Quebec's financial position, because following the last federal-provincial conference, Quebec stands to lose, according to them, $675 million. I am shocked, Mr. Speaker, at this attitude of the separatist government, which is trying to make the people forget its own mismanagement by passing the buck to the federal government and by saying: You have 74 Liberal Members of Parliament in Ottawa who do not protect your interests, who do nothing. It is the same old story that is being trotted out, this time about the fiscal transfers, and that is why I put the question to the minister on February 10.
Mr. Speaker, when I see all this, I am reminded of all the measures implemented by the separatist PQ government in Quebec, such as its very generous announcement on November 17 of an increase in the gasoline tax, because of which we, Quebecers, can now say we have the highest gasoline prices in Canada. This government also gave us a 16 per cent increase in electricity rates in January. It also took away from the farmers the letter N on their licence plates. It also allowed cutbacks for the drainage of farmland and the use of heavy machinery. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I refer to an article in the newspaper La Presse last fall against the right of Quebecers to be overtaxed. And then, the Quebec government tells us that it does not take part in federal-provincial conferences because it was isolated following a certain well-remembered constitutional conference. Following that article against the right of Quebecers to be overtaxed, we are told by the Quebec government that the province will lose $675 million, even though that famous federal-provincial conference on the economy has not even been held yet, even though the figures quoted are those of last fall and even though the Quebec government taxes at a rate of 40.53 per cent a $12,061 income.
February 11, 1982

And a province with less revenue perhaps, and smaller in size such as Prince Edward Island, for instance, taxes its citizens as Canadians at a rate of 32.03 per cent. Mr. Speaker, in discussing that situation, 1 could go on describing this hoax about fiscal transfers. He even killed a program called OSE. Of course, many people will say he did not lose much, because the cut was on advertising. This hoax, Mr. Speaker, consists in consistently trying to delude Quebecers into believing they still are a good government. They boast about being a good government. They want to be, so they say, a government that will improve things by boycotting federal-provincial conferences. Mr. Speaker, we know about the Quebec government boycotts. We have seen, for instance, officials from the department of agriculture refusing to attend a symposium organized with the provinces here in Ottawa. They say they are a good government that will bring money to the province of Quebec for the benefit of Quebecers. But when the time comes to discuss such issues, they fail to attend.
We have seen a Quebec government boycott at the Vancouver conference on the Status of Women. Again we have seen how the province of Quebec boycotted the federal-provincial conference of the ministers of justice. They also boycotted the federal-provincial conference on tourism, again saying they were a good government, and wanted to represent Quebecers. They are told that there might be big money to be had in Ottawa, because someone says: "Bring them in." However, when the time comes to defend the rights of Quebecers they definitely refuse to come. They do not want to promote the rights of Quebecers. This is why I asked a question concerning that masquerade of erroneous data, the presentation of a five-year plan schedule of fiscal transfers which contained data for the year 1982-83 alone. But even for Mr. Levesque and his associates, a five-year plan remains a five-year plan. Yet, they would like us to believe that this is only a one-year plan. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I had to speak up and ask the minister what was really the situation, as far as Quebec and the new fiscal transfers are concerned.


Mr. Pierre Deniger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) for the sincere interest he is demonstrating in the wellbeing of all Quebecers by raising this issue which is so germane to the Canadian political reality of today. As all other hon. members of the House, I was quite surprised when I heard separatist Premier Rene Levesque state during last week's first ministers' conference that Quebec stood to lose in the fiscal year 1982-83 under the new Fiscal arrangements.
This is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, when it is a well-known fact that Quebec will receive $5,326 million in 1982-83 under the new arrangements proposed by the Federal Government, while it only received $4,987 million in 1981-82. According to my computation, Quebec will clearly be getting $339 million
Adjournment Debate
more in 1982-83 than in 1981-82. As a matter of fact, the transfers from the federal treasury to the Quebec government under the new fiscal arrangements will increase by nearly 7 per cent in 1982-83. Over the next five years, that is 1982-83 to 1986-87, the transfers to Quebec will go up by an average of 12.2 per cent annually and reach $8.4 billion in 1986-87. Some $8.4 billion in 1986-87, Mr. Speaker, that is an awful lot of money which the Government of Canada will give to Quebecers directly from taxes paid by all Canadian taxpayers. To understand the figures quoted by Premier Levesque we would have to know what was the basis for his computation to arrive at the conclusion that Quebec was a loser when in fact the figures prove the contrary. First, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Levesque starts off by assuming that the equalization system scheduled to end on March 31, 1982, will continue beyond that date. It so happens that his own finance minister, Mr. Parizeau, had discarded that possibility. Here is a statement made by Mr. Parizeau at Laval University on September 17, 1981, and 1 quote:
In fact, the rapidly increasing wealth of Alberta has been a factor in raising the national average, so much so that Ontario has fallen below that level and should therefore be considered as a poor province. According to the federal government this is a ridiculous situation and the formula has to be reviewed. We agree.
Mr. Parizeau agrees that the formula must be reviewed so that all Canadians will be treated more equitably. In addition, and this is very significant, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Levesque and Mr. Parizeau fail to take into consideration the value of the tax points transferred to Quebec, whereas indeed a major portion of those federal transfers to the provinces are made that way. As the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said at the closing session of the conference, those fiscal transfers must be taken into consideration. I quote:
The data used by Mr. Levesque simply do not take into account the tax points which are transferred.
If I may, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


FISHERIES-(A) TASK FORCE DECISION NOT TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS (B) FISHERMEN'S REPRESENTATION
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) questions about the task force appointed to investigate the situation on the Atlantic coast with respect to the dire straits within which present circumstances have placed the fishing industry. As everyone knows, the government and the minister are absolutely lacking any kind of answers, having ignored the evidence which has been available for many months. They have also gone through the motions of indicating that there would be a cabinet document in January which would address the problems of the east

February 11, 1982
Adjournment Debate
coast fishery, and, apparently as a result of no one being able to come up with any answers in that document, the government has appointed a task force headed by the second senior public servant, Mr. Michael Kirby.
What I asked the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker, was this. Why are there no representatives from the fishermen of the Atlantic coast on that particular task force? It was very interesting to hear the minister's reply. He said, this is not a Royal commission. He said he was satisfied that Mr. Kirby would hold discussions with many people. He even went on to say that he understood Mr. Kirby had approached some representatives of the fishermen and perhaps there was a possibility that some or one of them would serve on the task force.
However, Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that 1 and others have recently been on a visit to New Brunswick during which we spoke with many of the fishermen who are and will be involved in whatever deliberations Mr. Kirby undertakes. They made it very plain to us that they do not know what Mr. Kirby is doing. They do not know who is advising Mr. Kirby. They do not know who is on this task force which will decide what is to happen to them. They want representation, because without it, even with the best will in the world, Mr. Kirby will only get half of what he needs to know in order to present a report which could bail out the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who has obviously bailed out of his responsibility concerning this situation.
It was extremely interesting to note that, while the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans told me there was no need for fishermen on the task force, only a few minutes later the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) rose in her seat-she is a Liberal member-and picked up on the very point I had been raising because she understands that the fishermen in her riding are involved in the Atlantic coast fishery. She said, in part: "I suggest that there has to be someone there from the inshore fishery," and she suggested an advisory group. I would go beyond that suggestion and say that there must be someone from the offshore fishery there as well.
However, it was extraordinarily interesting that, within the compass of a few minutes of the time the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans battered down my request to have fishermen represented on the task force, he paid attention when a Liberal member got up, and said: "Just a minute," and the implication was that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) had a point. She then reinforced that point I was making and the minister thought it was very interesting. He then had a very different answer. In answer to the suggestion of the hon. member for South West Nova that, if there could not be someone there as part of the task force, there should at least be an advisory group representing the actual people who did the fishing, the minister said; "I think the hon. member's idea of an advisory committee is a perfectly valid one."
I would like an answer from whoever will answer for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, unless, of course, someone
has been sent down here to answer for Mr. Kirby, because we are now in great doubt as to whether the minister or Mr. Kirby is in charge. We do not know just who is in charge. In any event, I would like to know whether the suggestion which I initiated, and which the hon. member for South West Nova supported, will be accepted. The hon. member is a well-respected hon. member, and she is well known to me. Will there be an advisory committee representing the people who actually do the fishing on the Atlantic coast?
I might also say that I wonder about the whole tenor of the Kirby task force. Why are no public hearings being held? Why is it that Mr. Kirby started off with the incredible bungle of saying: "I can reject the notion that provincial governments are the best judges of what is good for their constituents?" He then went on to insult the very people he will have to deal with by saying: "I am not a believer in the town council theory of government." This is the man we have sent down to the Atlantic coast to solve the problems of the fishermen.
Then again, I must point out to the House that this government has made an egregious mistake by announcing in advance that Mr. Kirby will be the deputy minister of fisheries. I ask Your Honour, and all hon. members, how will Mr. Kirby get the truth from departmental people if they know that they are talking to someone who holds their very future in his hands?
I have raised a number of points. I would like to have some answers. I certainly did not get them from the Minister of Fisheries the other day.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, when he announced the appointment of a special task force on the Atlantic fisheries just over a month ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that in carrying out its work, the task force would consult with all those who have a role to play in the fishing industry. The task force is to recommend how to achieve and maintain a viable Atlantic fishing industry, with due consideration for the over-all economic and social development of Canada's eastern provinces.
The hon. member has attempted to create an issue over the fact that the task force does not plan to operate in the mould of a royal commission, with formal public hearings. I want to tell him that this small group of highly experienced individuals will ensure that every sector of the industry is heard from, that every aspect of the industry's fundamental problems is examined, and that the views of anyone who wishes to make a meaningful contribution to the search for long-term solutions will be most welcome, and will be given full consideration. You do not need a series of town hall meetings for that.
The Atlantic Fishery includes a large number of interest groups: part-time fishermen, full-time fishermen, inshore fishermen, offshore fishermen, labour organizations, large processing companies, small processing companies, financial institutions, to enumerate only the obvious ones. As well, there are
February 11, 1982

provincial governments which also have a role to play in the future of the fishing industry. The task force is aware of the many different voices that this encompasses, and its members will do their utmost to make certain that all are heard, and this will be done in a totally businesslike, but somewhat less formal structure than a royal commission.
Members of the task force are actively considering all possible mechanisms of consultation, so that the complete magnitude of the fishery's inherent problems are accurately understood, and that every viable option and alternative for long-term economic health is explored.
One of these mechanisms could take the form of some type of advisory committee with representation from each of the five eastern provinces, as was suggested in the House the other day by the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell).
Adjournment Debate
I want to deal with another of the mistaken impressions of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). He has complained to the House with righteous indignation that there is no one on the task force serving as co-chairman to represent fishermen. He based that complaint on his incorrect assumption that Mr. Peter John Nicholson, an economist who recently resigned his position as an executive of a large processing company, is serving as a co-chairman representing the corporate sector. There is no co-chairman of the task force. Furthermore, no one on the task force has been engaged to act as a lobbyist or represent the vested interests of any single group.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 10.23 p.m., the motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, February 12, 1982